King Eider

Anatidae

Dec 18

Written By Keith Naylor

Somateria spectabilis (Linnaeus, 1758) (54, 3)

Photo © Rob Stonehouse - Ythan Estuary, North-East Scotland, 30 June 2016

STATUS

Holarctic. Monotypic.

OVERVIEW

Harting (1872) at one time Editor of The Field and The Zoologist provided a list of records.

There is much confusion over the first record in 1832 which is worthy of a review.

RECORDS

1). 1832 Orkney No locality, obtained, exhibited November.

(J. Gould, Proceedings of the Zoological Society 2: 189; Dunn, 1837; Baikie & Heddle, 1848; Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85; Clarke, 1927; Forrester & Andrews et al., 2007).

History Richard Owen, Chairman (1832) in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, Vol. II. p. 189, at the meeting held on 27th November 1832, says: 'At the request of the Chairman, Mr. Gould exhibited a very extensive collection of Bird skins, from the Orkneys, and pointed out particularly those which he regarded as most interesting, either on account of their rarity or the state of their plumage.

They included beautiful specimens of the Ivory Gull, Larus eburneus, Temm., and of the King Duck, Somateria spectabilis, Steph., as well as of other rare species.'

Dunn (1837: 95) says: 'It has been asserted that this bird breeds regularly amongst the most northernmost of the Orkney Islands. I have visited these islands twice, and also Pappa Westra, where, according to report, its nest was taken.

In all these situations I searched with the utmost diligence, in hopes of finding it, but was disappointed. I made particular inquiries in Shetland, and described the bird to many persons, but could not hear of any ever having been seen there.'

Gray (1871: 380) quoting from Baikie & Heddle (1848), says: 'It was obtained in one of the Orkney Islands, and exhibited at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London by Mr. Gould, in November 1832. However, a manuscript note by one of the authors stated that it had been found by Mr. Dunn in Shetland....These records, it must be confessed, are somewhat imperfect...'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, merely says: 'A bird mentioned by Messrs. Baikie and Heddle was exhibited before the Zoological Society by the late Mr. Gould in 1832.'

Pennington et al. (2004) does not mention it for Shetland. Not accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984). However, it is accepted nationally as the first for Scotland (Forrester & Andrews et al. 2007).

Comment Email from Ian Andrews (SBRC) in July, 2008, states that Gray's comments are ambiguous and that the record should stand as the first for Scotland.

2). 1846 Yorkshire Bridlington, caught, August.

(J. Duff, Zoologist 1851: 3036; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; Yarrell, 1871-85; Saunders, 1899; Nelson, 1907; Witherby, 1920-24; Clarke, 1927; Mather, 1986).

History Joseph Duff of Bishop Auckland (1851) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IX. p. 3036, dated 19th December 1850, says: 'In the same year [1846] a King Duck was got at Bedlington, in Northumberland, on the north bank of the Tyne.'

However, Hancock (1874: 159) says: '...from a letter, dated April 16th, 1873, which I received from Mr. Duff, I find that the bird so recorded was shot at Bridlington Quay, Yorkshire.'

Accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881: 58).

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, erroneously says: 'At Bridlington, Yorkshire, one was shot early in August 1850.' Later, Saunders (1899) 2nd edit., erroneously says: 'A bird captured at Bridlington in Yorkshire as long ago as August 1850.'

Nelson (1907 (2): 476) says: 'The King Eider has occurred in Yorkshire on one occasion only, at Bridlington Quay, in 1846. This occurrence was chronicled by misprint for Bedlington (Northumberland), by the late Joseph Duff (Zool., 1851, p. 3036), and corrected by J. Hancock (Birds of Northd. and Dm., p. 159), on the authority of a letter from Mr. Duff, who informed me many years afterwards of the circumstances of its capture at Bridlington.'

Witherby (1920-24) and Witherby et al. (1940-52) admit one for Yorkshire (Aug., 1846).

Accepted locally by Mather (1986: 165) who says: 'Caught at Bridlington Quay in August 1846 and recorded by Joseph Duff in The Zoologist (1851, p. 3036).'

Comment Saunders erroneously stated the year as 1850 which is the year when it was published.

3). 1847 Lothian Tyne Estuary, seen, winter.

(Turnbull, 1867; Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85; Harting, 1901; Bolam, 1912; Rintoul & Baxter, 1935; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Forrester & Andrews et al., 2007).

History Turnbull (1867, 2nd ed.) says: 'One was seen in the Tyne Estuary by the late Dr. Nelson, who was quite certain as to the species.'

Gray (1871: 380) says: 'The late Dr. Nelson of Pitcox, East Lothian, informed me that he saw one in the winter of 1847 at the mouth of the River Tyne in that county, and he was quite sure of the species. These records, it must be confessed, are somewhat imperfect....'

Admitted by Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and accepted nationally for Scotland (Forrester & Andrews et al. 2007).

Comment It is a coincidence that the one recorded by J. Duff was killed on the banks of the Tyne at Bedlington in Northumberland in 1846, which eventually turned out to be Bridlington in Yorkshire.

4). 1861 Northumberland Near Annestead, male, shot, October.

(Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Bolam (1912: 408) says: 'A male was shot near Annestead, on the coast just opposite the [Farne] Islands, in October 1861, and identified by Mr. J. Aitchinson, when it was half plucked whilst being prepared to be eaten.'

Locally, Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males [eight KAN, see 1873 and 1885 record] between 1861-1889 [erroneously] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

5). 1862 Northumberland Farne Islands, two, males, seen, summer.

(Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Bolam (1912: 408) says: 'Mr. Robson, at that time light-keeper on the Farnes, reported that two 'King Drakes' had frequented the neighbourhood for several weeks during the following summer [to 1861], being easily recognised by their red bills.'

Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males [nine KAN, see 1885 record] between 1861-1889 [erroneously] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899. Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52) as reported seen in summer.

7). 1868 Orkney Stromness, Mainland, female, shot, 22nd May.

(Gray, 1871; Harting, 1872; Yarrell, 1871-85; Forrester & Andrews et al., 2007).

History Gray (1871: 380) says: 'I have also been informed by E. S. Hargitt, Esq. of London, that he shot a female King Duck in Orkney in May, 1868. These records, it must be confessed, are somewhat imperfect.'

Harting (1872: 164) says: '...this bird is in the collection of Mr. E. Hargitt.'

Admitted by Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, but not accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

However, it is accepted nationally for Scotland (Forrester & Andrews et al. 2007).

Comment I think this is a poor record as it was not known to have been seen by a competent ornithologist, especially as it is reported as a female.

8). 1869 Orkney Stromness, Mainland, shot, 11th December.

(Yarrell, 1871-85).

History Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Mr. E. Hargitt has a female which he shot off Stromness on the 22nd of May, 1868, as well as another shot there by the late J. H. Dunn, on the 11th December, 1869.' It was not accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

9). 1872 Angus & Dundee/Fife St Andrews Bay/Tay Estuary, six/seven, seen, four killed, 6th March to mid-April.

(R. Walker, Scottish Naturalist 2: 49-54; Yarrell, 1871-85; F. Smalley, Zoologist 1906: 113-114; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Smout, 1986).

History Robert Walker of St Andrews (1873-74) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. II. pp. 49-54, dated February, 1873, says: 'The following note, therefore, on a small flock of King Ducks in St. Andrews Bay and the mouth of the Tay, last spring, may be of interest to some zoologists. On the morning of the sixth of March 1872, I saw a number of ducks swimming about, opposite the old castle of St Andrews.

At first I took them for Eiders, as this is a rather favourite place for that bird, and although somewhat surprised at their early appearance, I was inclined to ascribe this to the mildness of the past winter. They were a considerable way out at sea, and seemed to me to consist of five females and two males. After watching closely for some time, it struck me forcibly that there was something or other in their appearance and attitudes that I could not quite reconcile with my previous acquaintance with the manner of the Eider.

Still, at the time, and even yet, I could not define precisely what the difference really was; further, and this is to some extent supplemented from what I afterwards saw of them, they seemed to be quicker in their movements, and exhibited a more restless unstable-like behaviour than is the custom of the "Dunter". I could not be positively certain of seeing these ducks again for some days.

One morning, however, about a week afterwards, I had a good sight of them, as they were apparently busy feeding on the young mussels that occur in some abundance outside the rocks on the north of St. Andrews. I could only count six birds at this time, but as they were diving and remaining a considerable time under the water, there may have been more of them.

From their general appearance, and the view I then had of the dark colour of the backs of the males, I felt absolutely certain that they were the King Ducks. Although I continued to see these ducks occasionally - or, at any rate, what, from the distance, I took for them - until the end of the first week of April, they were, with one exception, always so far out at sea that it was impossible to make anything of them.

This was at the mouth of the Eden, where I came upon them, somewhat unexpectedly, as they were quietly swimming about amongst a number of Eiders, with which they were evidently associating in the most friendly manner. I could only, of course, be sure of the identity of the males. The females of the Eider and King Duck seem to me to resemble each other so closely, that I should say it would be next to impossible to distinguish the one from the other when seen at a distance.

About the middle of April I heard that one or two King Ducks had been shot in the Tay, but beyond that I could neither see or learn anything of these birds or their whereabouts, and ultimately concluded that they had gone off. In this, however, I was mistaken, for on the 29th of April a fine male, in splendid adult plumage, was killed on the estuary of the Tay. The bird is in my possession, and was examined by me while in the flesh.

Mr. Patrick Henderson, Dundee, who also saw these ducks in the Tay last spring, has kindly informed me that another three specimens were killed in the estuary of that river in March last. All these birds were seen and examined by himself. He states that they were all females, but that he was once within thirty yards of a fine male, but could not procure it. One of the above mentioned ducks was shot by Mr. Ross; another, by Captain Campbell; and the third by Mr. John Nelson, of Dundee, to whose kindness I am indebted, not only for sending the particulars of the case, but, for forwarding the bird itself for my inspection.

He says that, on the 16th of March last, he was in a boat on the river, about three miles below Tayport, and shot it while it was flying past him, at a distance of about seventy yards, going up the water. It is a fine female, in capital plumage, and although exceedingly like the female of the Eider, it may be known from that species by its somewhat smaller size; the head and neck are of a lighter brown shade, the bill is shorter, and its base rises higher behind the nostril.

In my specimen of the male, all the variety and shades of colour in the plumage with which this beautiful species is decorated, and whole general appearance of the bird, agree closely in the main with Mr. Gould's (Birds of Great Britain) splendid figure of a male of the King Duck, which, he says, was made for him by the celebrated Dr. Rae, while travelling in the Arctic regions in search of Sir J. Franklin.

The chief difference observable between the two, when compared together, is, that in the figure, both the bill and the sides of the vertical protuberance on the upper part of its base are represented the same in colour, a darkish red. In my specimen the bill is of a deep red, and the sides of the basal protuberance are of a darkish orange yellow. In this it seems to accord with the example described by Dr. De Kay (Zoology of N. Yorks., Birds).

He states that the bill is reddish; the ascending portion verging to orange. The colour of these parts may be ultimately found to vary according to the season of the year in which the bird is obtained, and, not unlikely, the uniformity in colour represented in Mr. Gould's figure may be an ornamental feature assumed during the breeding season.

The stomach of my specimen was empty, with the exception of small angular fragments of pebble. The intestine was five feet eleven inches in length. I could only see one caecum, situated about two feet from the posterior extremity. The trachea, was in shape as represented in Sabine's figure in the Linnean Transactions (Vol. XII).

The above is the second record, so far as I know, of an adult male of this species being obtained in Britain or Ireland.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Mr. R. Walker has recorded the occurrence of a small flock at the mouth of the Tay in the spring of 1872; and adult male and three females being subsequently obtained.'

Fred Smalley of Silverdale (1906) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. X. pp. 113-114, says: '...Mr. Harting, in his Handbook to British Birds, new edition, p. 465, gives eighteen authentic records of this species in British waters, but I am inclined to think he has omitted two, if not more, authentic occurrences, namely, the specimen in the Edinburgh Museum, shot at Tents Muir in 1872 (I believe I am correct in the date, but I quote from memory).'

Accepted locally (Smout 1986) and nationally for Scotland (Forrester & Andrews et al. 2007).

Comment Four individuals counted.

13). 1872 Northumberland Farne Islands, seen, summer.

(Bolam, 1912, 1932; Hawkey, 1991).

History Bolam (1912: 408) says: 'This bird also, or another, had been observed by several visitors to the Farnes during the previous summer [to 1873], sometimes accompanied by a female, believed to be of the same species.'

However, Bolam (1932) did not list this record in his authentic listing of the species. Perhaps an oversight.

Comment Accepted by Hawkey (1991) in his 'Birds of the Farne Islands'.

14). 1873 Northumberland Farne Islands, adult male, shot, 14th November.

(Hancock, 1874; J. Cordeaux, Zoologist 1880: 514; Yarrell, 1871-85; Hardy, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 9: 246; R. W. Chase, Zoologist 1886: 77; Saunders, 1899; Bolam, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Hancock (1874: 158-159) says: 'This handsome duck which must rank as a rare casual visitant, has occurred only once on the coast of Northumberland, and that so late as November 14th, 1873. It was shot near the Farne Islands, and is now in the possession of F. Raine, Esq., of Durham.

I saw the specimen a few days after its capture, in the hands of Mr. R. Duncan, to whom it was entrusted to be preserved. It is a fine mature male, in full plumage, with the exception of the neck, on which part it shows a little grey of the summer plumage. It appears, from two letters I received some time ago, that this King Duck, or another, must have been in the neighbourhood of the Farnes during the summer.

The letter was from the Rev. Charles Thorp, on the 2nd of June, who says: "I was at the Farne Islands yesterday. The boatmen told me that a bird not known to them had been seen and named by a Leeds gentleman some weeks ago. They described the bird as an Eider drake, with red bill".

The second letter was from Mr. James Sutton, October 1st, 1873. He says that "a male and female King Eider were seen at the Farnes this summer". There can, I think, be little doubt that the bird lately shot was one of the birds seen; but it is extraordinary that this species should have remained on our coast during the summer.'

J. Cordeaux (1880) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. IV. p. 514, says: 'Mr. Hancock, in his Birds of Northumberland, records the occurrence of a male and female King Eider in the summer of 1873 at the Farne Islands.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Further north, at the Farne Islands, a male and a female were observed throughout the summer of 1873; and on the 14th of the following November an adult male, presumably the same, was obtained there and passed into the collection of Mr. Raine of Durham.'

R. W. Chase of Edgbaston (1886) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. X. p. 77, says: 'The King Eider has been once previously obtained at the Farnes, one, formerly in the collection of F. Raine, of Durham, having been shot there November 13th, 1873.'

Bolam (1912: 408) says: 'An adult male was shot on 14th November 1873 (Hancock 1874) near the Farne Islands and was in the private collection of Mr. F. Raine, Durham, for a long time and when sold believed to have been purchased by Mr. Crow, Burton-on-Trent.'

Admitted nationally (Saunders 1899, 2nd ed.) and (Witherby 1920-24).

Locally, (Galloway & Meek 1978-83) who don't quote a source and (Kerr 2001) copying from them, admit ten males between 1861-1889 [erroneously] for Northumberland, which according to (Bolam 1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Witherby et al. (1940-52) admits this one shot, but also lists one seen for 1873 [sic] as there is not one mentioned seen in Bolam (1912).

Comment As a female would have been difficult to identify then, it would be safer to ignore it. Galloway & Meek say all the records involved males during 1861-1889 [sic].

15). 1875 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, June.

(Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Bolam (1912: 308) says: 'In June 1875, another male was reported to have been seen on several occasions, by a number of the North Sunderland people, as well as the lighthouse keepers.'

Locally, Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males between 1861-1889 [erroneously] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Admitted nationally as reported seen in summer (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

16). 1877 Orkney Shapinsay Sound, adult male, shot, 31st January.

(R. P. Harper, Zoologist 1877: 183).

History R. P. Harper of Scarborough (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 183, says: 'On the 31st of January last I was out shooting in the String of Shapinsha, and came across a solitary specimen of the King Duck (Somateria spectabilis); which I bagged. It was an adult male bird, and I have sent it to be preserved by Ward, of Vere Street, London.

The man from whom we hired the boat, and who accompanied us, said that although he had been in the habit of shooting and fishing about the islands for years he had never seen one before.'

Not accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

17). 1879-80 Angus & Dundee Tay Estuary, Dundee, Angus, several (three), obtained, winter.

(H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 5: 341; H. M. Drummond Hay, Transactions of the Perthshire Society Natural Science 1: 97; Carr, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).

History H. M. Drummond Hay (1879-80) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. V. p. 341, says: 'Mr. Harvie-Brown states that Mr. J. Anderson, in a letter to him, mentions that King Ducks were plentiful in the beginning of January (1879) about Dundee.'

H. M. Drummond Hay, President (1883) in the Transactions of the Perthshire Society Natural Science, Vol. I. p. 97, in his address, says: 'The King-Duck, or King-Eider, as it is sometimes called, though generally considered a very rare bird in Great Britain - there being few British specimens in any collection - seems, of late years, not unfrequently to have been observed, during the winter months, off the mouth of the Tay and in the Bay of St Andrews.

Mr. Harvie Brown states that Mr, J. Anderson, in a letter to him, mentions the King-Duck as plentiful in the beginning of January, 1879, about Dundee.'

Carr (1912: 619-625) in the British Association Handbook of Dundee, under 'The Birds of the Estuary of the Tay' says: 'The King Duck...is not infrequently seen off the mouth of the Tay. In the winter of 1879 I observed them on the river between Dundee and Newport.'

Witherby (1924 (2): 368) says: 'Firth of Tay (several obtained winter 1879-80).' Later, it was still accepted (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and nationally for Scotland (Baxter & Rintoul 1953).

Comment For statistical reasons I have recorded three as occurring.

20.0). 1880 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, mid-April.

(Berwick Advertiser Sept., 1880; J. Cordeaux, Zoologist 1880: 514; J. Sutton, Field 11th Sept., 1880: 415; T. H. Nelson, Zoologist 1881: 62-63; Yarrell, 1871-85; Bolam, 1912).

History John Cordeaux of Great Cotes (1880) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. IV. p. 514, says: 'In one of my migration schedules recently received from the Inner Farne Lighthouse I find this entry: "May 29th. King Eider seen this evening (being the first for several years)".

To this my very intelligent informant, Mr. Thos. Cutting, the Principal of the lighthouse, adds the following note: "The bird mentioned in my report of the 29th April was seen by several of the fishermen about ten days before, or a fortnight before I saw it. It was often seen flying and swimming with the common Eider ducks. When swimming it was noticed to be in company with a duck of a cream-coloured plumage (quite different from the Eider duck), which was supposed to be the female of the same species".

As the female of the King Eider so nearly resembles that of the common species as to be quite undistinguishable at a short distance, this duck of 'a cream-coloured plumage' could not be the mate of the King Eider, and raises some little doubt as to the authenticity of the occurrence of the rare visitant. Mr. Hancock, in his Birds of Northumberland, records the occurrence of a male and female King Eider in the summer of 1873 at the Farne Islands.'

J. Sutton of Durham (1880) in The Field of 11th Sept., Vol. LVI. p. 415, says: 'I have been credibly informed that a King Eider (S. spectabilis) visited the Farne Islands during the late breeding season. It would be most gratifying to ornithologists should this handsome duck become a more frequent visitor to our shores.

Your readers will find, on referring to Hancock's Catalogue of Birds of Northumberland and Durham, page 158, that when at the Farnes during the summer, 1873, I had the pleasure of seeing there a very fine male of this species. This was the first specimen authenticated and recorded as visiting our coasts. A few months later this fine bird fell a victim to the fowler's gun, and now adds one more rare specimen to a very valuable collection, owned by an intimate friend, Mr. F. Raine, of this city.'

[Our correspondent is mistaken in supposing that the bird seen by him in 1873 was the first recorded to have been met with on our coasts. More than a dozen instances of its occurrence had been previously recorded, the particulars of which are given in Harting's Handbook of British Birds. - Ed.].

T. H. Nelson of Bishop Auckland (1881) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. V. pp. 62-63, says: 'The note on the King Eider at the Farnes (Zool., 1880, p. 514) leaves it open to doubt whether the birds mentioned by the light-keeper really were King Eiders, and Mr. Cordeaux has asked me to supplement his remarks with the following notes of my own taken while at Bamburgh last summer.

On June 7th I went out to the Farnes with a North Sunderland boatman, who told me that he had seen a King Eider and duck near the islands a few days before. I asked him to keep a look out, and to let me know if they remained in the neighbourhood. On the 9th we were again at the islands, and when about half a mile past the Inner Farne the boatman pointed out a light-coloured duck swimming with several common Eiders, and said, "That is the duck the King Eider is generally with".

We could not distinguish at the distance whether the male King Eider was in the flock, and at our approach they all made off in an opposite direction. I saw the boatman a few days afterwards, and he assured me that on one or two occasions he had been quite near to the King Eider, and immediately recognised it as being similar to one he shot seven years ago, mentioned by Mr. Hancock in his Catalogue, and referred to by Mr. Cordeaux. Is it not possible that the 'cream-coloured duck' may be a variety?

I believe my informant to be a thoroughly reliable man, and since writing the above have heard from him as follows: "I have not seen the King Eider this winter, and I don't think he has been seen by any one upon our shores since last summer".'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In the same locality [Farne Islands] a pair are said to have been observed in May, 1880.'

Bolam (1912: 408), says: 'In June 1880, one again appeared, and up to 25th April, 1885, when a male was shot by the lighthouse men, and sent to Mr. R. W. Chase of Birmingham, one was repeatedly seen each spring and summer, frequently remaining as late as the middle of June.'

Admitted nationally as reported seen in summer (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Comment Cordeaux's note is perplexing and I can only assume there is a typo regarding 29th May and 29th April. This individual first seen in 1880 and then in successive seasons to 1885 when it was shot is considered the same individual. As a female would have been difficult to identify then, it would be safer to ignore it.

20.1). 1881 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, late April to at least 19th June; presumed returning individual.

(J. Cordeaux, Zoologist 1881: 423; R. W. Chase, Zoologist 1886: 76; Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History John Cordeaux of Great Cotes (1881) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. V. p. 423, says: 'In one of my Migration Schedules received from the Inner Farne Lighthouse (September 3rd), that excellent observer, Mr. Thomas H. Cutting, communicates, amongst many others, the following interesting notes: ...The King Eider was seen again in the latter part of April, and was about the islands for two months; it was seen by Mr. Cutting on June 19th.'

R. W. Chase of Edgbaston, Birmingham (1886) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. X. pp. 76-77, says: '...For several years a male of this rare visitor has been noticed at the Farnes; in 1881 and 1883, when I visited there, he was constantly seen, but was very wild and difficult to approach.'

Admitted nationally as reported seen in summer (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Comment The individual first seen 1880 and in successive seasons to 1885 when shot is considered the same.

20.2). 1882 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, late May; presumed returning individual.

(Yarrell, 1871-85; Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Mr. H. M. Wallace informs the Editor, that he had a good view of an adult male off that group of islands at the end of May 1882.'

Bolam (1912: 408) says: 'In June 1880, one again appeared, and up to 25th April, 1885, when a male was shot by the lighthouse men, and sent to Mr. R. W. Chase of Birmingham, one was repeatedly seen each spring and summer, frequently remaining as late as the middle of June.'

Admitted nationally as reported seen in summer (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Comment The individual first seen 1880 and in successive seasons to 1885 when shot is considered the same.

21). 1882 Angus & Dundee Tay Estuary, male, obtained, December.

(H. M. Drummond Hay, Transactions of the Perthshire Society Natural Science 1: 97).

History H. M. Drummond Hay, President (1883) in the Transactions of the Perthshire Society Natural Science, Vol. I. p. 97, in his address, says: 'Of the 125 species which I have mentioned as being already in the collection, it may not be uninteresting to draw your attention for a few moments to some of the rarer and more valuable of these.

First and foremost, then, I will take the King-Duck - a fine male specimen of which I was fortunate enough to procure through the services of Mr. Henderson, of Dundee, it having been got last December on the Tay, below Dundee.'

22). 1883 Orkney Churchyard Rocks, Mainland, seen, spring.

(Millais, 1901; H. W. Robinson, Field 17th Mar., 1906: 434; F. Smalley, Zoologist 1906: 113-114).

History H. W. Robinson of Lansdowne House, Lancaster (1906) in The Field of 17th Mar., Vol. CVII. p. 434, says: '...Mr. Harting in his Handbook of British Birds mentions eighteen authentic records of the occurrence of this species in Great Britain since 1813, and of these four have occurred in Orkney and one in Shetland in November 1832; May, 1868; December, 1869; March, 1884; and February, 1899, respectively.

Amongst these he does not mention the drakes shot at Tentsmuir in Fife in 1872 and 1899, the former being in the Edinburgh Museum and the latter mentioned in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, nor does he mention the young drake seen by Mr. Millais in the spring of 1883 near the churchyard rocks off the western promontory of Pomona in Orkney, about which there was no doubt whatever, as he was near enough to the bird to see the curious shape of the head, so characteristic of the drake of this species.'

Fred Smalley of Silverdale (1906) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. X. pp. 113-114, says: '...Mr. Harting, in his Handbook to British Birds, new edition, p. 465, gives eighteen authentic records of this species in British waters, but I am inclined to think he has omitted two, if not more, authentic occurrences, namely...and also the young male King Eider which Mr. J. G. Millais saw off the Churchyard Rocks, Pomona, Orkney, in the spring of 1883, and which he twice set to, but failed to secure (see Millais's book, The Wildfowler in Scotland, pp. 138, 139, 140).

I have no reason to suppose that so competent a naturalist as Mr. Millais was wrong in his identification of this bird, especially taking into consideration that he was near enough to it to distinctly note the curious shape of the head, characteristic of the male King Eider.'

Not accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

Comment Pomona is an old name for Orkney, so presumably Mainland.

20.3). 1883 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, spring to summer; presumed returning individual.

(G. Bolam, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 11: 259; R. W. Chase, Zoologist 1886: 76; Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History George Bolam (1885-86) in the History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, Vol. XI. p. 259, says: 'Mr. W. Evans saw the drake on June 14th 1883 at very close quarters.'

Locally, Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males between 1861-1889 [sic] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Admitted nationally as reported seen in summer (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Comment The individual first seen 1880 and in successive seasons to 1885 when shot is considered the same.

23). 1884 Orkney No locality, adult male, shot, March.

(Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891; Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984).

History Buckley & Harvie-Brown (1891: 181) says: 'Mr. E. S. Cameron of Burgar shot an adult male in March 1884, which he sent to Mr. Dunbar, Thurso, for preservation.'

Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds (1984) admit this as the first authenticated record for Orkney, with no further details.

20.4). 1884 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, spring to summer; presumed returning individual.

(G. Bolam, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 11: 259; Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History G. Bolam (1885-86) in the History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, Vol. XI. p. 259, says: 'For the last two or three years a male bird of this species has visited the Farne Islands in May, and has remained till about the middle of June, when it has disappeared. On the occasion of the Club's visit to the Islands on 25th June, 1884, we were informed by the boatmen that they had seen the bird only a week or ten days previously.'

Admitted nationally as reported seen in summer (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Comment Witherby et al. (1940-52) lumped the 1880-84 records together but the 1885 shot record separately, but may have considered them the same; but in view of current knowledge the Author has considered them all one and the same.

24). 1884 Isle of May No locality, male [and four/five others], seen, October.

(Yarrell, 1871-85; Harvie-Brown, 1906; Rintoul & Baxter, 1935; Witherby et al., 1940-52; W. J. Eggeling, Scottish Naturalist 68: 131; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; W. J. Eggeling, Scottish Birds 8: 98).

History Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Mr. Harvie-Brown informs the Editor that he recently observed an adult male off the Isle of May.'

Harvie-Brown (1906: 247) says: 'I have watched a small lot, containing one old male and four or five others, off the Isle of May as early as October. This was in 1884.'

Witherby et al. (1940-52) admitted all of them.

Baxter & Rintoul (1935, 1953) say: 'At the Isle of May, Harvie-Brown watched one old male and four or five others, in October 1884.'

W. J. Eggeling admits this record in his list for the island in the Scottish Naturalist 1956: 131 and Scottish Birds 8: 98.

Comment It is safe to accept the old male, but reject the others as they don't say four or five of this species, so they could have been a party of Common Eider Somateria mollissima. A flock would be highly unusual.

20.5). 1885 Northumberland Farne Islands, adult male, shot, 25th April; presumed returning individual; now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1924Z18.4049).

(J. Aitchison, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 11: 246; G. Bolam, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 11: 259; R. W. Chase, Zoologist 1886: 76-77; Saunders, 1899; Evans, 1911; Bolam, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Watson, 2010).

History John Aitchison of Belford (1885-86) in a History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, Vol. XI. p. 246, says: 'April 15, a King Eider Drake was noticed on the beach near Bamburgh. It was subsequently reported in local papers to have been seen at Holy Island, and likewise in the vicinity of the Farne Islands; but it appears to have at length been shot by a gentleman from London, who visited Bamburgh in the month of May or June, and who afterwards recorded in The Field (I do not at present remember the exact date) his good luck in securing a fine specimen of this rare visitor to our shores, utterly forgetful of the fact that all birds are much more interesting in life than in death.'

George Bolam (1885-86) in a History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, Vol. XI. p. 259, says: 'Last year [1885] a drake appeared towards the end of April, and was frequently seen by the fishermen up till about the end of May, when it was shot by one of the keepers and came into the possession of a Mr. Chase of Birmingham.'

R. W. Chase of Edgbaston, Birmingham (1886) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. X. pp. 76-77, says: 'On April 25th, 1885, an adult male King Eider, Somateria spectabilis, in good plumage, was shot.

For several years a male of this rare visitor has been noticed at the Farnes; in 1881 and 1883, when I visited there, he was constantly seen, but was very wild and difficult to approach. He was frequently accompanied by two ducks, one much darker in colour than the other, which was also considerably smaller; whether females of spectabilis or not it is impossible to say; they may have been only the Common Eider, S. mollissima.

I exhibited this bird in the flesh at a meeting of the Birmingham Natural History Society on April 28th, 1885. The King Eider has been once previously obtained at the Farnes, one, formerly in the collection of F. Raine, of Durham, having been shot there November 13th, 1873.'

Evans (1911: 169) says: 'A note by Aitchinson (Hist. Ber. Nat. Club Vol. XI. p. 246) is little but a hearsay account of the capture of Mr. Chase's specimen.'

Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males between 1861-1889 [dated erroneously] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Admitted nationally (Saunders 1899, 2nd ed.; Witherby 1920-24; Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Watson (2010) in detailing the R. W. Chase collection in the Birmingham Museum lists this specimen and quoting from his Notebooks states that it was shot by Thomas O. Hall during a strong gale in the evening. Received in the flesh, skinned and set up by myself. A splendid specimen, had been about the Islands for several years. Vide H. Saunders, Manual of British Birds, 1889, p. 449; vide Zoologist 1886, p. 76.

Comment The individual first seen 1880 and in successive seasons to 1885 when shot is considered the same.

25). 1886 Northumberland Holy Island, male, seen, May to June.

(Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Bolam (1912: 408-409) says: 'In 1886, a male again appeared, and was frequently seen during some six weeks from the middle of May, more often feeding with Eiders off the harbour at Holy Island than in the neighbourhood of the Farnes. The cause of its disappearance, about the beginning of July, was never known.'

Locally, Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males [nine KAN, see 1885 record] between 1861-1889 [erroneously] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

26). 1888 Norfolk Hunstanton, immature male, shot, 7th January, now at Castle Museum, Norwich (Acc. No. NWHCM: 1889.38).

(T. Southwell, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 5: 59-60; T. Southwell, Zoologist 1889: 384-385; Saunders, 1899; Witherby, 1920-24; Seago, 1977; Dye, Fiszer & Allard, 2009).

History Thomas Southwell (1889) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. V. pp. 59-60, and The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIII. pp. 384-385, says: 'In the autumn of last year the Rev. Julian G. Tuck kindly favoured me with some valuable notes on the birds observed by him at Hunstanton, and mentioned a young male Eider which he saw in a case at a fish shop in that town, and which he said appeared to him to differ from other Eiders which he had seen, and especially from a young male Common Eider in his own collection, but as he had no books of reference with him he made a mental note of it as 'a rather dark and small Eider', and suggested that it might possibly be an example of the King Eider.

I had an opportunity of examining this bird in the last week of July, - unfortunately after my article on the Eider for the Birds of Norfolk had been printed, - and was delighted to find it a young male Somateria spectabilis. I lost no time in purchasing the specimen, which I now have the pleasure to exhibit, and have presented to the Norwich Museum, where I trust it will long remain.

The bird was shot off Hunstanton about the middle of January, 1888, and was stuffed by Mr. Clark, of Snettisham, for Mr. Osborne, of whom I purchased it. It was seen on several occasions by the Hunstanton gunners, among others by Mr. Tuck's correspondent, Mr. B. Bowler (see, Zoologist, 1888, p. 148).

There can therefore be no question as to its identity, and it gives me great pleasure to restore the species to a place in the Norfolk list on such satisfactory evidence.'

Riviere (1930) says: 'A young male which was presented by Southwell to the Castle Museum, Norwich, was killed in January 1888.'

Admitted nationally (Saunders 1899, 2nd ed.; Witherby 1920-24).

27). 1889 Argyll Jura, male, seen, 4th October.

(Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1892; Witherby, 1920-24; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).

History Harvie-Brown & Buckley (1892: 138) say: '...The last link of evidence we have received is from Mr. Henry Evans of Jura, who, after careful searching many days amongst troops of Eider Ducks, at last spotted the rarer relative amongst the crowd, on the 4th of October 1889. All present, including Mr. H. Evans and his brother, and all of whom had telescopes, saw the bird distinctly, a magnificent male. "Look", says Mr. H. Evans, "Look for Eiders with white patch in middle of wing, is the receipt for finding the king".

Later on, having seen this bird five times, Mr. Evans "saw him alight on the sea, steered for him, and flushed him twenty yards off, so saw his red or orange-red legs when he rose and before he tucked them up"; and adds what is perfectly true: "not always an easy matter to get a near view of an ocean-frequenting Duck".'

Witherby (1920-24) says: 'Seen off Jura.'

Baxter & Rintoul (1953 (2): 435) say: 'On the 4th October, 1889, Henry Evans saw a magnificent male off Jura; he saw him several times and on one occasion got within twenty yards of him.'

28). 1890 Norfolk Hunstanton, immature female, shot, 3rd November.

(T. Southwell, Zoologist 1890: 463; T. Southwell, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 5: 205; Harting, 1901; Witherby, 1920-24; Riviere, 1930; Seago, 1977).

History Thomas Southwell of Norwich (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 463, says: 'On November 3rd, 1890, a young female King Duck, Somateria spectabilis, was shot off Hunstanton St. Edmunds, by Mr. S. Brown (for whose collection it is being preserved), and sent the next day to me, for determination, by Dr. Whitty.

This bird measured in total length 21¼ inches; the wing from the flexure, 10½ inches; tibia, 1¾ inch; middle toe, 2½ inches, and nail of the same toe about ⅜ ths. of an inch. The plumage was very dark, and I believe the bird was mistaken, when alive, for a Common Scoter; the beak, bluish lead-colour at the tip, gradually shading off a dull pinkish leaden hue at the basal portion; legs and toes yellow-umber, the inter-digital membranes dark brown in centre; iris dark brown. From the condition of the feathers I have no doubt it is a bird of the year.

It is singular that this bird should have occurred so near the spot at which a previous specimen, recorded by me in The Zoologist for 1889 (p. 383), was killed.'

Thomas Southwell (1889-94) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. V. p. 205, read 24th February 1891, says: 'Through the kindness of Dr. Whitty I have since had the opportunity of examining in the flesh two other specimens of this bird, both killed in the same locality as that first mentioned [Hunstanton]. On the 3rd November, 1899, a young female was sent me by Dr. Whitty, to be preserved for him. When shot it was in company with Scoters.'

Riviere (1930) says: 'An immature female which was identified by Thomas Southwell was shot on 3rd November 1890.'

Admitted nationally (Saunders 1899, 2nd ed.; Witherby 1920-24).

29). 1890 Norfolk Hunstanton, adult female, shot, about 10th November.

(T. Southwell, Zoologist 1891: 67; T. Southwell, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 5: 205; Riviere, 1930; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Thomas Southwell of Norwich (1891) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XV. p. 67, says: 'On Nov. 13th I received from Dr. Whitty a second specimen of the King Duck, which had been killed off Hunstanton, St Edmonds, a day or two previously. In this bird the rufous edgings to the feathers indicated maturity, and upon dissection it proved to be an old female; its stomach contained remains of a species of Starfish (I believe Ophiura albida, Forbes) found abundantly on the mussel-scaups over which it was feeding.

The measurements were so nearly the same as those of the young male that it is not worth repeating. Like the previous specimen, it was in company with Scoters when killed, and Dr. Whitty tells me that it is not unusual for Eiders to associate with these birds: probably the mussel-scaups, which teem with marine forms equally acceptable to both species, formed the bond of union.'

Thomas Southwell (1889-94) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. V.p. 205, read 24th February, 1891, says: 'Through the kindness of Dr. Whitty I have since had the opportunity of examining in the flesh two other specimens of this bird, both killed in the same locality as that first mentioned [Hunstanton]. On the 15th November an adult female was sent me by Dr. Whitty, to be preserved for him. When shot it was in company with Scoters.'

Admitted nationally (Saunders 1899, 2nd ed.; Witherby 1920-24; Witherby et al. 1940-52).

Riviere (1930) says: 'An adult female, also identified by Thomas Southwell, was received by him on 13th November 1890 after being killed a few days earlier.'

30). 1895 Orkney Longhope, Hoy, immature female, picked up dead, 1st November.

(H. W. Robinson, Scottish Naturalist 35: 143; Eds., British Birds 9: 99-100).

History H. W. Robinson of Lancaster (1915) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. XXXV. p. 143, says: 'Although the King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) has occurred a fair number of times in Orkney, nearly all of these have been males. It may therefore be of interest to state that Mr. T. Ground of Birmingham has in his collection an immature female of this species which was picked up dead by some boys at Longhope on 1st November 1895.'

In an Editorial (1915) in British Birds, Vol. IX. pp. 99-100, they say: 'Mr. H. W. Robinson records (Scot. Nat., 1915, p. 143) that a female Somateria spectabilis picked up at Longhope on November 1st, 1895, is in Mr. T. Ground's collection.'

31). 1896 Shetland Near Samphrey, Yell Sound, male, shot, 1st December.

(Evans & Buckley, 1899; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

History Evans & Buckley (1899: 141-142) say: 'Mr. Godfrey in his MS. notes, remarks: 'On December 1st, 1896, Mr. Barrie was out in Yell Sound after birds, and came upon a beautiful drake of this species. He fired at it and, as he thought, killed it, but before picking it up he went after a Little Auk and procured it. On then rowing up to the King Eider he was about to lift it into his boat, when it rose and flew off towards Samphrey, where it fell and was lost.'

Accepted locally (Venables & Venables 1955).

32). 1899 Shetland Vaila Sound, male, shot, 24th February, now at Vaila Hall.

(Shetland Times 4th Mar., 1899; J. E. Harting, Field 11th Mar., 1899: 356; E. Bankart, Field 8th Apr., 1899: 505; Eds., Annals of Scottish Natural History 1899: 111-112; J. E. Harting, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1899: 183; Saunders, 1899; Evans & Buckley, 1899; Witherby, 1920-24; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

History J. E. Harting (1899) in The Field of 11th Mar., Vol. XCIII. p. 356, says: 'Through the courtesy of Mr. Rowland Ward I have had an opportunity of examining, while still unskinned and in a perfectly fresh condition, a beautiful example of the King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) which was shot near Lerwick on Feb. 25, and was forwarded to London for preservation.

On comparing it with Gould's folio plate of this species in his Birds of Europe, it was seen that the colours of the soft parts did not correspond. Gould represents the bill and cere to be bright vermillion, and the feet wholly so, whereas in the specimen just examined the bill was rose-pink, the cere bright lemon (or pale orange), the toes orange, with the inter-digital membranes dusky, giving the bird a very different appearance from that presented by Gould's figure of it.

In his more recent folio work on the Birds of Great Britain he figures the bill and cere deep orange red, the legs and toes dark yellow, but the inter-digital membranes not dark enough. It appears that this plate was prepared from a drawing made by the late Dr. John Rae, from a specimen killed during one of his Arctic journeys, and Mr. Gould considered that the colouring was to be regarded as strictly accurate. It may well be that a bird procured in the breeding season would have the colours of the soft parts brighter than they would be at the end of February, although by that date most of the ducks are in their finest plumage.

In the coloured plate of the King Duck in Lord Lilford's beautiful and still more recent work the bill and cere are represented to be both the same colour (orange-red), which, I think, cannot be quite correct, and there is no indication that the webs are not of the same colour as the toes....Since it was first noticed as a rare visitor to the Norfolk coast in 1813, scarcely more than a score of examples have been met with in the British Islands, the latest having been procured at Hunstanton in November, 1890, as reported by Mr. Southwell (Trans. Norf. Nat. Soc., V. p. 205).

Colonel Montagu was assured by Bullock that he had found this duck breeding in Papa Westray, one of the Orkney Islands, but no confirmation of this has been published, and the late Mr. R. Dunn sought for it there in vain.

The contrast of colours in the plumage of the King Eider is strikingly beautiful. At the base of a rose-pink bill is a large lemon-coloured patch of bare skin about the size of a shilling, bordered with black, the top of the head a delicate lavender, cheeks pale sea-green, merging into white on the chin below, which is a broad black ^, or inverted v.

Across the white neck is a broad band of pale buff or champagne colour, below which the whole of the underparts are jet black down to the orange-coloured legs. A patch of white on the back and across the dusky wings completes a livery which is suggestive of the tropics rather than the Arctic regions. The weight of the specimen under notice was 3 lb. 14 oz.'

Eustace Bankart of Melby House, Sandness (1899) in The Field of 8th Apr., Vol. XCIII. p. 505, says: 'As eminent ornithologists appear to have differed in their statements regarding the colouring of the soft parts of this beautiful bird, perhaps a few more details concerning the specimen recently noticed in your columns - on March 11 - by Mr. J. E. Harting may be of interest.

The specimen referred to was killed by me, not in the neighbourhood of Lerwick, but on the west side of Shetland, in Vaila Sound. I was out for the purpose of securing a specimen or two of the Eider Duck before the commencement of the close season, and at the first shot numerous flocks, large and small, past the boat in rapid succession, flying to the open sea.

It was a charming sight to view such numbers of these beautiful birds - the drakes so bright and the ducks so sombre in plumage - on the wing at the same moment, and after admiring the scene for some time, as a pair headed straight for the boat, I dropped them into the water. I gathered the duck first (a Common Eider), and as I reached over the bows to seize the drake I saw that I had unwittingly secured a prize - the King Eider.

Mr. Harting's description of the bird, as seen in London, is almost as correct as when seen alive, the only slight difference being that there was a faint roseate tint in the pale buff of the neck during life, which soon faded after death.

There was, however, a remarkable feature in the bird's plumage, which forcibly impressed itself on my mind, and of which Mr. Harting makes no mention, viz., that the beautiful sea-green tint on the cheeks, was a lustrous, glossy, "shot" colour, while the lavender, buff, and the remainder of the colourings of the bird's plumage were dull 'dead' colours.

The lavender of the head was in particular a very "dead", though remarkably beautiful, colour, and contrasted strongly with the sheen on the feathers of the sea-green, which, varying in tone as the light fell upon it, changed from dark sea-green through each more delicate tint of the same colour, until at last, fading away into a silvery white, it could again, at will, be restored to deep sea-green....For the information of ornithologists who may wish to locate this specimen, I may say that it will be preserved in the collection of Mr. Herbert F. Anderton, of Vaila.'

In an Editorial (1899) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. VIII. p. 111-112, quoting from the Shetland Times, they say: 'A beautiful specimen of the King Duck (Somateria spectabilis) was obtained by Mr. Eustace Bankart, of Melby House, Sandness, on Friday last week [24th February]. The last time a bird of this species occurred in Shetland was in 1846...The female bird was also caught at the same time along with the male, and Mr. Bankart has had both specimens forwarded to London for preservation.'

[We are informed that there is some doubt as to the identity of the female bird. - Eds.]

J. E. Harting (1899) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. VIII. p. 183, says: 'Referring to the editorial note on this subject (p. 112), I may state that I examined both the birds sent to London by Mr. Bankart on the day they arrived, and while they were yet unskinned. The male, as already announced, was a King Eider (Somateria spectabilis); the female was undoubtedly a Common Eider (Somateria mollissima).

The measurements and weights were as follows: King Eider, wing from carpus, 11 ins.; tarsus, 2 ins.; middle toe, 2½ ins.; weight, 3 lbs. 14 oz.'

Saunders (1899: 756, 2nd ed.) under 'Appendix' says: 'A male, obtained in the Shetlands on 24th February 1899, was sent to Mr. Harting in the flesh, and exhibited by him at a Meeting of the Linnean Society on March 2nd.'

Evans & Buckley (1899: 142) say 'On February 24th, 1899, as Mr. J. C. Grierson has kindly informed the authors, his friend Mr. Bankart shot a male of this species, in Vaila Sound, Walls, which was sent to Mr. Rowland Ward to be set up.'

Admitted nationally (Witherby 1920-24), while locally it is stated as still at Vaila Hall, Shetland (Pennington et al. 2004).

Comment The female record is unacceptable through lack of supporting details.

33). 1899 Northumberland Farne Islands, male, seen, May.

(Anon., History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 17: 41-42; Bolam, 1912; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Anon. (1899-1900) in the History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, Vol. XVII. p. 41-42, about the Club meeting and visit to the Farne Islands on Thursday 22nd June 1899, says: 'Early in the present season the watchers reported that a King Eider Drake had appeared, but he did not stay for more than a week or two.'

Bolam (1912: 409) says: 'Was reported to Mr. Paynter, by his watchers, as having been seen by them round about the Farnes in May, 1899.'

Locally, Galloway & Meek (1978-83) who don't quote a source and Kerr (2001) copying from them, admit ten males [nine KAN, see 1885 record] between 1861-1889 [sic] for Northumberland, which according to Bolam (1912), the first is 1861 and the last 1899.

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

34). 1899 Fife St Andrews Bay, adult male, shot, 6th June.

(J. A. Harvie-Brown, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1899: 239; Hartert et al., 1912; Witherby, 1920-24).

History J. A. Harvie-Brown (1899) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. VIII. p. 239, says: 'Mr. R. Canch writes me as follows: "John Lonie, my brother's man, first saw the bird in the Eden in company with some breeding Eiders; the smallness of the bird and the beak-tubercle drawing his attention. On the 6th June he shot the bird, and it proved to be a King Eider drake in full adult dress. Lonie stuffed the bird, and tried to sell it.

I purchased the specimen from him; but, not caring for the manner of stuffing, I had it re-stuffed".'

Admitted nationally (Witherby 1920-24).

Comment Possible duplicate.

35). 1899 Fife Moorland locality, male, shot, 15th June.

(B. B. Riviere, Zoologist 1902: 27; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 86; Hartert et al., 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Bernard B. Riviere of London (1902) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VI. p. 27, says: 'A male King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) was shot on a moor in Fifeshire on June 15th, 1899. It was in company with Common Eiders, which breed on the moor in considerable numbers. I saw the bird the day after it was shot.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 86, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.

Witherby (1920-24) admits one for Fife (June, 1899) and later, it was still accepted (Witherby et al. 1940-52).

36). 1902 Shetland Dunrossness, Mainland, male, seen, March.

(T. Henderson, jun., Annals of Scottish Natural History 1902: 153; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

History Thomas Henderson, jun. of Dunrossness (1902) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XI. p. 153, says 'I saw a King Eider in March; I have never seen this bird before, but I am certain as to its identity.'

Accepted locally (Venables & Venables 1955; Pennington et al. 2004).

37). 1906 Orkney Off Graemsay, adult female, shot, 21st February.

(H. W. Robinson, Field 17th Mar., 1906: 434; F. Smalley, Zoologist 1906: 113-114; H. W. Robinson, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1906: 116-117; J. Paterson, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1907: 198; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 86; Witherby, 1920-24).

History H. W. Robinson of Lansdowne House, Lancaster (1906) in The Field of 17th Mar., Vol. CVII. p. 434, says: 'I have to note the occurrence of an adult female King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) shot off the island of Graemsay, Orkney on Feb. 21, by a boatman, S. Sutherland, of that island.

The specimen, which I am having preserved, differs from the Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) in the following respects: The plumage is much more rufous than in the common species. The chin, throat, and cheeks are light chestnut in colour, the chin and throat being without any black markings. The upper part of the breast is rufous, and from the centre of the breast to the abdomen the plumage is sooty black in colour. The colour of the head is also rufous above the eyes, with narrow streaks of black, these streaks being not nearly so broad as those of the Common Eider, moreover, in shape the is not triangular, but flatter on the top, more like that of a Mallard.

An unfailing mark of distinction, as long ago pointed out by Mr. Harting (Proceedings Zool. Soc., 1871, p. 118), is that the feathered wedge on the culmen reaches as far as the nostrils, whereas in the common species it does not reach there by nearly ½ in. Again, the bare spaces on either side of this feathered wedge are twice as broad and of a totally different shape to those of S. mollissima. The feet and toes are dull yellow in colour, like those of a Goldeneye, and the webs black. The nail on the mandible is of the same colour as the rest of the bill. Last, but not least, the inner secondaries are sickle shaped....Mr. Harting in his Handbook of British Birds mentions eighteen authentic records of the occurrence of this species in Great Britain since 1813, and of these four have occurred in Orkney and one in Shetland in November 1832; May, 1868; December, 1869; March, 1884; and February, 1899, respectively.

[Mr. Millais's account of his meeting with a King Eider in Orkney in 1883 was published in his 'Wildfowler in Scotland' in 1901, by which time the pages in the Handbook (1901) relating to this species had been printed off. - Ed.]

Fred Smalley of Silverdale (1906) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. X. pp. 113-114, says: 'On Feb. 28th, in response to a letter from Mr. Robinson, I went to Lancaster to examine an Eider which he had just received in the flesh from Stromness, Orkney. On seeing the bird I was at once able to pronounce Mr. Robinson to have correctly identified it. I found it to be a King Eider without the question of a doubt. The specimen was shot off the island of Graemsay by Mr. S. Sutherland of that place, and forwarded to Mr. Robinson. It is a remarkable fine adult female.

Measurements: Length, 23 in.; culmen, measured from the anterior edge of the feathered wedge running on to the ridge of the culmen to the tip of the beak, 1.25 in. Head, chin, and throat buff, streaked with brown; cheeks lighter buff; breast and sides buff, with irregular markings; greater coverts and secondaries black, two narrow white bars on wing; back rich rufous brown; under parts dusky brown; bill dark (probably became darker after death); legs and feet ochre, webs dusky. A shot-pellet had pierced both eyes and completely destroyed them, and I was unable to determine the colour of the iris. Am I right in supposing it would be dark brown?

Perhaps some of your readers would be able to enlighten me on this point. Mr. Harting, in his Handbook to British Birds, new edition, p. 465, gives eighteen authentic records of this species in British waters, but I am inclined to think he has omitted two, if not more, authentic occurrences, namely, the specimen in the Edinburgh Museum, shot at Tents Muir in 1872 (I believe I am correct in the date, but I quote from memory), and also the young male King Eider which Mr. J. G. Millais saw off the Churchyard Rocks, Pomona, Orkney, in the spring of 1883, and which he twice set to, but failed to secure (see Millais's book, The Wildfowler in Scotland, pp. 138, 139, 140).

H. W. Robinson of Lansdowne House, Lancaster (1906) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XV. pp. 116-117, says: 'I have to record the occurrence of an adult female King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) which was shot off the Island of Graemsay, Orkney, on Wednesday, 21st February, by S. Sutherland of that island. The specimen which was sent to me differs much from the Common Eider, chiefly in its plumage being much more rufous, the chin, throat, and cheeks light chestnut, and the chin and upper throat being without any black markings. The upper part of the breast is rufous, and from the centre of the breast to the abdomen sooty black. The crown of the head rufous with narrow streaks of black; moreover, the head is flatter on the top than in the common Eider. The feathered wedge on the culmen reaches as far as the nostrils, and the bare spaces on either side of it are twice as broad and of a totally different shape from those of the common species. The feet are dull yellow and the webs black. The nail on the bill is of the same colour as the rest of that organ, and the inner secondaries sickle-shaped.'

Admitted by John Paterson of Glasgow (1907) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XVI. p. 198, in the annual report for 1906, and by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 86, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.

Admitted nationally with no further details (Witherby 1920-24; Witherby et al. 1940-52). Accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

38). 1906 Argyll Near Kintra, Islay, seen, 25th July.

(J. Paterson, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1907: 198; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 86; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).

History John Paterson of Glasgow (1907) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XVI. p. 198, in the annual report for 1906, says: 'One observed by Alex. Ross near Kintra at the south of Laggan Bay, Islay, on 25th July.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 86, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'. Witherby (1920-24) adds: 'Seen off Islay'.

Baxter & Rintoul (1953) say: 'On 25th July, 1906, one is recorded as having been seen from the cliffs near Kintra to the south of Laggan Bay in Islay, [Argyll].'

39). 1907 Orkney No locality, adult male, 4th June.

(Witherby et al., 1940-1952).

History Witherby et al. (1940-1952: 388) under 'Additions and corrections' adds: 'Adult male clearly identified, Orkney, June 4, 1907 (J. Walpole-Bond).'

40). 1910 Fair Isle South Harbour, adult male, seen, 13th May.

(W. E. Clarke, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1911: 53; L. J. Rintoul & E. V. Baxter, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1911: 140; Clarke, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Venables & Venables, 1955; Dymond, 1991; Pennington et al., 2004).

History Wm. Eagle Clarke (1911) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XX. p. 136, says: 'The observations on the movements of birds at this famous station have been systematically and successfully prosecuted throughout the past year by Mr. Jerome Wilson.

Her Grace the Duchess of Bedford visited the island during both the spring and autumn passage periods, and contributed very materially to the results obtained...it is not proposed to do more than mention the new species which came under notice in 1910. These were the King Eider (Somateria spectabilis).'

Admitted by L. J. Rintoul & E. V. Baxter (1911) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XX. p. 140, under the 'Report on Scottish Ornithology in 1910'.

Clarke (1912 (2): 162) says: 'I saw an adult male on the wing crossing the south bay on 13th May 1910.' Admitted nationally (Witherby 1920-24), (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and accepted locally (Pennington et al. 2004).

41). 1910 Shetland Noss Sound, Bressay, male, 29th June.

(L. J. Rintoul & E. V. Baxter, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1911: 140; Eds., British Birds 5: 202; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

History Admitted by L. J. Rintoul & E. V. Baxter (1911) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XX. p. 140, under the 'Report on Scottish Ornithology in 1910', who say: 'King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) was seen at Noss Sound, Bressay, on 29th June, a drake.'

In an Editorial (1911) in British Birds, Vol. V. p. 202, they say: 'A drake, Noss Sound, Bressay (Shetlands) June 29th (p. 140).'

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and accepted locally (Venables & Venables 1955; Pennington et al. 2004).

42). 1912 Gloucestershire Count Rocks, Shepperdine, shot, November.

(T. W. Proger & D. R. Paterson, Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society 1915: 62).

History T. W. Proger & D. R. Paterson (1915) in the Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society, Vol. XLVIII. p. 62, say: 'Shot by Mr. L. Purcell, at the Count Rocks, Shepperdine, in November, 1912.

This handsome Duck is also an inhabitant of the Arctic regions, and is a rare visitor to our Coasts. It has been recorded thrice in Norfolk, and a few times in Scotland and Ireland.'

Comment Not mentioned by Swaine (1982) in Birds of Gloucestershire, but then I don't suppose you would have been looking in the Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society.

43). 1925 Orkney No locality, 19th January, now at Stromness Museum.

(Balfour, 1972; Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984).

History Balfour (1972) says: 'There is one in Stromness Museum dated 19th January 1925.' Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds (1984) say: 'One for Orkney, 19th January 1925, now in Stromness Museum, but no further details.'

44.0). 1925 Fife Abertay Sands, seen, January.

(Berry, 1939; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Berry (1939) says: 'A special scrutiny of flocks of Common Eider frequenting the mouth of the Tay was made by the author every winter from 1925 to 1935. From an observation pit dug on the Abertay Sands only a small area could be watched, but the author considers that possibly even adult drakes of the King Eider may not be rare in that locality, as individuals were identified on five occasions.'

Witherby et al. (1940-52) say: '...and for Fife, one, Jan., 1925, one Dec., 1925 and Jan., 1926.'

44.1). 1925 Fife Abertay Sands, seen, December and January 1926; presumed returning individual.

(Berry, 1939; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

Witherby et al. (1940-52) say: '...and for Fife, one, Jan., 1925, one Dec., 1925 and Jan., 1926.'

45). 1927 Fife Tentsmuir, seen, 29th December.

(E. V. Baxter & L. J. Rintoul, Scottish Naturalist 48: 108; Eds., British Birds 23: 103; Witherby et al., 1940-52; J. Grierson, Scottish Birds 2: 135; Smout, 1986).

History E. V. Baxter & L. J. Rintoul (1928) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. XLVIII. p. 108, in the annual report for 1927, say: 'Five King Eiders were observed off Tentsmuir Point (N. Fife) on 29th December.'

In an Editorial (1929) in British Birds, Vol. XXIII. p. 103, they say: 'Five were observed off Tentsmuir Point (Fife) on December 29th.'

Berry (1939) says: 'A special scrutiny of flocks of Common Eider frequenting the mouth of the Tay was made by the author every winter from 1925 to 1935. From an observation pit dug on the Abertay Sands only a small area could be watched, but the author considers that possibly even adult drakes of the King Eider may not be rare in that locality, as individuals were identified on five occasions.'

Witherby et al. (1940-52) say: 'For Fife, five seen Dec., 1927.' It was accepted locally as one of the five (Smout 1986).

Comment As Berry was probably the observer at Abertay Sands with all the records from there, it would appear everyone has misinterpreted what he said. 'On five occasions between 1925 and 1935 he saw a King Eider.'

46). 1928 Shetland Heylor, Ronas Voe, Mainland, male, shot, 18th June, now at Maidstone Museum.

(Borrer, 1960).

History C. D. Borrer (1960: 4) in the Foreward, says: 'Among the choicest birds, which were obtained by Mr. Mannering himself, may be specially mentioned the magnificent King Eider which he shot after a long chase in Ronas Voe.'

Further, p. 9, he says: '1, Male, Heylor, Ronas Voe, Shetland, 18th June, 1928.'

47). 1930 Fife Abertay Sands, two, males, seen, December.

(Berry, 1939; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

History Berry (1939: 135) says: 'A special scrutiny of flocks of Common Eider frequenting the mouth of the Tay was made by the author every winter from 1925 to 1935. From an observation pit dug on the Abertay Sands only a small area could be watched, but the author considers that possibly even adult drakes of the King Eider may not be rare in that locality, as individuals were identified on five occasions.'

Witherby et al. (1940-52) say: '...and for Fife two males Dec., 1930.'

49). 1930 Orkney Kirkwall Bay, Mainland, pair, winter.

(Balfour, 1972; Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984).

History Balfour (1972) says: 'In the winter of 1930 G. T. Arthur recorded a pair in Kirkwall Bay.'

51). 1933 Orkney Finstown, Mainland, male, seen, 9th to 10th June.

(A. G. Haworth, British Birds 27: 75; Scottish Naturalist 53: 184; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984).

History A. G. Haworth (1933) in British Birds, Vol. XXVII. p. 75, says: 'On June 9th, 1933, I had an excellent view of a drake King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) close to land at Finstown, Orkney. Together with my wife I again saw the bird the next day and the following notes were made on the spot with the aid of field glasses and telescope. In the Practical Handbook the last record for Orkney is 1906. Tip of bill, horn colour. Remainder of bill, blood red. Orange patch on each side at the base, divided by black in front. Pale apple green on cheeks. Head pale blue grey. Pinkish-buff breast (making the Common Eider look white by comparison). Dull yellow leg occasionally appeared above water. White patch each side of rump. Dark brown feathers on each side of lower back formed distinct tufts. On both days it was with Common Eiders, which repeatedly attacked it.'

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and accepted locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

52). 1935 Fair Isle No locality, adult male, shot, 11th December.

(G. Waterston, Scottish Naturalist 56: 63; Eds., British Birds 30: 231; Scottish Naturalist 57: 75; Berry, 1939; Witherby et al., 1940-52; Dymond, 1991).

History George Waterston (1936) in Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LVI. p. 21, under 'Bird Notes from Fair Isle', says: 'King Eider - A magnificent male was obtained by George Stout on 11th December 1935.'

In an Editorial (1936) in British Birds, Vol. XXX. p. 231, they say: 'Fair Isle. - Mr. G. Waterston gives details (Scot. Nat., 1936, pp. 61-64) of a number of interesting birds, which have occurred in Fair Isle and have not hitherto been recorded. Amongst these we may mention the following: King Eider (Somateria spectabilis). - An adult male shot on December 11th, 1935.'

Berry (1939: 135) writing about Fair Isle, says: 'A "magnificent drake" was picked up dead on the shore there in 1935 and preserved.'

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and accepted locally (Dymond 1991).

53). 1936 Fair Isle North Haven, male, seen, 31st March.

(G. Waterston, Scottish Naturalist 57: 75; Eds., British Birds 31: 124; Dymond, 1991).

History G. Waterston (1937) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LVII. p. 75, under 'Bird Notes from Fair Isle, 1936', says: 'King Eider. - Apart from the bird recorded on 11th December 1935 (Scot. Nat., 1936: 62), another male was observed on 31st March 1936 off the North Haven, by G. Stout.'

In an Editorial (1937) in British Birds, Vol. XXXI. p. 124, they say: 'Mr. George Waterston gives an account of a number of interesting birds observed at Fair Isle in 1936 (Scot. Nat., 1937, pp. 73-76). The more important of these are as follows: a King Eider on March 31st.'

Admitted nationally (Witherby et al. 1940-52) and accepted locally (Dymond 1991), however, P. E. Davis (Williamson 1965) under 'A List of the Birds of Fair Isle', did not accept this record.

54.0). 1938 Shetland Mid Yell Voe, Yell, male, July.

(Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

History Venables & Venables (1955) say: 'One Mid Yell, July 1938 (C. Inkster).' Still acceptable (Pennington et al. 2004) who record it as Mid Yell Voe.

54.1). 1939 Shetland Mid Yell Voe, Yell, male, 6th June; presumed same as 1938.

(Venables & Venables, 1955).

History Venables & Venables (1955) say: 'One Mid Yell, 6th June 1938 (C. Inkster).' Still acceptable to Pennington et al. (2004) who record it as 'Mid Yell Voe. Also, they record the 1938 and 1939 records as one; presumably this is classed as a returning individual as it was seen by the same person.'

1950-57 RECORDS

55). 1950 Shetland St Ninian's Isle, Mainland, male, 27th May.

(K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 1 (3): 1; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

History K. Williamson (1950) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. I (III). p. 1, says: 'A drake was seen near St Ninian's Isle, S. Mainland, by Mrs. F. E. Carter on May 27th. The last Shetland record (excluding Fair Isle) is apparently June 1910.'

Listed by Venables & Venables (1955: 233) who say: '27th May 1950. St Ninian's Isle (F. E. Carter).'

Accepted locally (Pennington et al. 2004).

56). 1951 North-east Scotland Girdle Ness, Aberdeen, male, 6th March to 24th April.

(A. C. Kennedy, Scottish Naturalist 63: 133; Eds., Scottish Birds 5: 24).

History A. C. Kennedy (1951) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIII. p. 133, say: 'Among the mixed Eider flocks around Girdleness a handsome stranger appeared in the spring of 1951. He was first noted on 6th March though he may have been there earlier, and was later definitely identified as a drake King Eider Somateria spectabilis. He remained in this neighbourhood till 24th April, when the first Swallows arrived.

His most noticeable features were first the silver-grey head and upper neck giving the impression of a soldier's Balaclava helmet, and second the large yellow horny base of the bill extending to the eyes. This gave a curious spectacled effect enhanced by a surrounding black line which became more conspicuous as time passed. He could easily be picked out from the ordinary Eider drakes by the much greater area of black on his back.

The King Eider is as expert a diver as his companions. His times under the water were not noted but he certainly opened his wings slightly as he dived. He spent his time swimming and diving with the Common Eider flocks, usually with a small group of 15 or 20 in Greyhope Bay between Girdleness and the South Breakwater. More than once he was seen with the large flock (over 120) off Girdleness Point. On stormy days he sheltered with others in Nigg Bay, and once was seen inside the South Breakwater. I did not see him flying or on land.'

[Following instructions from Professor Kennedy we first saw this fine mature drake on 15th April. A number of ornithologists also saw it during the few days following, usually under very favourable conditions. - Editors.]

57). 1956 Fife Tay Estuary, Tentsmuir Point, male, 3rd November.

(J. Blyth, Scottish Naturalist 69: 183).

History James Blyth of Dundee (1957) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIX. p. 183, says: 'On 3rd November 1956, I observed a male King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) on the Tay Estuary, while taking part in the monthly National Wildfowl Count. The bird was seen at Tentsmuir Point, in Fife, where the Tay enters the sea.

I had an excellent view of it in bright sunlight, as it swam fairly near me, slightly inshore from the main stream of thousands of Common Eiders (S. mollisima) out in the channel. The clear-cut markings of the male King Eider were visible even with the naked eye. It was in full winter plumage, with the bill and front of the forehead red in colour, and a pinkish-white breast. The rest of the fore-parts and the shoulder were white, the back was black, and the rest of the body black with some white along the sides. It seemed smaller and more compact than male Common Eiders. Three female Eiders were swimming in company with the bird.'

NOT PROVEN

0). 1812 Orkney Papa Westray, nest with six eggs, June.

(Montagu, 1813; Yarrell, 1845; Baikie & Heddle, 1848).

[Not in Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984].

History Montagu (1813) under 'Appendix' says: 'We are assured by Mr. Bullock that he found this bird breeding in Papa Westra, one of the Orkney Islands, in the latter end of June. It lays six yellowish white eggs, rather less than those of the Eider Duck, and, like that bird, covers the eggs with its own down. The nest was on a rock impending the sea.'

Yarrell (1845 (3): 308-309, 2nd ed.) says: 'Mr. Bullock assured Colonel Montagu that he found this bird breeding in Papa Westray, Orkney, in the latter end of June. It had six eggs, rather less than those of the Eider Duck, and, like that bird, covered them with down. The nest was on a rock impending the sea.'

Comment Not fully authenticated. Not acceped locally (Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds 1984).

0). 1813 Norfolk Breydon Water, female, shot, 25th July.

(Paget & Paget, 1834; Yarrell, 1845; J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1378; T. Southwell, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 5: 58-59; Lubbock, 1879; T. Southwell, Zoologist 1889: 383-385).

[Yarrell, 1871-85; A. H. Patterson, Zoologist 1900: 532; Patterson, 1905; Ticehurst, 1932].

History Paget & Paget (1834: 11) say: 'A female shot on Breydon, July 25, 1813 - Mr. Wigg.'

J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1378, say: 'The capture of a female on Breydon, in July, 1813, is recorded by the Messrs. Paget, on the authority of Mr. Wigg.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 463, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'The authenticity of a King Eider mentioned by Messrs. Paget on the authority of Mr. Lily Wigg, as having been killed at Breydon in Norfolk, in July 1813, is more than doubtful.'

Babington (1884-86) says: 'Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., thinks this is doubtful (in litt.).'

Thomas Southwell (1889) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. V. pp. 58-59, and The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIII. pp. 383-385, says: 'For many years this species had been included in the Norfolk lists, on the authority of Mr. Lilly Wigg, who stated that a female King Duck was killed on Breydon Broad on the 25th July, 1813. The occurrence is mentioned in a MS. book in the possession of Sir J. D. Hooker, entitled 'Memoranda touching the Natural History of Yarmouth and its environs', by Sir William Jackson Hooker, Thomas Penrice, Esq., Mr. Lilly Wigg, Rev. Joseph Burrell, Rev. R. B. Francis, and Dawson Turner, Esq., extending from 1807 to 1840.

The entry is as follows: "King Duck. A female shot on Breydon, July 25th, 1813', and is initialled 'D.T.'

Hunt, who was a Norfolk man, and generally referred to any rarity in his native county which came under his notice, does not mention this occurrence in his British Ornithology (title page dated 1815), nor does he include the species in his list of Norfolk birds contributed to Stacey's History of Norfolk (1829).

Messrs. Sheppard and Whitear do not mention it in their Catalogue of Norfolk and Suffolk Birds, printed in the Transactions of the Linnean Society, and read in 1824 and 1825.

The first published notice of the occurrence with which I am acquainted occurs in the Sketch of the Natural History and its Neighbourhood, by the brothers Paget, published in 1834; and here, strange to say, although the King Eider is mentioned in precisely the words above quoted from the Hooker MS. no mention is made of the Common Eider, which must have been known to the authors of the Sketch as an occasional winter visitant.

From that time the King Duck appeared unquestioned in all the lists of Norfolk birds up to, and including Mr. Stevenson's Sketch of the Ornithology of Norfolk in White's Directory of the county, published in 1864.

In 1879 I edited a new edition of Lubbock's Fauna of Norfolk, and after due consultation with Mr. Stevenson and other authorities on Norfolk birds, I thought it best, although reluctantly, to append a note (foot-note 149, pp. 161-2), calling attention to the extremely unsatisfactory claim of this species to a place in the Norfolk avi-fauna.

In addition to the very improbable date (July 25th) of the alleged occurrence, Mr. Stevenson very rightly remarks, "In the days before Yarrell, I question if Wigg, or any one at Yarmouth, would have recognised the female of the King Eider as distinct from the more common species", and with regard to another of Mr. Wigg's rarities, he also calls attention to the fact that "Lilly Wigg was not a 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, the Harlequin Duck, and the King Eider".

Mr. Stevenson has retained the Red-breasted Goose for reasons which will be found in the Birds of Norfolk (Vol. III. pp. 39-41), but I had no hesitation in following the authority of his last list in White's Norfolk (edit. 1883), from which both the latter birds are omitted; Somateria spectabilis will therefore only be found mentioned in a foot-note at p. 192 of the forthcoming third volume of the Birds of Norfolk.'

A. H. Patterson of Great Yarmouth (1900) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IV. p. 532, says: 'It is thought that the authority is not sufficient to justify its being included in the county list.'

Comment Mr. Wigg is probably unreliable. Not known to have been seen by a competent ornithologist. Not acceptable.

0). 1827 Suffolk Aldeburgh, female, shot, undated.

(E. Acton, Loudon's Magazine of Natural History 4: 163; Jenyns, 1835).

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

History Edward Acton of Grundisburgh (1831) in Loudon's Magazine of Natural History, Vol. IV. p. 163, dated 29th November, 1830, says: 'King Duck (female), now in my collection.'

Jenyns (1835: 239) says: 'Very rare on the English coast, but has been killed at Aldborough [sic] in Suffolk.'

Yarrell (1845 (3): 309, 2nd ed.) says: 'The Rev. Leonard Jenyns mentions that it had been killed at Aldborough, on the coast of Suffolk.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 463, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: '...is more than doubtful; and the same may be said of a bird said to have been killed at Aldeburgh, Suffolk, in 1827.'

Babington (1884-86: 245) says: 'This species has hardly any claims to be called a native of Suffolk.' Further, in a footnote of unacceptable records, he adds: 'A female bird shot at Aldeburgh in 1827 said to have been in Mr. Acton's Collection.'

Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent ornithologist. Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1836 Northumberland Holy Island, female, shot, October.

(Evans, 1911).

[Evans, 1911].

History Evans (1911: 169) says: 'We need hardly take into serious consideration 'a female Eider, possibly a King Duck', shot at Holy Island in October 1836, and described in a letter from Charles Wilson to Sir William Jardine, as the last-named does not mention it in his subsequently published Birds of Great Britain and Ireland.

Comment Not specifically identified. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1846 Suffolk Lowestoft, male, shot, undated.

(J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1378).

[Ticehurst, 1932].

History J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1378, says '...and we have seen a male bird which is said to have been killed near Lowestoft, though we do not place much reliance on the authority for this latter example.'

Comment Gurney's phrase of "said to have been" does not inspire confidence. Not acceptable.

0). 1846 Shetland Near Holm of Hoy, Weisdale Voe, Mainland, pair, male shot, 20th April.

(R. Dunn, Zoologist 1848: 2188; Yarrell, 1871-85; Saxby, 1874; Eds., Annals of Scottish Natural History 1899: 111; Evans & Buckley, 1899; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

[Forrester & Andrews et al., 2007].

History R. Dunn of Helister, near Weisdale, Shetland (1848) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VI. p. 2188, dated 15th May, 1848, says: '1846, Apr 20. Shot a King drake out of a pair, at the mouth of Weesdale Voo [sic].'

Saxby (1874: 252) says: 'The occurrence of this species in Orkney has doubtless led to the conclusion that it is also an occasional visitor to Shetland, and accordingly erroneous statements to the effect have been frequently repeated. Although constantly upon the watch for many years, I have never obtained a glimpse of it, nor can I meet with any person who has shot it, or even see it.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'The late Robert Dunn, writing from Helister, Weesdale Voe, Shetland...'

In an Editorial (1899) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. VIII. p. 111, quoting from the Shetland Times, they say: 'Also in The Zoologist for 1848, p. 2188, one is recorded by Mr. Dunn as occurring in Wensdale Voe, near Hoy, Shetland, on 20th May, 1846, but this statement is scarcely sufficient.

There is the well-known island called Hoy, in Orkney, and possibly a voe near it bears the above name, but though there is a Weisdale Voe in Shetland, there is neither a Wensdale Voe nor is there a Hoy.

I am very doubtful, therefore, whether the King Duck has any right to a place in this work, but I allow it to remain for the present, being unwilling to remove it from the list simply upon my own responsibility, observing Shetland so often referred to by our best ornithologists as a locality.

There can be no doubt that Dr. Saxby has been in error over this paragraph, as there is an island named Hoy situated in Weisdale Voe, as any one may see by consulting an Ordnance Survey map. The misspelling of Weisdale Voe probably led to this doubt on Dr. Saxby's part, but the most material reason that weighed with him was doubtless the extreme rareness of the bird in Shetland.'

Accepted locally (Evans & Buckley 1899; Pennington et al. 2004). However, it was not accepted nationally for Scotland (Forrester & Andrews et al. 2007) who say: 'The first for Scotland was in 1832 in Orkney with the second in 1847 in Lothian.'

0). Pre 1847 Kent Erith Reaches, adult male, obtained, undated, now at Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

(O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1886: 335; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).

[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].

History Oliver V. Aplin of Great Bourton, Oxfordshire (1886) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. X. p. 335, says: 'In the University Museum at Oxford there are examples of two rare British Birds, of which I can find no mention in the Handbook of British Birds or the last edition of Yarrell's British Birds; it may therefore be worth while to place them on record in the pages of The Zoologist.

An adult male King Eider is labelled "Erith Reach, Kent. Presented by Lord Saye and Sele"....This bird also came from the Ashmolean Museum....To the keeper of the Museum I am indebted for these particulars, which have been kindly communicated by Mr. G. A. Rowell.'

Ticehurst (1909: 370) says: 'The inclusion of this species in the Kentish list is based solely on an adult male which Mr. O. V. Aplin "discovered" in 1886 in the Oxford University Museum (Zool., 1886, p. 335). This bird formed part of a collection of British birds bequeathed by the late Lord Saye and Sele to the Ashmolean Museum in 1847, and was labelled in that collection, 'Shot in Erith Reaches, Kent.'

Comment Not accepted in the latest county avifauna for Kent (Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984).

0). Pre 1849 Highland Kyle of Tongue, Sutherland, seen, undated.

(C. St John, 1849; Harting, 1872).

[KAN].

History St John (1849 (1): 140) says: 'The Eider Duck breeds on some islands at the entrance of the Kyle of Tongue. The King Duck is seen in the same district, but only rarely.'

Harting (1872) says: 'One or more, Kyle of Tongue, Sutherland: St John, Tour in Sutherland, Vol. I. p. 144.'

Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. No identification details for this sight record. Not acceptable.

0). 1854 Suffolk Lowestoft, female, shot, 7th January.

(J. O. Harper, Morris and Bree's Naturalist 4: 165; Harting, 1872).

[Yarrell, 1871-85; Ticehurst, 1932; Seago, 1977].

History J. O. Harper of Norwich (1854) in Morris and Bree's edition of The Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 165, dated April, 1854, says: 'I received, of the 7th of January, of the present year, a female specimen of this bird which had been procured from the beach of Lowestoft.

It was prepared by me as a natural skeleton for J. E. Warwick, Naturalist, 23, New Street, Kennington Road, London.'

Harting (1872) expressed doubts that this record probably referred to a Common Eider Somateria mollissima.

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 463), 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: '...is more than doubtful; and another at Lowestoft in 1854.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1869 Shetland Out Skerries, adult male, shot, August, now in the Wick Museum.

(D. Pennie & J. M. Gunn, Scottish Naturalist 63: 196-197; Venables & Venables, 1955; Pennington et al., 2004).

[A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 65-66].

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 for the following specimens in his collection, and there is no reason to doubt that they are all genuine Scottish-taken birds. King Eider Somateria spectabilis. Adult male, shot on Whalsay Skerries, Shetland, in August 1869.'

Accepted locally (Pennington et al. 2004). However, A. G. Knox (2001) in British Birds, Vol. XCIV. pp. 65-66, on a review of the Bufflehead in Britain, came across a Bufflehead Bucephala albeola record, also mentioned by Pennie & Gunn in the Mackay collection at Wick Museum, and said 'on the evidence available, the Mackay ducks would seem to be suspect: not acceptable.'

0). Pre 1870 Wiltshire No locality, male, killed, undated.

(A. C. Smith, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 12: 162).

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

History A. C. Smith (1870) in the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, Vol. XII. p. 162, says: 'This is another species of Eider Duck, more rare in England than the last, but frequenting the same or even still more northern latitudes than its better known congener. It is also a very handsome bird, and the well-contrasted colours of its plumage attract notice. The only information I have of its occurrence in this county, is a short note by my friend the late Mr. Marsh, who wrote "the King Duck in my Collection was killed in Wilts.", but I have no farther particulars of date or place of capture.'

Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Inland records extremely rare. Not acceptable.

0). 1870 County unknown No locality, female, shot, November.

(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1871: 2443; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1876: 4803; Yarrell, 1871-85).

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

History J. H. Gurney, jun. (1871) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. VI. p. 2443, undated, says: 'On the 17th of November Mr. Gatcombe purchased a female King Duck in Leadenhall Market. It appeared to have been dead not more than four days; there is therefore every probability that it had been killed in British seas.

The female King Duck is a far smaller and redder bird than the female Eider. It may be distinguished by the ridge of skin on the top of the beak going further than that on the side, the reverse being the case in the Eider. Degland states that the feet in the (female) King Duck are yellow, which, if true, would be another distinction, but in my specimen they are dark olive. Mr. Gatcombe also informs me that, according to MacGillivray, the Eider duck has sixteen tail-feathers, and the King Duck fourteen, but none of the Eiders in my collection have so many as sixteen.'

J. H. Gurney, jun. (1876) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. XI. p. 4803, adds: 'In writing to you that the female King Duck was a redder bird than the female Eider (s.s. 2443), I omitted to add that my specimen was an unusually brown one.

There is not, however, the least doubt that Mr. Gatcombe and I correctly named it: and it was so very fresh - for a market bird unusually so - that we were closely of opinion it could only have been shot in one or other of "the four seas which girt Great Britain".

I noted down the following measurements &c., before it was skinned. Length twenty one inches and a half; expanse thirty seven inches; webs of feet black; axillaries eight; rectrices fourteen. Let me here add that I learn from Mr. Gatcombe that a King Duck was killed at Plymouth some years ago, and seen in the flesh by him at a birdstuffer's named Mutton.'

Admitted by Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 463-464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds.

Comment The individual from Leadenhall Market is of uncertain origin and is therefore unacceptable. Mr. Gatcombe did not see fit to publish the finding of this at the time and therefore this record is also unacceptable.

0). 1870s Orkney Holm of Papa Westray, possibly bred, undated.

(Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891).

[Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891].

History Buckley & Harvie-Brown (1891: 181-182) says: 'Referring to Mr. Bullock's statement just mentioned, Mr. Menteith-Ogilvie writes us as follows: "I am not quite so sure...that the King Duck has not bred in Papa Westray". "I was assured by one, Andrew Burgas, some time the shepherd to Mr. Traill of Holland, on asking him what birds came here, that there was another kind of "Dunter" (Eider) came here (which he described and also recognised by Yarrell's picture as the King Eider), and that he had on two occasions found the nest on the holm within recent years. This he told me without any prompting on my part, but of course the statement, as it stands, is of no value. I will make full notes of this before I go, and send them on that you may see if you think the evidence is worth anything (in litt., 8/12/89).

We give the substance of these notes as follows: "Andrew Burgas, the before-mentioned shepherd, says that a pair of "Dunters", the female of which was smaller than the Common Eider, and the male of which "had a red knob on his neb", and was also smaller, bred for two consecutive years (somewhere in the seventies) on the holm; one year the nest was taken and the eggs eaten, the second year it was not interfered with. Since then he has not found the nest. Mr. Menteith-Ogilvie, having a copy of Yarrell with him, showed Burgas the picture of the Common Eider, covering the title, he said, "Oh, no, that's the common dunter".

He next tried him with Steller's Eider, but Burgas said he "never saw one like that". Lastly he showed him the King Eider, turning over the leaves rather quickly, but Burgas stopped him at once and said, "that's the very bird". As Mr. Monteith-Ogilvie very wisely remarks, all this may have been got up from some one else who had been inquiring about the King Eider, but we have thought it best to place this imperfect information on record for future and further observation.'

Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.

0). 1875 Essex River Blackwater, Maldon, female, shot, 28th October.

(R. Poole, Field 6th Nov., 1875: 504; R. Poole, Zoologist 1875: 4766; R. Poole, Field 20th Nov., 1875: 561).

[R. Poole, Field 11th Dec., 1875: 561].

History Richard Poole (1875) in The Field, of 6th November, Vol. XLVI. p. 504 and in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. X. p. 4766, quoting from The Field, of 6th November, 1875, says: 'A fine specimen of the female King Duck was shot on the River Blackwater, at Maldon, on the 28th of October, and is now in the hands of a naturalist for preservation.'

[We shall be glad if our correspondent will inform us how he distinguishes the female King Duck from the female Eider Duck, with which it may easily be confounded. - Ed.]

Richard Poole of Maldon (1875) in The Field, of 20th November, Vol. XLVI. p. 561, says: 'In response to your editorial request I beg to forward the following further particulars of the bird in question: Length, 24 in; plumage, two shades of brown, the centre of feathers dark and fringed with lighter brown; head, neck, and tail lighter brown than either shade of body feather; wings (larger flights) nearly black; beak greenish brown. Upon closer inspection of the bird before me I notice on each side of the body (close to the wings) three or four nearly black feathers, apparently not fully grown, and wing coverts a single white feather may be detected under the brown ones; a similar white feather may also be seen on breast.

This would lead to the supposition that the bird is a young one, yet the person who preserved it tells me there were no signs of moulting detected on the undeveloped feathers. I did not myself see the bird until it was set up. The difference between the female of this species and the female Eider Duck, to which it bears so close a resemblance, I find on Yarrell's authority to be this: In the plumage of the female King Duck the feathers are composed of two shades of brown, the darker shade occupying the centre of the feather, and the light the outer edge, while the same feathers in the female Eider are pale brown fringed with red.'

[A readier mark of distinction is the relative position of the ridge of feathers which runs down the centre and each side of the bill. In the Eider the centre ridge is shorter than the lateral ridges; in the King Duck the reverse is the case. But, although the bird in question is stated to be a female (see also The Field Nov. 6), Mr. Poole's allusion to a few black feathers on the flanks and a single white feather on the wing coverts induces us to think that it is more likely to be a young male, and probably a young male Eider.

We hear that it is in the hands of Mr. Robert Blanks, of Maldon, Naturalist, and is for sale. We would suggest his submitting it for inspection to Dr. Bree, of Colchester, who would, no doubt, settle the question of the species. - Ed.]

Richard Poole (1875) in The Field of 11th December, Vol. XLVI. p. 649, says: 'In order to set all doubt at rest as to the identity of the bird in question, I forward it to my friend Mr. John Miles, of Southgate, and he submitted it to Mr. Gould, who at once declared it to be an Eider, the female, or possibly a young male. This, you will see, verifies the editorial opinion which you have already expressed concerning the bird.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 464, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'A record in The Field of the 6th November, 1875, of a supposed female of this species having recently been procured at Malden in Essex, was subsequently admitted to be a mistake; but weeks after the correction the then Editor of The Zoologist unfortunately gave currency to the error by quoting the first statement without its recantation (Zool., s.s. p. 4766).'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1876 Devon Plymouth, killed, undated.

(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1876: 4803).

[Yarrell, 1876-82; D'Urban & Mathew, 1892].

History J. H. Gurney, jun. (1876) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. XI. p. 4803, says: 'Let me here add that I learn from Mr. Gatcombe that a King Duck was killed at Plymouth some years ago, and seen in the flesh by him at a birdstuffers named Mutton.'

D'Urban & Mathew (1892: 241) placing the record in square brackets, say: 'One, said to have been killed near Plymouth, was seen by Mr. Gatcombe in the flesh at a bird-stuffer's named Mutton (J.H.G., Zool., 1876, p. 4803).

Mr. Howard Saunders says that Mr. Gatcombe states that some years ago he saw an immature bird in Plymouth Market (Yarrell's B. Birds, 4th ed. IV. p. 464).

Possibly these two records relate to the same bird, which might have been brought from Newfoundland or Labrador in a frozen condition in one of the numerous vessels bringing salt-fish to our ports.

One year, to our knowledge, several fine adult males were brought to Exeter in the flesh in that manner, were purchased by Messrs. Ross, W. Tombs, and Dr. W. R. Scott, and were preserved in their collections, now in the A. M. M.'

Comment Not accepted locally (D'Urban & Mathew 1892).

0). 1878 Derbyshire River Derwent, female, shot, November.

(J. Whitaker, Zoologist 1879: 131; Whitlock, 1893).

[Frost, 1978; Frost & Shaw, 2013].

History J. Whitaker of Mansfield (1879) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. III. p. 131, undated, says: 'A female King Duck was shot in November, 1877, on the Derwent, by Mr. J. H. Towle, of Draycott Hall. Mr. Harting, in his Handbook of British Birds, only mentions its occurrence on fifteen previous occasions.'

Whitlock (1893: 176) says: 'Mr. J. H. Towle tells me that he has carefully examined the bird, and he has no doubt in his own mind that it is correctly identified. The precise date on which the bird was killed is unknown.

The Hon. A. N. Curzon writes that it was in 1878.'

Frost & Shaw (2013) erroneously state the year of occurrence as 1887!

Comment Probably misidentified as the species is unknown inland. Not acceptable.

0). 1879 Outer Hebrides St Kilda, seen, June.

(Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1888).

[Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1888].

History Harvie-Brown & Buckley (1888: 108-109) recording the record in square brackets, say: 'We have no positive records of this species. There seems to be a possibility of its having occurred on St. Kilda.

One day in June 1879, Mr. Boyd, late of Greenock (a good field ornithologist and experienced sportsman on the west coast), and Captain McEwan of the SS Dunara Castle very accurately described to Harvie-Brown a male of this species seen by them at close quarters, that same day, when rowing round the shore of the Dune. But before absolute record can be registered more observation will be required.'

0). 1884 Outer Hebrides St Kilda, four: two pairs, seen, June.

(C. Dixon, Ibis 1885: 88; Clarke, 1912).

[Yarrell, 1871-85; Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1888; Harris & Murray, 1989].

History Charles Dixon (1885) in The Ibis, Vol. XXVII. p. 88, under 'The Ornithology of St Kilda', says: 'Ornithologists will read with pleasure that the King Eider frequents St. Kilda. I first became aware of this interesting fact when trying to stalk the Common Eiders in the bay. For two hours I lay concealed behind a huge boulder, watching the little party of Ducks that were swimming just outside the breakers.

Two of the pairs were King Eiders. In spite of all my efforts, both on this and subsequent occasions, I failed to secure an example. They were not more than seventy yards away from me several times, so that I had every opportunity of observing them; and on more than one occasion I carefully scanned them through a powerful glass. They mingled freely with the Common Eiders and did not differ in any perceptible degree in their habits. It was a pretty sight to watch these rare and charming birds sporting in the heaving waves, the males and females swimming side by side. As the mighty rollers broke upon the shore the birds dived through the bright green wave just before it turned over. They were busy feeding on the small animals which were disturbed by the breaking waves. They floated light as corks on the heaving sea, now high up exposed to view, then deep down in the trough of the waves. As soon as they caught a glimpse of me they quickly swam further from shore. Every day they might be observed in one particular part of the bay; and I have not the slightest doubt that they were nesting on the precipitous island of Doon. Of course the natives did not distinguish them from the Common Eider; and they take but little interest in them, for they tell me the male Eider is the only bird of St. Kilda that they are unable to snare.'

Howard Saunders (1884-85) in Yarrell's British Birds, 4th edition, Vol. IV. p. 465, says: 'Mr. C. Dixon states that he observed two pairs in June 1884, off St. Kilda, and that he had "not the slightest doubt that they were nesting on the precipitous island of Doon"; however, the fact of the males and females being seen swimming side by side, as he also states, seems rather to militate against his assumption, for the males generally separate from the females as soon as the latter begin to lay.'

Not accepted locally (Harvie-Brown & Buckley 1888: 109).

Clarke (1912 (2): 227, 249) says: 'Charles Dixon writing in The Ibis 1885: 69-97 and 358-362, under 'The Ornithology of St Kilda' after spending nearly a fortnight there in June 1884, says: 'Two pairs of King Eider were seen daily by himself in the bay, along with Common Eiders Somateria mollissima; he had not the slightest doubt that they were breeding on the island of Dun.'

Harris & Murray (1989) placed the record in square brackets, saying: 'Dixon recorded two pairs in June 1884 but they may have been immature eiders as he thought they were breeding in Dun.'

Comment Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1904 Orkney Off Graemsay, shot, 14th December.

(W. J. Clarke, Zoologist 1905: 74, F. Stubbs, Zoologist 1905: 142-143; H. W. Robinson, Field 18th Feb., 1905; Knowledge 1905; Nature 1905; H. W. Robinson, Zoologist 1905: 143).

[C. Oldham, Zoologist 1905: 185].

History W. J. Clarke (1905) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IX. p. 74, says: 'Pacific Eider (Somateria v-nigrum). - A fine adult male specimen in full plumage was shot in the Orkneys on Dec. 14th, and was sent to me in the flesh. This is, I believe, the first British record for this species. The specimen is now in the Oldham Museum.'

Fred Stubbs (1905) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IX. pp. 142-143, says: 'The bird recorded by Mr. W. J. Clarke in The Zoologist (ante, p. 74) differs in several features from the descriptions of the species given by Gray (Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond. pt. xxiii. p. 211, 1855), and Salvadori (Cat. Birds, Brit. Mus., Vol. XXVII. p. 431).

On Dec. 17th (three days after death) the bare spaces at the base of the bill were dull ochreous yellow, and the tip clear horn- colour. The tarsi and toes were olive-green, the webs blackish, and the irides dark brown. On comparing the bird with the Common Eider, and the type-specimen of Dresser's Eider in the Owens College Museum, Manchester, several differences not given by Salvadori or Gray were noticed. In the Pacific Eider the bare spaces of the bill and the feathered wedge on the culmen are far more acute than in the common species; and, as the latter feature is said to be apparent even in the young in down, it may possibly serve as a means of separating the females of the two species.

In the Orkney bird the green colour of the occiput does not extend towards the eyes as a border to the black cap, in this point resembling the Common Eider, and differing from Dresser's Eider and the plate of the Pacific Eider which accompanies Gray's original description of the species.

The specimen was exhibited at a meeting of the British Ornithologists' Club on Jan. 18th (vide Bulletin of the B.O.C., CXII. p. 32).'

H. W. Robinson (1905) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IX. p. 143, says: 'In the February number of Knowledge I see the Pacific Eider (Somateria v-nigrum) mentioned as having been shot at Scarborough, Yorkshire, on Dec. 16th, 1904, the same mistake occurring in Nature.

In The Field of Feb. 18th I gave the full history of the specimen, which was not shot in England at all, but in Orkney. It is as follows: - It was shot by George Sutherland, my assistant boatman, on Dec. 14th, off the island of Graemsay, near Stromness, before my arrival in the islands. He sent it with some other Eiders to a taxidermist in Scarborough, who wrote to young Sutherland, and told him that he could not pay him the usual price for it as it was such a poor specimen, and could therefore give him only half a crown for it! The buyer sold it to the Oldham Natural History Society as a Common Eider, and the secretary of this Society sent it up to South Kensington, where it was identified as a Pacific Eider.

In January and February, 1904, I was also wildfowling in Orkney, and Sutherland senior, uncle of the above youth, described a bird which he had shot some years ago, which I took to be an American Eider, and this year he told me that this particular bird was identical in all respects with the one shot by his nephew; so the species has occurred before in Great Britain, and the new specimen is not the first occurrence in Europe.

On Feb. 22nd we saw, in the Bay of Ireland, near Stromness, a very peculiar female Eider, a single bird, which we hit three times, but failed to bag. She was much smaller than the Common Eider, and was very light coloured, the head appearing to be almost white. I had my glass on her for nearly half a hour before we came up to her. as the wind had dropped completely, and could not make her out at all; neither could either of my boatmen, the Sutherlands, who are professional fowlers, and have shot hundreds of Eiders. What was she? Is it possible that she was the widow of the late lamented Pacific Eider drake?'

C. Oldham (1905) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IX. p. 185, says: 'As the bird is not in existence, or at any rate cannot be produced, Mr. Robinson is hardly justified in stating (ante, p. 143) that the Eider which was shot some years ago by S. Sutherland establishes the occurrence of the Pacific Eider in British waters.

Some of the species of Somateria resemble one another very closely, and nothing less than a detailed description of the specific characters can be deemed satisfactory evidence of the occurrence of one of these critical species. Sutherland's recollection of the bird is obviously vague, for in a letter referring to the Graemsay example he says: "It had a very fine shaped V under the throat, a mark very seldom seen. I have seen it before, but very rare".

Even if it be granted that he shot an Eider with a black chevron on the chin, the possibility remains that it was a King Eider (S. spectabilis), a species of which at least four examples have been recorded from Orkney, or a Dresser's Eider (S. dresseri), a species which sometimes has a dusky chevron on the chin, and in other respects very closely resembles S. v-nigrum. Dresser's Eider is, judging from its geographical range, more likely to occur in British waters than is the Pacific species; it has, as a matter of fact, been obtained in Holland (cf. Saunders, Manual of British Birds, 2nd edit. p. 460).

Whatever the bird may have been which Mr. Robinson and his boatmen saw near Stromness in February last, it certainly was not a female Pacific Eider, for he describes it as smaller than a Common Eider, with a head which appeared to be almost white.

The average measurements of S. v-nigrum exceed those of S. mollissima, but the females of the two species and of S. dresseri are practically alike in coloration, and can only be distinguished with certainty by the differences in the shape of the bare spaces at the base, and the feathered wedge in the centre of the upper mandible.'

Comment Misidentified. Pacific Eider.

0). 1915 Kent Dungeness, immature male, washed ashore, 10th November.

(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 9: 252-253; W. Ruskin Butterfield, Hastings & East Sussex Naturalist 2: 200; Witherby, 1920-24; Witherby et al., 1940-52).

[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].

History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1916) in British Birds, Vol. IX. pp. 252-253, says: 'An immature male King-Eider (Somateria spectabilis) was washed ashore at Dungeness, East Bay, Kent, on November 10th, 1915. I saw it soon after it had been picked up, and it was then covered with crude petroleum, which at this time again made its appearance on this part of the coast. There were hundreds of Common Scoter, Guillemots, and other birds in various stages of incapacity owing to the oil. Some were dead, many had apparently little oil on them, but made no attempt to fly, while others were lying on the beach unable to get up at all.

One curious thing about the severe cases has not been previously mentioned in the various accounts I have seen, viz., the effect of the oil upon the skin and feet of the birds. Upon removing the skin the oil seems to have penetrated to the flesh beneath, which is very moist, and decidedly oily. Regarding the feet, these are not affected whilst the birds remain at sea, as the oil is in a very thin layer on the surface, and the feet keep below this, but when the birds get into very shallow water in wading ashore, and also on the beach, which was covered in some places to the depth of half an inch, the feet become completely coated. The result is they soon begin to swell, and this goes on to such an extent that they crack and burst. Some that I examined were of an enormous size. Why these birds come ashore in such vast numbers in calm weather is no doubt due to the irritating effects of the oil, and the motive is to get ashore and on to the marshes with the idea of finding fresh water.

I should like to thank Mr. Austin (the authorised watcher) of Lydd, on behalf of all interested in birds, for the trouble he has taken in putting some hundreds of these suffering birds out of their misery, and also making it clear to the fisher-folk all around that it was their duty to save the birds from a death by slow starvation.

The King Eider was quite dead when found, and I should imagine that it had died at sea, as the whole of the body, including the head, was covered with oil, showing that it had been pitching about on the surface of the sea. After a considerable amount of cleaning the oil was removed, and the yellowish-brown breast was disclosed, which was spotted and barred with black. The anterior point of the feathering on the fore-head, which reached to the nostrils, removed all doubt as to the identity.'

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1955 Kent Off Shellness, Sheppey, first-winter male, 27th December.

(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1955: 10; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).

[N. Hudson and the Rarities Committee, British Birds 101: 523].

History E. H. Gillham (1955) in the Kent Bird Report, Vol. IV. p. 10, says: 'A first winter male close inshore at Shellness, Sheppey, on Dec. 27 (J.J.G., K.H.P.) The full details of this record will be published shortly in British Birds.'

Comment Found not proven by N. Hudson and the Rarities Committee (British Birds 101: 523).

AC Non-pass

Keith Naylor

King Eider

Somateria spectabilis (Linnaeus, 1758) (54, 3)

Steller’s Eider

Harlequin Duck