Pine Grosbeak
Pinicola enucleator (Linnaeus, 1758) (4, 2)
Photo © Wikimedia Commons
STATUS
Holarctic. Polytypic.
OVERVIEW
Gurney (Zool., 1877, 3rd ser., pp. 242-250) carried out a review of 25 known records of the species with many of the earlier records misidentified; he ended up with four that were worthy, but two of those are not in the acceptances below.
During 1890 another review was published by the same author (Zool., 1890, 3rd ser., pp. 125-129, this time of 36 individuals.
The accepted records are the same as stated by the BOU (1971), except that there is now only one acceptable individual in Nottinghamshire in 1890, the other being refuted in an article in Birding World.
All other records are found not proven (BOU 1971) who listed Durham (prior to 1831, Middlesex (prior to 1843), Yorkshire (c. 1861), Nottingham (two, October 1890), Isle of May (Nov., 1954), Kent (April 1955, November 1957. However, since then there is only one accepted individual for both Nottingham and Kent, the April 1955 for the latter county being found not proven.
RECORDS
1) Pre 1831 Co. Durham Bill Quay, Pelaw, female, shot, undated.
(P. J. Selby, Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumberland and Durham 1831: 265; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 244-245, 249; BOU, 1883; Seebohm, 1883-85; J. H. Gurney, Zoologist 1890: 125; Temperley, 1951; Bowey & Newsome, 2012: photo).
History P. J. Selby (1831) in the Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumberland and Durham, Vol. I. p. 265, says: 'A specimen of this rare British species, now in the possession of Mr. Anthony Clapham, was shot at Bill Quay, near Newcastle.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. pp. 244-245, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 5. In Selby's Catalogue of the Birds of Northumberland and Durham (Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb., 1831, p. 265) that author writes: - "Strobilophaga enucleator. Pine Grosbeak. A specimen of this rare British species, now in the possession of Mr. Anthony Clapham, was shot at Bill Quay, near Newcastle".
This bird passed from Mr. Clapham to the late Mr. W. Backhouse, and is now in the possession of his son. It was lent to me some years ago, and I had a photograph taken of it, which is now before me. It was a female bird, of a greenish yellow colour and in moult. The only objection which has been raised to its authenticity is the odd place where it was said to have been killed - viz., Bill Quay, near Newcastle.
I do not know the locality myself, but we are accustomed to think of a "Quay" as a place where foreign birds are sold in cages. It is just possible that this Pine Grosbeak may have been a caged importation, in which case it might very well have been got there, though not shot there. I have a note that, according to another account, it was obtained at Coble Dene, near Shields, but I have unfortunately mislaid the reference, and I have quite forgotten now what my authority for that change in locality was.'
Further, pp. 249-250, he adds: 'We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me that these are the most worthy of credit: - 5. Mr. Backhouse's bird, obtained at Bill Quay, Newcastle....As regards Mr. Bond's specimen, the only argument which can be used against it is the possibility of its being an escaped importation; and the same may be said of Mr. Backhouse's specimen.'
Admitted nationally in their first List of British Birds (BOU 1883) and (Seebohm 1884 (2): 41).
Temperley (1951) says: 'This species finds a place here on the strength of a single record in Selby's Catalogue. He states that "a specimen of this rare British species, now in the possession of Mr. Anthony Clapham, was shot at Bill Quay, near Newcastle". Bill Quay is near Pelaw on the Durham bank of the Tyne.
In a paper 'On the Claim of the Pine Grosbeak to be regarded as a British Bird' (Zoologist, 3rd Series, Vol. I. p. 242), J. H. Gurney reviewed all the British records of this species up to 1877, twenty-five in number. After "weeding out" the doubtful records, the probable cases of mistaken identity and the probable cases of mistaken locality, he was left with four records which he considered to be the most worthy of credit. Selby's Bill Quay record was one of them. Of this he wrote: "This bird passed from Mr. Clapham to the late Mr. W. Backhouse and is now in the possession of his son. It was lent to me some years ago and I had a photograph taken of it, which is now before me. It was a female bird of a greenish yellow colour and in moult.
The only objection which has been raised to its authenticity is the odd place where it was said to have been killed - viz., Bill Quay, near Newcastle. I do not know the locality myself, but we are accustomed to think of a "quay" as a place where foreign birds are sold in cages. It is just possible that this Pine Grosbeak may have been a caged importation, in which case it might well have been got there, though not shot there.' To this the Editor of The Zoologist, J. E. Harting, added a footnote: 'Mr. Selby in the Catalogue referred to says that the bird "was shot".'
In The Zoologist for 1890 (p. 125), J. H. Gurney again wrote of the claims of the Pine Grosbeak to be regarded as a British bird. Referring to a still larger number of records, he selected four, including the Bill Quay record, as "probably the most authentic specimens".
Now if J. H. Gurney had been at Bill Quay previous to 1831 (the date of Selby's Catalogue) he would certainly not have found it "a place where foreign birds are sold in cages". Bill Quay is now the name of a small cluster of houses close to Pelaw on the Durham side of the Tyne, some three miles below the Tyne bridges.
A century ago there was a small chemical works there, long since abandoned, and the "quay" was nothing more than the mooring place for "keels" and other shallow-water craft plying on the then undredged river. A straightening of the river at this point later removed the quay and even now the river on this shore is too shallow to permit sea-going vessels to be moored there.
As Gurney questioned this and all other records made before his time, ornithologists do not accept them, though the Pine Grosbeak has been reinstated as a British bird on the strength of more recent records. The Handbook states: "A good many recorded, but most are not authenticated. Most recent records are"...and quotes the four latest, from 1890 onwards.
The Pine Grosbeak is a native of Scandinavia, like the Crossbill, and there seems no reason why it should not occasionally cross the North Sea in the same way. As it has done so since 1890 it is probable that it did so before. We therefore see no reason why this record should not stand.'
2). Pre 1843 Greater London Harrow-on-the-Hill, Middlesex, first-winter female, shot, undated.
(Yarrell, 1845; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 246-247, 249; BOU, 1883; Seebohm, 1883-85; J. E. Harting, Zoologist 1889: 414; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 126; Glegg, 1935; Self, 2014).
History Yarrell (1845 (1): 582, 2nd ed.) says: 'A female in my own collection was shot some years ago at Harrow-on-the Hill.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 177, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'The earliest of these is possibly that of a female, shot at Harrow-on-the-Hill, and mentioned in former editions of this work as being in the Author's collection, whence it passed to that of Mr. Bond.'
Further, p. 185, Newton adds: 'The female killed at Harrow has the bill orange-brown; the irides hazel; the head, ear-coverts and nape honey-yellow; back and scapulars slate-grey; rump and upper tail-coverts honey-yellow; both sets of wing-coverts, and all the wing-quills greyish-black, edged and tipped with white, without any red tinge; tail above, uniform greyish black; all the lower surface uniform ash-grey; legs, toes and claws, dark brown. This bird was considered to have been in the plumage assumed after the first autumnal moult.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. pp. 246-247, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 12. Next we come to the late Mr. Yarrell's specimen, which is now the property of Mr. Frederick Bond, in whose collection I dare say many of the readers of The Zoologist have seen it. Although the evidence about it is very incomplete, it is the best authenticated specimen I know of.
Yarrell (British Birds, II. p. 9) tells us that it was shot some years prior to 1839 at Harrow-on-the-Hill; while Fox (op. cit., p. 65), apparently referring to the same bird, speaks of it as shot at Wellwyn [sic], in the adjoining county of Hertford. So good a naturalist as Yarrell appears to have been satisfied of its authenticity, and in the absence of any further evidence, one must accept his testimony.'
Further, pp. 249-250, he adds: 'We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me that these are the most worthy of credit: - 12. Mr. Bond's bird, said to have been killed at Harrow....As regards Mr. Bond's specimen, the only argument which can be used against it is the possibility of its being an escaped importation.'
J. E. Harting (1889) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIII. pp. 414, on Frederick Bond's bird collection, says: 'Case 131 contains a female Pine Grosbeak, Pyrrhula enucleator, shot at Harrow-on-the-Hill, and figured by Yarrell, who was the original possessor of the specimen (Brit. Birds, 4th ed. Vol. II. p. 177).'
J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 126, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 12, Yarrell's, also shot about sixty years ago, though Prof. Newton considers (Yarrell's Brit. Birds, 4th ed. II, p. 179) that doubt may be reasonably entertained about it.'
In an Editorial footnote (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 126, it says: 'This doubt applies not to Yarrell's specimen shot at Harrow-on-Hill, and now in Bond's collection (tom. cit. p. 177; Zool., 1877, 246; 1889, p. 414), but to the specimen stated by Fox (Synops. Newc. Mus., p. 63) to be in his possession "through the favour of Mr. Yarrell", and believed to have been procured at Welwyn, in Hertfordshire.'
Admitted nationally in their first List of British Birds (BOU 1883) and (Seebohm 1884 (2): 41).
Accepted locally for Middlesex by Glegg (1935: 33) who adds: 'On Bond's death it was sold at Stevens's on 22nd May 1890, for £5.15s., to Sir Vauncey Harpur Crewe.'
3). c. 1861 Yorkshire Littlebeck, near Whitby, immature male, shot, winter, now at Whitby Museum.
(Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 126-127; Nelson, 1907; Mather, 1986).
History Clarke & Roebuck (1881: 31) say: 'Near Whitby, one shot by Mr. Kitching, about 1861, in the winter, now in the local collection at the Whitby Museum (Stephenson, MS.).'
J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. pp. 126-127, in a further review of the species, says: 'In Messrs. Clarke and Roebuck's useful Vertebrate Fauna of Yorkshire, mention is made, on the authority of Mr. Thomas Stephenson, of a Pine Grosbeak in the Whitby Museum, which was shot about 1861, in the winter, by Mr. G. Kitching, the same person who on another occasion got a Crested Titmouse (Zool., 1873, p. 3021). Mr. Stephenson says it was shot at Littlebeck, five miles from Whitby, a locality abounding with plantations of larch and fir, and adds that Mr. Kitching at the same time shot four others. These he preserved as skins, but they have been since unfortunately lost sight of, and are probably not now in existence.
Mr. Stephenson and Mr. J. Wilson, after thoroughly examining the one in the Museum, have failed to detect the least indication of its having been in confinement, and there is no doubt about its being a Pine Grosbeak, for, at my request, they have compared and matched it with a specimen procured by Wheelwright in Sweden.
As regards the date, there is an important piece of corroborative evidence in The Field of March 22nd, 1862, where Wheelwright, writing from Sweden under his well-known nom-de-plume of an "Old Bushman", about the plumage of the Pine Grosbeak, says: - "This winter [i.e. 1861-2] they have been unusually numerous, and about forty specimens have passed through my hands". Nothing is more likely than that some of the birds seen should have crossed the sea, just as in 1884, - when, on the 12th of September, great numbers of Bluethroats appeared in Heligoland (Report on Migration p. 44), and on that very day appeared also in Norfolk - and if the Pine Grosbeaks did cross the North Sea, where would they be more likely to occur than on the coast of Yorkshire?'
Nelson (1907 (1): 196) says: 'The Local Museum at Whitby contains a specimen of this rare Arctic visitor, shot from a flock at Littlebeck, four miles distant from Whitby, in the winter of (about) 1861 by G. Kitching, who at the same time procured four others; these were made into skins, but have been lost sight of.
At the request of Mr. J. H. Gurney, Messrs. Stephenson and Wilson of Whitby compared the Whitby Museum example with a Swedish skin sent by Mr. Gurney, and, writing on 13th February, 1890, Mr. Stephenson pronounced the two to be the same species, though differing materially in colour; the Whitby specimen being of a dullish carmine red colour on the head, throat, breast, and back near the tail where the Swedish bird is tinged with darkish yellow, the lower mandible is lighter in colour than the upper, with greyish feathers at the base and cheeks, which are afterwards blended or mixed with carmine on the neck. The beak, which has not the least tendency to cross, and the legs are the same as the Swedish specimen. The secondary, etc., wing feathers edged with dirtyish coloured white, producing a barred appearance on the wings. Length, if stretched out, would be 7⅜ to 7½ in.
He also observed that the red colour on the back near the tail of the Whitby specimen is slightly tinged with indistinct yellow towards the flanks, and that there are no traces of its being in confinement.'
Comment The other four specimens apparently were never seen by a competent authority and were not admitted by the BOU (1971).
4). 1890 Nottinghamshire Watnall, male, shot, 30th October, now in Tim Loseby Collection.
(J. Whitaker, Field 6th Dec., 1890: 850; J. Whitaker, Zoologist 1890: 464; F. B. Whitlock, Naturalist 17: 38, 47; Whitaker, 1907; BOU, 1971; H. Harrop, Birding World 5 (4): 136, plate 4; Birds of Nottinghamshire Report 2001: plate 15).
History J. Whitaker of Rainworth (1890) in The Field of 6th Dec., Vol. LXXVI. p. 850, says: 'It is with great pleasure I have to announce the first occurrence of this rare and beautiful bird in this county. It was obtained by Mr. Dixon, who was shooting near Watnall. He saw the bird drinking by a small pond, and on seeing him it flew up into a tree, where he shot it. It is a male in the beautiful red plumage, and has been well set up by Rose, of Nottingham. This is, as far as I can make out, only the sixth authenticated example shot in Britain.'
J. Whitaker of Rainworth (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 464, undated, says: 'That a beautiful specimen of this rare bird was shot on October 30th by Mr. Dixon, near Watnall, in this county. It is a male bird, and in perfect plumage. When first seen it was drinking by a small pond, and on the approach of Mr. Dixon (who was out shooting) it flew up into a tree, where he shot it. It is now set up, and a more perfect specimen I never saw. This is a new species for Notts., and, so far as I can make out, the sixth authenticated British example which has been obtained.'
F. B. Whitlock, Beeston, Notts., (1891) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XVII. p. 38, says: 'A fine male specimen of this bird (Pinicola enucleator) was killed on 30th October last, near Watnall, by Dr. Dixon of Eastwood.
The bird, when first observed, was drinking at a small pond. On being disturbed it flew into an adjacent tree, when the doctor shot it. This is the first Nottinghamshire occurrence of this species, and Mr. Whitaker, of Rainworth, informs me only the sixth authenticated specimen for Great Britain.
As I was the first to identify the bird at the taxidermist's shop, I append a short description of it. Beak, shaped very much like that of the Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula; the upper mandible dark-brown, the lower one much lighter except at the tip. Crown, vermilion lake, with a few grey tips to the feathers; lores, grey. Nape, alternate longitudinal stripes of grey and lake. The feathers of the upper parts grey and lake in about equal proportions. Upper tail coverts, grey, tinged with lake. Tail, dark grey, tinged with red on the outer edges of most of the feathers. Chin, grey; throat, cheeks, and breast, crimson lake but paler than the crown. Abdomen and under tail coverts, grey. The whole of the wing dark-grey, broadly edged with white on the wing-coverts. Legs and feet. dark-brown. Irides, dark hazel.'
Whitaker (1907: 103) adds: 'It is now in the collection of Mr. Musters, of Annesley Park.'
Comment This specimen was in the Sale Catalogue of Major & Mrs. R. P. Chaworth-Musters, of Annesley Park, Nottinghamshire, held by Henry Spencer & Sons in conjunction with Smith-Wooley & Co., held on 20th-22nd March 1973 as Lot 603. The BOU (1971) stated there were two individuals, but this has since been refuted in Birding World, Vol. V. p. 136. Now in the possession of Tim Loseby, Kent.
1950-57 RECORDS
5). 1954 Isle of May Altarstones, adult female, trapped, 8th to 9th November, photo.
(W. U. Flower, T. Weir & D. Scott, British Birds 48: 133-134, plates 19 & 20; Scottish Field April 1955: 45, photo; W. J. Eggeling, Scottish Naturalist 68: 46, 47; E. V. Baxter, Scottish Naturalist 69: 43; W. J. Eggeling, Scottish Birds 8: 129; Thom, 1986).
History W. U. Flower, T. Weir & D. Scott (1955) in British Birds, Vol. XLVIII. pp. 133-134, say: 'At the Isle of May, Scotland, on the morning of 8th November 1954, a variable southerly wind was succeeded by a south-west gale which blew up with sudden intensity. Few migrants had been about before, but by mid-day a marked movement was taking place, with birds fighting their way in to the island from due north.
On the way to the North Ness we put up a number of Blackbirds (Turdus merula) and then, above Altarstones, we noted a smaller greyish bird with a bright, rusty-iron-coloured head hopping unconcernedly round a rock and then probing successive tufts of sea-pink, crouching low to the ground as it did so. At first sight it looked like an elongated and massive Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra). The slightly raised crown feathers gave an impression of mottling and made the head seem very large, and the heavy hooked beak not disproportionate. The longish tail and the primaries were very dark; the median covert tips formed a well-defined, pale wing-bar, and those of the greater coverts a bar less clearly marked. We identified the bird as an adult female Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator).
It was not seen again that day, but it is perhaps of interest to describe briefly our observations on the arrival of other birds on the island which show the conditions which brought the Pine Grosbeak. Blackbirds were lurking in every shelter, and when we reached the north-west tip of the island where huge waves were driving past to the north-east, scattered black dots just visible through the spray were struggling to reach the rocks, making a zig-zag approach. Each bird flew low along the trough of a wave, rose just high enough to clear the crest, was hidden in foam, reappeared beating down the next trough, gained enough height to check its direction, often failing to make headway against the gale, then with a final effort passed the surf on the rocks and dived headlong into the nearest crevice. In fifteen minutes we counted 53 Blackbirds, 11 Fieldfares (T. pilaris), 3 Redwings (T. musicus), 2 Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus), a Snipe (Capella gallinago) and a Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) make the land, and that was only over a small stretch of rocks
On 9th November we searched for the Pine Grosbeak from the west landing to the lighthouse, but only rounded up about 40 Blackbirds. We drove the top trap from which Blackbirds rattled off in all directions, and then while we were securing at the back of the closed trap those that we had caught, we noticed a bird hopping calmly about the veronicas in the entrance, and caught a glimpse of rust and grey. We moved quietly round, and the bird hopped and fluttered into the trap in a leisurely manner.
As it was caught it demonstrated the strength of its beak, but afterwards was as gentle in the hand as it was unconcerned and rather sluggish in the field. Twice it gave a rather harsh call. It was ringed, measured, and a full description taken, after which it was photographed in the hand (plate 19). We then put the bird down upon the ground, and managed to take the other photograph (plate 20) of the bird squatting on a slight hummock. It is of interest to point out that it was crouching flat like this in between intervals of feeding when we first saw it on the 8th.'
[It is of interest to note that there was an irruption of Pine Grosbeaks into Scandinavia at this time. Dr. Holger Holgersen writes that on the south-west coast of Norway this species is considered a very rare vagrant, and in 76 years since the Stavangar Museum was erected, only 8 Pine Grosbeaks have been brought there.
In late October 1954, however, a trapper in Sokndal sent to the Museum 6 Pine Grosbeaks that had got into his snares eating the Sorbus berries. In the following days more were caught, so that between 26th October and 3rd November a total of 30 were trapped. Others were seen in the same area, but the birds seemed to move away after the first few days of November. Pine Grosbeaks were also reported in unusual, though not large, numbers from other districts in the same part of Norway.
Dr. Gunnar Svardson informs us that the irruption of this species also affected Sweden during November and' December 1954. No summary is available yet, but it is understood that the birds were observed in many localities from central Sweden south to Scania.
For Denmark Herr C. A. Blume has given us details of a total of 7 Pine Grosbeaks at Skovshoved and Tisvilde Hegn on 23rd November and of a single bird at Amager on 19th December - Eds.]
6). 1957 Kent East Malling, female or immature male, 2nd November.
(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1957: 38; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).
History E. H. Gillham (1957) in the Kent Bird Report, Vol. VI. p. 38, says: 'One flushed with Goldfinches and House Sparrows at E. Malling on Nov. 2, was followed for thirty minutes through an area of orchards and gardens. It was tame and approachable to within three yards but always moved on (J.J.M.F.).
Size: as big or bigger than a Hawfinch but with relatively longer tail. Bill: heavy, and upper mandible rounded as Bullfinch and uncrossed. Upper parts: greenish-grey-brown, slightly paler and yellowish on crown-which was faintly spotted darker brown-and on rump. Tail: dark brown. Wings: with two whitish bars, one nearest shoulder fairly short, the lower one more obvious. Under parts: breast olive grey blending to greyer belly and buffish-grey vent and under tail-coverts. Call: a high-pitched, penetrating, but not loud "Tee Tee Tew" given frequently; and in flight a musical twangy jangle not unlike a very musical Corn Bunting.'
NOT PROVEN
0). 1694 Pembrokeshire Llan Ddewi Velfrey, two hundred, seen, September.
(E. Llhwyd, Philosophical Transactions 27: 464, 466; Latham, 1821-28; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 245-246).
[Mathew, 1894; Lockley, 1949; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Latham (1822 (5): 214) in a footnote, says: 'A flock of birds, about two hundred, came about September, 1694, to a hemp yard, at Llan Ddewi Velfrey, in Pembrokeshire, and in one afternoon destroyed all the hemp seed. The cocks all over as red as scarlet, and the hens greenish above, red underneath; about as big, or little less than Blackbirds; the bills more stubbed, and bigger than that of a Bullfinch; I suspect these to be Virginia Nightingales, otherwise I know not what to make of them. (Phil. Trans., XXVII. p. 464. 466) - Letters from Mr. E. Llhwyd.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 178, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'A flock of about a hundred unknown birds that came to a hemp-yard in Pembrokeshire in Sept. 1694 as reported by a Mr. Roberts to Lhwyd (Phil. Trans., XXVII. pp. 464, 466) who suspected they were "Virginia Nightingales" (Cardinalis virginianus) but later writers suggested that they were Pine Grosbeaks.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. pp. 245-246, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 8. In September, 1694, according to a statement in Fox's Synopsis of the Newcastle Museum (pp. 65, 101), a flock of about a hundred birds visited a hemp yard in Pembrokeshire, and destroyed all the hemp-seed. They were so tame, or intent on their feeding, "that, being forced from their places, they would not remove two or three yards". It was not until nearly a century afterwards that the suggestion was made by Marmaduke Tunstall that they were Pine Grosbeaks (Fox, loc. cit.), but certainly the account as left by the observer - Mr. Roberts - points rather to the Crossbill, although no mention is made of the beak, beyond the statement that it was "more stubbed and larger than a Bullfinches".'
Mathew (1894: 25) placing the record in square-brackets, says: 'Although we believe that this north European species has no claim to a place on the list of Pembrokeshire birds, yet we are obliged to admit it because of a piece of ancient history of which it would not do to evince our ignorance.
In Mr. Harting's useful Handbook of British Birds, at p. 113, it is stated that "several" of these birds appeared in Pembrokeshire "date not mentioned, Fox, Synops. Newcastle Mus., p. 65". And the following appears as a note in Professor Newton's edition of Yarrell's British Birds, Vol. II. p. 178: "A flock of about a hundred unknown birds came to a hemp yard in Pembrokeshire in Sept., 1694, as reported by a Mr. Roberts to Llhwyd Phil. Trans., XXVII. pp. 464, 466, who suspected they were "Virginia Nightingales" (Cardinalis virginianus), but later writers suggested they were Pine Grosbeaks". They may have been anything; if we might venture a guess, we should say "Common Crossbills".'
Lockley (1949: 37) says: 'Mathew included some doubtfully authentic species in his List. It has been considered advisable to omit altogether from our List those which Mathew himself doubted or was vague about and which we have not heard of since: Pine Grosbeak.'
0). 1769 North-east Scotland Invercauld Forest, Aberdeenshire, seen, 5th August.
(Pennant, 1766, 1812; Macgillivray, 1837-52; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 243, 249).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History Pennant (1776 (1): 317-318, 4th ed.) says: 'I have seen them flying above the great pine forests of Invercauld, in Aberdeenshire. I imagine they breed there, for I saw them on the 5th of August. They feed on the seeds of the pine.'
Later, Pennant (1812 (1): 423) reiterates: 'I have seen them flying above the great pine forests of Invercauld, in Aberdeenshire; and I imagine they breed there, for I saw them on the 5th of August.'
Macgillivray (1837 (1): 413) says: 'Pennant mentions having met with it early in August in the pine forest of Invercauld in Aberdeenshire, and supposed that they breed there; but no subsequent British author speaks of them from personal observation. Yet it is possible enough that the bird may be a permanent resident, although, in the present state of our knowledge, we must consent to assign it the rank of a very rare occasional visitant.'
Yarrell (1845 (1): 581-582, 2nd ed.) says: 'Pennant says he saw them flying above the great forests of Invercauld, in Aberdeenshire; and he imagined that they had bred there, because he saw them as early as the 5th of August. Mr. Selby observes, "Such a conclusion, however, ought scarcely to be inferred from this fact, as a sufficient interval of time had elapsed for these individuals to have emigrated from Norway, or other northern counties to Scotland, after incubation, as they are known to breed as early as May in their native haunts. I have made many inquiries respecting these birds, during excursions in Scotland, but cannot learn that the nest has ever been found; and indeed, from the intelligence obtained from gamekeepers, and those most likely to have made observations connected with ornithology, it appears that they are very rarely seen, and can only be regarded as occasional visitants".'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 178, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'The birds seen Aug. 5th, 1769 by Pennant (Tour in Scotland, edition 5, I. p. 132) at Invercauld in Aberdeenshire.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 243, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 1. The Pine Grosbeak appears to have been first introduced into the list of British Birds by Thomas Pennant, the well known author of British Zoology.
In that work (4th ed. Vol. I. p. 317) he says, "I have seen them flying above the great pine forests of Invercauld, in Aberdeenshire; and I imagine they breed there, for I saw them on the 5th of August". He adds that one that he "saw in Scotland and believed to be a female was (like the female Crossbill) of a dirty green, the tail and quill-feathers dusky".
Nothing has ever transpired to make us doubt the correctness of Pennant's identification of the species, which he has accurately described, except the rather significant fact that none are known with certainty to have been seen in Scotland since. This of itself, however, is not sufficient proof that the bird was not once found there.'
Further, p. 249, he adds: 'We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me that these are the most worthy of credit: - 1. The examples met with by Pennant in Aberdeenshire.'
0). Pre 1791 Dumfries & Galloway Kirkmichael, Dumfriesshire, seen, undated.
(Burgess, Statistical Account of Scotland 1791 (1): 60; Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 243-244).
[Gladstone, 1910; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Gray (1871: 152) says: 'About twenty years afterwards [1791], Dr. Burgess included the Pine Bullfinch in his list of the birds of the parish of Kirkmichael in Dumfriesshire.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 179, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'Published by Burgess (Stat. Acc. Scotl. 1791, I. p. 60).'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. pp. 243-244, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 2. In a catalogue of the rarer birds met with in the parish of Kirkmichael, in Dumfriesshire, by Dr. Burgess, published about 1792, the Pine Grosbeak is included; but Dr. Burgess's name is unknown to ornithologists, and what weight may be attached to his authority in the matter it is impossible to say. Professor Newton informs me that Kirkmichael is close to Jardine Hall, but that Sir William Jardine (who, as every one knows, was a very good naturalist), in writing on the fauna of Dumfriesshire, in the New Statistical Account of Scotland, makes no mention of the Pine Grosbeak. Mr. Robert Gray, who I believe first drew attention to Dr. Burgess' Catalogue, has not been able to throw any light on the matter in his Birds of the West of Scotland.'
Gladstone (1910: 89) adds: 'Dr. Burgess was an acknowledged botanist, and as at the time he wrote, we learn from contemporary writers that the Crossbill put in an appearance in Kirkmichael, he very likely confused the two species.'
0). Pre 1808 Lothian Washing Green, Midlothian, seen, undated.
(Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 248).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History Gray (1871: 152) says: 'In a carefully prepared catalogue of the animals and plants of the Esk Valley in Midlothian, published in 1808, and which bears evidence of having been the work of the late Patrick Neill, Secretary to the Natural History Society of Edinburgh, this species is included, doubtless on good authority.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 179, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'Washing Green, Midlothian, by P. Neill, it is supposed (Allan Ramsay's Gentle Shepherd, &c. with illustrations 1808, I. p. 271).'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 248, in a review of the species, says: 'In Mr. Gray's valuable work on the Birds of the West of Scotland, already quoted, the Pine Grosbeak is mentioned as included in a list of the birds of the Esk Valley, in Midlothian.'
In a footnote it is added: [This list is contained in an anonymous edition of Allan Ramsay's Gentle Shepherd: a Pastoral Comedy, published at Edinburgh in 1808 (Vol. I. pp. 269-271). Dr. Patrick Neill is said to have drawn up the botanical lists contained in this work, but it does not appear who was responsible for the zoological lists. - Ed.]
0). Pre 1813 Angus & Dundee Woods of Glamis and Lindertis, flock, seen, undated.
(Headrick, 1813; Gray, 1871; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 244).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History Gray (1871: 152) says: 'Don includes this bird in his Fauna of Forfarshire, which was published by the Rev. James Headrick, minister of Dunnichen, in 1813, and states that it had come in great numbers to the woods of Glamis and Lindertis in company with flocks of the Common Crossbill, "and totally destroyed the whole larch and fir cones for these two years past".'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 178, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'A great number which, with Crossbills, for two years past had, according to Don's information in 1813 (Headrick's Gen. View Agricult. Angus p. 43), done much damage to the woods of Glammis [sic] and Lindertis in Forfarshire.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 244, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 3. I have not seen Don's Fauna of Forfarshire, but am indebted to Mr. Gray for the following extract from it (p. 43): - "Loxia recurvirostra, the Crossbill and enucleator, the Pine Grosbeak. These two species of Loxia have come in great numbers to the woods of Glammis [sic] and Lindertis, and totally destroyed the whole of the larch and fir-cones for these two years past". Don's Fauna of Forfarshire was published in 1813: it is now impossible to decide whether he was competent to distinguish the species named by him or not.'
0). 1822 Norfolk Denes, Great Yarmouth, a flight, seen, 22nd November.
(Paget & Paget, 1834; J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1313; Riviere, 1930).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 245; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Paget & Paget (1834) say: 'A flight of these birds were observed on Yarmouth Denes in November, 1822.'
J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1313, say: 'The Pine Grosbeak has only occurred in Norfolk as a very rare and occasional visitant. A flight of these birds was observed on Yarmouth Denes in November, 1822, and two instances are on record of their having attempted to breed in this district.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 245, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 6. It seems just possible that the flight of Pine Grosbeaks recorded in Paget's Natural History of Yarmouth (p. 6), as having "been seen on the Denes, Nov. 1822", may have been confounded in some way with the Hawfinches, a large flight of which are stated by the same author to have appeared in the January following. We are not informed that any were captured; only a flight of them "seen", by whom is not stated; but a person now well acquainted with birds, might perhaps mistake a flock of Hawfinches for Pine Grosbeaks.'
0). Pre 1834 Borders Eccles, Berwickshire, seen, undated.
(R. D.. Thompson, New Statistical Account Scotland, Berwickshire (1845) 3: 53; Gray, 1871; Muirhead, 1889; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 127).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 246; Evans, 1911; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Gray (1871: 152) says: '...and it is likewise mentioned in the statistical account of the parish of Eccles in Berwickshire as a rare visitor about thirty five years ago.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 246, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 10. Following the order in Mr. Harting's list, where the records are arranged chronologically, we now go back to north Britain. In the list of species to be found in the parish of Eccles, in Berwickshire, copied verbatim for me by Mr. Gray, from the Statistical Account of the Parish, the Pine Grosbeak is thus noticed by Dr. R. D. Thompson, who Mr. Gray tells me was a member of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, and for a long time resident in Glasgow: - "Besides about eighty common birds, the parish is occasionally visited by some rarer species; of these may be mentioned Columba Turtur (Turtle Dove), Aquila albicilla (Sea Eagle), Corythus enucleator (Hawk-finch), Ardea nycticorax (Night Heron), Lanius excubitor (Great Butcher-bird)". The English name of Hawk-finch would lead one to think that a mistake had been made.'
Muirhead (1889 (1): 178) says: 'There is a record of the occurrence of this very rare bird in the parish of Eccles, Berwickshire, by Robert Dundas Thomson, M.D., F.R.S., who drew up the revised Report on that parish for the New Statistical Account of Scotland in May 1834. Dr. Thompson was a Member of the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh, and was one of the original Members of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club at its institution on the 22nd of September 1831.'
J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 126, in a further review of the species, says: 'Mr. G. Muirhead, in his Birds of Berwickshire, reviewed in the current number of The Zoologist, states that the Pine Grosbeak is recorded by Dr. R. D. Thompson, in the 'New Statistical Account of Scotland' Dr. Robert Thompson, F.R.S., died in 1864, and the occurrence referred to must have taken place more than thirty years previously.'
Not accepted locally who placed the record in square brackets (Evans 1911: 91).
0). Pre 1834 Worcestershire No locality, undated.
(Hastings, 1834).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 246].
History Hastings (1834) says: 'Our resident birds, winter and occasional visitants, are principally as follows: - ...The undermentioned are all of unfrequent occurrence: - ...the Pine Grosbeak, Corythus enucleator...'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) In The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 246, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 9. The Pine Grosbeak is named in Hastings' Natural History of Worcestershire (p. 65), in a list of birds which "are all of unfrequent occurrence. The Great Black Woodpecker is named also, but no particulars are given of the occurrence of either of them, this record may be dismissed without further comment.'
0). 1836 Suffolk Bury St Edmunds, shot, undated.
(Babington, 1884-86).
[Babington, 1884-86; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 127, in a further review of the species, says: '30. Mr. Babington also mentions, on the authority of the Rev. H. T. Frere, of Burston Rectory, Diss, another shot near Bury, about 1830. Mr. Frere thinks it was 1836: whatever the precise date may have been, it was preserved by Head, a bird-stuffer at Bury, and afterwards acquired (as Mr. Frere believes) by the late Mr. Vernon Wollaston.'
Babington (1884-86: 234) who sums up by saying: 'The above quoted instances appear to be doubtful.'
0). 1837 Lancashire & North Merseyside Hurlston, Ormskirk, obtained, undated.
(P. Rylands, Naturalist 1837: 352; Yarrell, 1845; Mitchell, 1885; Saunders, 1892, Oakes, 1953).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 248; Not in BOU, 1971].
History P. Rylands (1837) in Wood's Naturalist, Vol. II. p.352, under 'Catalogue of Birds found in Lancashire', lists '103. enucleator. Pine Thickbill. Hulston Fir-trees. - T. K. Glazebrook, Esq.'
Yarrell (1845 (1): 582, 2nd ed.) says: 'Mr. Rylands, in his 'Catalogue of Birds found in Lancashire', published in the second volume of the Naturalist, includes the Pine Grosbeak as obtained in Hulston fir trees, on the authority of T. K. Glazebrook, Esq.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 248, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 20. In addition to the foregoing, I have three more records to refer to, one relating to Lancashire....In the first of these counties, the locality is Hulston, the date prior to 1837, and the recorder Mr. Rylands, on the authority of the late Mr. T. K. Glazebrook (Naturalist, 1837, p. 352).'
Howard Saunders (1892: 75-76, 2nd ed.) in the revised edition of Mitchell's Birds of Lancashire, says: 'Mr. Peter Rylands in his 'Catalogue of Birds found in Lancashire' (Neville Wood's Naturalist, 1837) gives Hulston fir-trees, T.K.G.'
Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun. (Zool., 1877, p. 242) doubts the locality of this record, but I find no adequate reason for his conclusions. Mr. Rylands at present [1885] the member for Burnley, has written me that "Hurlston" is the correct spelling, and this appears to be in the neighbourhood of Ormskirk.'
0). Pre 1844 Kent No locality, seen, undated.
(J. Pemberton Bartlett, Zoologist 1844: 621; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 246, 249).
[Ticehurst, 1901; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. Pemberton Bartlett (1844) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. II. p. 621, dated May, 1844, says: 'Has been occasionally killed in Kent.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 246, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 11. In Mr. Pemberton Bartlett's 'Notes on the Ornithology of Kent' (Zoologist, 1844, p. 621), the reader is informed that the Pine Grosbeak has been "occasionally killed" in the county. Mr. Bartlett's informant was Dr. Plomley, who possibly may have referred to a pair of Pine Grosbeaks in the late Mr. Chaffey's collection of Kentish birds, which were said to have been killed in England, but on whose authority is not known.'
Further, p. 249, he adds: 'Probable cases of mistaken locality: - No. 11. Kent.'
Ticehurst (1909: 164) says: 'Plomley probably referred to a pair of Pine Grosbeaks that were in Chaffey's collection, with which he was well acquainted, and one in Thompson's collection at Dover, but there is nothing to indicate that any of these were shot in Kent, although it is possible that they were. It is well-known and even notorious that these birds have been imported, both living and dead into this country, and many records, more or less incomplete in details, exist of their having been seen or obtained in a supposed wild state. Very few of these, however, are above suspicion of one kind or another, but none, so far as I am aware (except perhaps those mentioned above), apply to Kent.'
0). 1845 Greater Manchester Near Rochdale, Lancashire, adult male, shot, February.
(H. Clark, Zoologist 1845: 1025; Seebohm, 1883-85; Saunders, 1892; Oakes, 1953).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 247, 249; BOU, 1971].
History H. Clark (1845) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. III. p. 1025, dated May 1845, says: 'A fine specimen of this rare bird was shot last February, in a fir plantation near Rochdale, Lancashire. It is now in my collection.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 178, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Then there is the case of an adult cock-bird said (Zool., p. 1025) to have been shot near Rochdale in February 1845, which was in the late Mr. Hamlet Clark's collection when it was seen by Mr. Bond, and no doubt can exist as to the specific determination of the specimen. Since the dispersal, however, of this collection its fate is unknown.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 247, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 13. In The Zoologist for 1845 (p. 1025) the Rev. H. Clark states that he had a Pine Grosbeak which was killed "in a fir-plantation near Rochdale, Lancashire", in February, 1845. Mr. Bond has kindly informed me that he saw it several times, that it was a male bird, and that after Mr. Clark's death it was sold to a dealer. Mr. Clark being dead, it is now too late to obtain any further information about it.'
Further, p. 249, he adds: 'Probable cases of mistaken locality: - No. 13. Lancashire (Rochdale).'
Howard Saunders (1892: 75-76, 2nd ed.) in the revised edition of Mitchell's Birds of Lancashire, adds: 'Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun. (Zool., 1877, p. 242 seq.) doubts the identity of this record, but I find no adequate reason for his conclusions.' Oakes (1953) also believes it to be authentic.
0). 1845 Norfolk Raveningham, pair, shot, undated.
(J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1313; Harting, 1872; Yarrell, 1871-85; Seebohm, 1883-85; Babington, 1886).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 245; Babington, 1884-86; Southwell, 1890; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1313, say 'The Pine Grosbeak has only occurred in Norfolk as a very rare and occasional visitant. A flight of these birds was observed on Yarmouth Denes in November, 1822, and two instances are on record of their having attempted to breed in this district. In one of these cases, the nest containing four eggs was taken near Bungay; and is said to have been found on a low branch of a fir, near the stem of the tree, and about three feet from the ground. In the other instance, which occurred at Raveningham, the old birds were shot while in the act of building.'
Harting (1872: 113) says: 'Two, Raveningham, Norfolk: J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1313.'
Further, in a footnote, he adds: 'With reference to these there appears to be some doubt, cf. Stevenson, Birds of Norfolk, Vol. I. p. 235, where it is also stated that there are two specimens labelled "Norfolk" in the British Museum.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 178, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In the next rank to these - the only presumably British-killed specimens known to exist, come two which were said in 1845, by Lubbock (Faun. Norf., p. 36), to have been obtained near Great Yarmouth and to have been then in a collection in that town. It appears, from the investigations of Mr. Stevenson and others, that they belonged to the late Mr. Miller and that, at the sale of his collection in 1853, they were lost sight of. To these two examples are probably referable the statements of Messrs. Gurney and Fisher (Zool., p. 1313) as to a pair of Pine-Grosbeaks supposed to have been killed near Bungay, and another pair at Raveningham in Norfolk - the notices of which may be fairly taken to concern the same individuals, but the story of their having a nest must be dismissed as in the highest degree unlikely.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 245, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 7. In Lubbock's Fauna of Norfolk it is remarked (p. 36) that "a pair of the Pine Grosbeak (Loxia enucleator) are now preserved in Yarmouth, shot near that place, and which are said to have had a nest, which unfortunately was destroyed.' This I have no doubt is the same pair and nest alluded to in Gurney & Fisher's 'Catalogue of Norfolk Birds' (p. 21) as occurring at Raveningham, near Yarmouth. As the authors knew the late Mr. Lubbock, they in all probability communicated with him on this subject. If the Pine Grosbeak was ever a British bird, it was probably only a winter or an autumn visitant, at any rate not a summer one, and it seems impossible to believe that it could ever have nested in Norfolk.' Further, p. 249, he adds: 'Probable cases of mistaken locality: - No. 7. Norfolk (Yarmouth or Raveningham).'
Admitted nationally (Seebohm 1884 (2): 41).
Babington (1886: 234) says: 'Yarmouth a rare visitant (Paget, Y., 6); a pair shot near Yarmouth, formerly in Mr. Miller's Collection now dispersed (Stevenson 1866); these birds were shot in 1845 (Lubbock Fauna of Norfolk, p. 36, referred to by Newton in Yarrell's Br. B., II. 178). Babington, sums up by saying: 'The above quoted instances appear to be doubtful.'
Southwell, Editor (1890 (3): 410) in Stevenson's Birds of Norfolk, under 'Appendix C' says: 'The following five species, I think, cannot be unreservedly admitted to the Birds of Norfolk. I have, therefore, thought it best to refer to them in an appendix by themselves, stating, as fully as the evidence enables me, the claims in each individual case. Pine Grosbeak.'
0). 1848 Sussex Ashdown Forest, two, killed, February.
(Knox, 1850; Walpole-Bone, 1938).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 247, 249; Borrer, 1891].
History Knox (1849: 209, 1st ed.) says: 'In February, 1848, two were killed at the same time in Ashdown Forest. One of them, which I saw, was an adult male.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 247, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 14. In Knox's Ornithological Rambles in Sussex (p. 211), two Pine Grosbeaks are stated to have been killed in Ashdown Forest in February, 1848. Although it was believed at the time that they had been killed as stated, Mr. Knox informs me, by letter, that he now almost begins to doubt them.'
Further, p. 249, he adds: 'Probable cases of mistaken locality: - Sussex (Ashdown).'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 103).
0). Pre 1849 Sussex Near Petworth, seen, undated.
(Knox, 1849; Yarrell, 1871-85; Borrer, 1891).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History Knox (1849) 1st ed., p. 209, says: 'An example was shot a few years ago near Cotes House, about three miles from Petworth, while feeding on the seeds of a pinaster, by a gentleman of the name of Mellersh, who, being well acquainted with British birds, at once recognised the species.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82) in Yarrell's British Birds, 4th ed. Vol. II. p. 179 in a footnote, says: 'One seen near Petworth in Sussex, by a Mr. Mellersh, a few years before 1849, as mentioned by Mr. Knox (Orn. Rambl., Ed. 3, p. 211).'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 247, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 15. The same naturalist [A. E. Knox] has recorded (l. c.) that another Pine Grosbeak was killed at Petworth. At this distance of time no further evidence is procurable.'
Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 138; Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 103).
Comment Mellersh wrote about birds in Gloucestershire. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.
0). c. 1849 Somerset No locality, seen, undated.
(W. Baker, Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 1: 144; Yarrell, 1871-85).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 247; Not in BOU, 1971].
History W. Baker (1851) in the Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Vol. I. p. 144, under 'The Somersetshire Fauna', it lists "Pine Grosbeak" with no further details.
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 247, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 17. The seventeenth reported occurrence is a mere name in the Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological Society, in Mr. Baker's Catalogue of the Fauna of that county. I applied to that gentleman's grandson to know if he could tell me what ground there was for including it, and he has obligingly informed me that it appears from his grandfather's papers that it was met with by Mr. Anstice, of Bridgwater, and also by the late Mr. Govett.
As against this, I may remark that Mr. Anstice would most likely have communicated such an important fact to his friend Colonel Montagu for his Ornithological Dictionary, who, however, has made no mention of it.'
0). 1850 North-east Scotland Corriemulzie, Braemar, seen, 20th August.
(MacGillivray, 1855; Yarrell, 1871-85).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 247; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Macgillivray (1855: 403) says: 'I and my son saw a bird at Corrymulzie [sic] which attracted our notice by the red colour of its breast, and which, I think, was this species.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 179, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'One supposed to have been observed Aug. 20th, 1850, in Corriemulzie, Braemar, by MacGillivray (N. H. Dee Side, p. 403).'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 247, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 16. In 1850 a Pine Grosbeak was seen at Corriemulzie, Braemar, N.B., by the late Prof. MacGillivray, who, however, writes very cautiously and guardedly about it in his Natural History of Deeside and Braemar (p. 403).'
0). c. 1851 Somerset Taunton, killed, undated.
(C. Prideaux, Zoologist 1852: 3474; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 247-248).
[F. L. Blathwayt, Victoria County History of Somerset 1: 150; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Charles Prideaux of Kingsbridge (1852) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. X. p. 3474, dated 24th April, 1852, says: 'I append a list of a few very rare birds which have lately occurred for the most part in this neighbourhood....The following are also among my birds: - Pine Grosbeak, a fine male, Taunton.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. pp. 247-248, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 18. In a note on the occurrence of rare birds near Kingsbridge (Zool. 3474), Mr. Charles Prideaux states that a Pine Grosbeak was lately (that is about 1851-52) killed at Taunton. Your correspondent, Mr. Nicholls, informed me some time ago that he saw the bird at the time, that it had been bought of a dealer, and that it looked to him as if it had been set up from the flesh. It may therefore rank with Mr. Bond's bird as one of the better authenticated specimens.'
Further, p. 249, he adds: 'We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me that these are the most worthy of credit: - No. 18. The Taunton specimen of 1852, for the correct naming of which I have the authority of one of your correspondents, Mr. Nicholls. I leave it to your able correspondent, the Rev. M. A. Mathew, to say what he can for the last-named specimen in his forthcoming work on the Birds of the West of England.'
F. L. Blathwayt (1906 (1): 150) in the Victoria County History of Somerset, says: 'A specimen is said to have been killed near Taunton in 1852, but little value can be attached to the record.'
0). 1854-55 Devon Near Exeter, male, killed, winter.
(Yarrell, 1871-85; Seebohm, 1883-85).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 248; W. S. M. D'Urban, Zoologist 1890: 183-184; D'Urban & Mathew, 1892; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Alfred Newton (1876-82 (2): 177, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Thirdly is a male example which the Editor is informed by Mr. Byne is in his collection, and that he believes it to have been killed near Exeter in the winter of 1854-5 and brought to his late father by whom it was preserved.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 248, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 22. I learn from Mr. Byne of Taunton, that he is in the possession of a Devonshire-killed Pine Grosbeak, but its history, so far as I can make out, after a good deal of correspondence with various parties, is not satisfactory.'
W. S. M. D'Urban (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. pp. 183-184, says: 'In the last number of The Zoologist (p. 128) Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., has again referred to the red male specimen of the Pine Grosbeak in the collection of birds formed by the late Mr. Byne, of Miligan Hall, near Taunton, and which passed into the possession of the late Mr. Marsh-Dunn, of Teignmouth.
It is unfortunate that so much attention has been bestowed on this specimen, which has, I think, no real claim to be regarded as a British-killed specimen. So far from being amongst the four or five instances worthy of serious attention, as Prof. Newton considers it (4th ed. Yarrell's British Birds, Vol. II. pp. 177, 178), to my mind it is one of the most unsatisfactory of all.
I do not believe that it was obtained near Exeter, for at the time it is said to have been shot (1854-5) I was living within three miles of that city, and, as I was then quite absorbed in the pursuit of ornithology, I paid frequent visits to the shop of the bird-stuffer (Mr. James Truscott), who often mounted specimens for me, and always showed me any uncommon bird he had received. Truscott never said anything to me about a Pine Grosbeak having been killed near Exeter, nor did he make any announcement of the fact in the Exeter newspapers, as he was in the habit of doing, by way of advertisement, whenever he had any remarkable bird in his shop. If such a rare species had occurred it would have made a lasting impression on my memory, and I should have made a note of it, as I always did whenever I saw or heard of anything relating to the Ornithology of Devon, and I recorded in The Zoologist the occurrence of several of the rare birds which form part of Mr. Byne's collection.
Truscott was also constantly employed by the late Mr. F. W. L. Ross, of Topsham, who would have paid him highly for such a prize. None of the other Exeter collectors, so far as I know, ever heard of the existence of such a specimen. The late Mr. W. Tombs, who also employed Truscott, frequently sent notices of unusual birds shot near Exeter to the Naturalist and Zoologist, but I can find no record of this bird in the volumes for 1854 and 1855.
In 1869 Mr. Truscott's account of it was that "he knew the specimen in Mr. Byne's collection to be British, as he skinned it himself; that it was shot in company with some Crossbills, about nine or ten years since, by a gentleman in the army by the name of Hooper". He also said he had a Pine Grosbeak which was shot and stuffed by a gardener at Powderham (this I believe to be a Hawfinch, Truscott often confusing the two species when speaking of them, as many persons do).
I think Mr. Gurney has mixed these two reputed occurrences together. About that time Truscott seems to have had a Pine Grosbeak in his shop, but he told the late Mr. Brodrick that it was not the bird shot at Powderham.
Some few years before the supposed date of the occurrence of Mr. Byne's specimen Truscott had returned from Canada, where Pine Grosbeaks are sometimes seen in large flocks in winter, and where I have myself shot beautiful red specimens feeding on the berries of the mountain ash.
He brought home many skins of Canadian birds with him, some of which I saw in his possession, and he may have had Canadian-killed Pine Grosbeaks. It would be well if some competent person were to compare Mr. Byne's specimen with American examples. My belief is that the supposed occurrence near Exeter originated in a mistake.'
Admitted nationally in their first List of British Birds (BOU 1883) and (Seebohm 1884 (2): 41).
Not accepted locally by D'Urban & Mathew (1892: 70-71) who say: 'After Mr. Byne left Exeter he resided at Miligan Hall, near Taunton, where a specimen of the Pine Grosbeak is said to have been killed about 1851-52 (C.P., Zool., 1852, p. 3474). This specimen Mr. Henry Nicholls believes was purchased, with other American birds, from a collection which belonged to a Mr. Hellard, which was sold in Taunton.
It is "No. 18" of Mr. Gurney's list in his interesting article "on the claim of the Pine Grosbeak to be regarded as a British bird", published in The Zoologist for 1877, pp. 247, 248, and the Editor of that Journal, in a footnote, suggests that perhaps it is "the same as Mr. Byne's specimen"; but is certain it is not so. The ghost is, however, not yet laid, for Mr. E. A. S. Elliott tells us there is a specimen of the Pine Grosbeak in the possession of a Mr. Weeks, who was at one time housekeeper to Mr. C. Prideaux, which is said to have been shot in Brownston Wood, near Kingsbridge, but is more probably "No. 18".'
0) 1860 Derbyshire Kings Sterndale, near Buxton, two, seen, undated.
(Ed., Field 4th Feb., 1860: 93).
[Jourdain, 1905].
History In an Editorial (1860) in The Field of 4th Feb., Vol. XV. p. 93, he says: 'Mr. T. Punchaby, of the Duckpools, Ardwick Green, thus writes to the editor of the Derby Mercury: "Happening to call on my friend, the Rev. H. Cockle-Frith, of King's Sterndale, near Buxton, I was much surprised to observe two beautiful specimens of the Pine Grosbeak among the spruce firs in his garden. This rare bird, I apprehend, seldom visits such high latitudes".'
Jourdain (1905 (1): 131) in the Victoria County History of Derbyshire, placing the record in square brackets, says: 'Two specimens in the Derby Museum, which originally formed part of the Jebb collection, are said to have been locally obtained, but particulars are by this time unattainable. Two birds are stated to have been seen among spruce firs at Kings Sterndale near Buxton (Field, Feb. 4, 1860), but were probably crossbills.'
0). 1860 or 1861 Yorkshire Helmsley, seen, undated.
(C. W. Smith, Naturalist 15: 328).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History Christopher W. Smith of Harome, near Helmsley (1889) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XV. p. 328, says: 'Pine Grosbeak. Reported to have been observed at Helmsley in 1860 or 1861.'
0). Pre 1861 North-east Scotland Near Bridge of Dee, Aberdeen, seen, undated.
(Crombie, 1861; Sim, 1903).
[BOU, 1971].
History Sim (1903: 99) says: 'Has been seen "once or twice at a distance by myself near the Bridge of Dee" (Crombie, Braemar, 1861, p. 74).'
0). 1864 Hampshire Thruxton, New Forest, male, killed, 30th January, now at Horniman Museum.
(H. Reeks, Zoologist 1864: 9023; Kelsall & Munn, 1905; Cohen & Taverner, 1972).
[J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 248; Not in BOU, 1971; Clark, 2022, photo].
History H. Reeks (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9023, undated, says: 'On Saturday, the 30th of January, my brother killed a fine male specimen of the Pine Grosbeak, while preening its feathers on the branch of a fir tree. Upon skinning the bird, I found the crop filled with small seeds, some of which I have enclosed; they appear to me to be the seeds of Pinus sylvestria. I believe this is the first recorded instance of this bird's appearance in this part of Hampshire.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 248, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 21. In addition to the foregoing, I have three more records to refer to, one to Hampshire....In the second, that is Hampshire, the locality is Thruxton (Zoologist p. 9023), but in this instance I have been informed by the recorder himself, that a mistake was made in the identification of the species.'
0). Pre 1866 Yorkshire Sheffield and Doncaster, two, shot, undated.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 249; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 249, says: 'In the Sale Catalogue of Mr. Sealy, of Cambridge, also, I see that "Lot 59" is described as "Pine Grosbeaks, three in a case, one shot at Doncaster and one at Sheffield".
Whether these were anything more than dealer's localities I am unable to say....In the first place, then, I dismiss all records in which the name of the bird is given without any further particulars. I do the same with those included in the sale-catalogues, three in number.'
Clarke & Roebuck (1881: 31) say: 'Doncaster and Sheffield: In the Sale Catalogue (Dec. 28th, 1866) of Mr. Sealy, of Cambridge, lot 59 is described as "Pine Grosbeaks, three in a case, one shot at Doncaster and one at Sheffield". (J. H. Gurney, jun., Zool., 1877, p. 249).'
0). 1868 Cornwall St Germans, male and female, seen, 8th November.
(J. H. Gurney, Zoologist 1877: 248; Harting, 1880; Clark, 1906; Penhallurick, 1978).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 248, in a review of the species, says: 'Mr. Gatcombe informs me that on the 8th November, 1868, the Rev. Mr. Furneaux saw a pair of Pine Grosbeaks feeding on the seeds of an arbor-vitae at St. Germans, in Cornwall, and felt sure about the species. I have a note of being told that it was included, on the authority of Rev. G. Tugwell, in one edition of the Handbook of Devon, in which is followed the excellent practice of some recent guides to counties, of devoting a chapter to Natural History. I have two editions of this handbook, but neither of them contain any such record.'
Harting, Editor (1880) in Rodd's Birds of Cornwall, says: 'Although this beautifully coloured species, so rarely procured in England, cannot with certainty be included amongst the birds of Cornwall, attention may be directed to Mr. J. H. Gurney's report (Zoologist, 1877, p. 248) that two Pine Grosbeaks were observed, on the 8th November 1868, feeding on the seeds of an arbor-vitae at St. Germans in this county. The circumstance is not improbable, but since the identification of the species was not placed beyond doubt by the acquisition of either of the birds seen, it is possible that Crossbills may have been mistaken for the rarer Pine Grosbeaks.'
J. Clark (1902) in the Royal Institution of Cornwall, p. 192, under 'The Birds of Cornwall', says: '[Pine Grosbeak - Mr. J. Gatcombe reported having seen two at St. Germans, in November 1868, the only Cornish record.]
Clark (1906 (1): 334) in the Victoria County History of Cornwall, placing the record in square brackets, says: 'In a letter to E. H. Rodd, dated 29 March, 1877, Alan Furneaux, of St. Germans, writes, "I observed [on 8 November, 1868] a pair of strange finches feeding on the cones of an arbor vitae not five yards from a window in this house. I had time to view them with the aid of a binocular. The back of the male was bright crimson, and to the best of my recollection relieved with dusky spots. The mandibles were short and blunt, but to my view ended in a distinct point and did not cross. On comparing the bird with the plate [of the Pine Grosbeak] in Mr. Morris's work I felt no doubt.'
Locally, Penhallurick (1978: 320) adds: 'It was Alan Furneaux who watched them.'
0). c. 1870 Gloucestershire Near Cheltenham, three, killed, undated.
(Mellersh, 1902).
[Swaine, 1982].
History Mellersh (1902) says: 'Three killed near Cheltenham about 1870.' Not accepted locally (Swaine 1982).
0). Pre 1872 Perth & Kinross Butterstone Loch, Dunkeld, Perthshire, six/seven, seen, early winter.
(Harting, 1872; Yarrell, 1871-85; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1877: 248; H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 5: 248-249).
[Harvie-Brown, 1906; Not in BOU, 1971].
History Harting (1872: 114) says: 'One seen at Dunkeld: Col. Drummond Hay, hitherto unrecorded.'
Alfred Newton (1876-82) in Yarrell's British Birds, 4th ed. Vol. II. p. 179, in a footnote, says: 'One believed to have been seen by Col. Drummond Hay (Harting 1872).'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 248, in a review of the species, says: 'No. 19. This record is the last mentioned by Mr. Harting (op. cit.), and refers to one seen at Dunkeld, N.B., by Col. Drummond Hay, as he told me when I had the pleasure of meeting him some time ago.'
H. M. Drummond Hay (1879-80) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. V. pp. 248-249, says: 'I should not have mentioned this bird here had not Mr. Horn, in his paper referred to, given me as an authority for its appearance at Dunkeld, and my mentioning it at all was by way of throwing out a mere suspicion that certain birds I had seen were possibly the Pine Grosbeak. Not having been able to obtain a specimen, the mere fact of seeing what appeared to me to be the bird would be of no value.
However, having since become well acquainted with it, or the closely allied species, in Nova Scotia, I have little doubt but that the birds in question were really Pine Grosbeaks. It is now a great many years ago, some time in early winter, that I observed at Butterstone Loch, near Dunkeld, not far from the road, several birds (about five or six in number), most of them of a bright red colour, feeding on some young larch trees. They were so very much larger than either the Bullfinch or the Crossbill, that my attention was at once attracted to them; but as there is no record of their having been observed, either before or since, even if right in my conjectures, their appearance must be held to be purely accidental.'
Not accepted locally who placed the record in square brackets (Harvie-Brown 1906: 124-125).
0). 1874 Suffolk Heigham, shot, undated.
(Tearle MS.).
[Babington, 1884-86; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 127, in a further review of the species, says: 'In the late Mr. Churchill Babington's Birds of Suffolk, the author, on the authority of the late Rev. F. Tearle, of Gazeley, mentions (p. 334), a Pine Grosbeak shot at Heigham in 1874. Correspondence has failed to trace its whereabouts, and Mr. Babington has marked this and the next as doubtful. Babington (1884-86) p. 234, sums up by saying: "The above quoted instances appear to be doubtful".'
0). Pre 1876 Hampshire Near new Forest, adult male, killed, undated, now at Horniman Museum, London (NH.83.3/19).
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 126; Kelsall & Munn, 1905; Hart MS.).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 126, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 32. Mr. Edward Hart has been good enough to submit for examination a male Pine Grosbeak killed many years ago in the New Forest. It was stuffed by Barrow, of Christchurch, and afterwards passed to Mr. H. Jenkins, who is no longer living, but is believed to have had no foreign skins, and Mr. Hart's bird certainly looks as if it had been mounted from the flesh at a time when bird-stuffing was not the advanced art which it is at the present day.'
Kelsall & Munn (1905: 67-68) say: 'The male specimen in the Hart collection was formerly in the possession of the H. Treasure Jenkins, who said it was killed in the neighbourhood of the New Forest many years ago. Mr. Hart purchased it at his sale in 1876.
Mr. J. H. Gurney wrote an article on the occurrence of this species in Great Britain in The Zoologist of 1890, in which he remarks that the specimen is among the four most authentic examples recorded.
He says it was stuffed by Barrow, of Christchurch, that Mr. Jenkins is believed to have had no foreign skins, and that this one "certainly looks as if it had been mounted from the flesh at a time when bird-stuffing was not the advanced art which it is at the present day". In the same article he mentions that four Pine Grosbeaks were received in the flesh by a taxidermist at Great Yarmouth, about, March 1st, 1889, "affirmed to have been shot in the Wolmer Forest, Hampshire", but he believes they were sent in ice from Russia; and Mr. O. V. Aplin, writing in the same volume, thinks, "there can be no doubt" of their foreign origin, having himself received two specimens from Leadenhall Market, within a week of the same date, which had been sent in a frozen condition from Northern Europe.'
Edward Hart writing in April 1927 states that this adult male formerly in the possession of the late H. Treasure Jenkins told me it was killed in the neighbourhood of the New Forest many years ago. I purchased it at the sale of his effects April 1876. It was preserved by Barron, Taxidermist.
0). 1882 Cambridgeshire Little Abington, shot, 13th January, now at Saffron Walden Museum.
(R. M. Christy, Zoologist 1883: 222-223; Nature, 12th December; J. H. Gurney, Zoologist 1890: 127; Marr & Shipley, 1904; Lack, 1934; Bircham, 1989).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History Robert Miller Christy of Saffron Walden (1883) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. VII. pp. 222-223, says: 'I am glad to be able to forward details of the capture of a Pine Grosbeak, which has, I believe, not been previously recorded.
The bird was shot by one Robert Scotcher, groom to the Rev. A. H. D. Hutton, of Little Abingdon Vicarage, Cambs., in that gentleman's grounds, on the 13th of January, 1882, after having been seen, unaccompanied by any other bird, on several occasions in the covers around Abingdon Hall.
Scotcher, not knowing what kind of bird it was, sent it to an amateur in the village for preservation, but after having being wretchedly stuffed, and nearly spoiled by mice which were allowed to eat its legs and tail, it was sent to Travis, of Saffron Walden, who repaired the mischief.
In the end Mr. Hutton presented it to the Museum in this town, where it now is. Mr. Hutton, who has kindly supplied me with information, says that when shot it was feeding on the branches of a spruce fir, and that it proved to be a female, although from the plumage one would have supposed it a male.
The following is a brief description: - "Crown, cheeks, nape, whole of back and upper tail coverts had the feathers blackish grey, all being broadly edged with red, which showed a little mostly on the back, but not on the head or neck. The red was of a peculiar tint (certainly not "vermilion red", as described by Yarrell, and as on some other specimens with which I have compared it), which may, perhaps, be best described as red strongly tinged with crimson-lake. Tail-feathers blackish brown, faintly edged with red. Wing-coverts as tail, each feather tipped with white strongly tinged with red, thus forming two bars. Quill-feathers as tail. Outer edge of primaries margined with red. Breast, throat, and sides much the same as back, but with one or two yellowish feathers intermixed low down. Belly and under tail-coverts greyish, edges lighter".'
J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 127, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 28. In The Zoologist for 1883 (p. 222), Mr. R. M. Christy reports a Pine Grosbeak shot at Little Abington, in Cambridgeshire, in January, 1882. I have examined this bird. It is a good red male, and is said to have been shot by a groom in the vicarage garden. It was sent to a village birdstuffer named Unwin, who sent it to Travis, the taxidermist of Saffron Walden, to whom we are indebted for its correct identification, and on whose authority its reliability and rescue undoubtedly rest.'
A. H. Evans (1904) under 'The Birds of Cambridgeshire' in Marr & Shipley's Handbook to the Natural History of Cambridgeshire, p. 90, says: 'Has once been obtained in the county, a specimen, now in the Saffron Walden Museum, having been shot by the groom of the Rev. A. H. D. Hutton in the garden of Little Abington vicarage on January 13, 1882 (Zoologist, 1883, p. 222).'
Accepted locally (Lack 1934; Bircham 1989) but not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).
0). Pre 1888 Avon Foxhill, caught undated.
(Terry, 1888).
[KAN].
History C. Terry (1888) under 'Aves' in the Zoology chapter in the Handbook to Bath, p. 255, says: 'Corythus enucleator. Pine Grosbeak, caught at Widcombe and Foxhill.'
Comment A bare statement with no supporting evidence. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1888 Avon Widcombe, caught undated.
(Terry, 1888).
[KAN].
History C. Terry (1888) under 'Aves' in the Zoology chapter in the Handbook to Bath, p. 255, says: 'Corythus enucleator. Pine Grosbeak, caught at Widcombe and Foxhill.'
Comment A bare statement with no supporting evidence. Not acceptable.
0). 1888 Cambridgeshire St Neots, Huntingdon, two: female and another, obtained, 2nd February, both now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1962Z10.576 & 578).
(Watson, 2010).
[KAN].
History Watson (2010) in detailing the J. L. Auden collection in the Birmingham Museum lists two specimens that were obtained at St Neots, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, on 2nd February 1888, adding that they were bought from Sir V. H. Crewe's collection.
Comment Crewe's specimens have been questioned before over their provenance and this record has come to light 122 years after the event leaving it open to doubt. Not acceptable.
0). 1889 Hampshire Wolmer Forest, four, shot, pre 1st March.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 128).
[O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1890: 184-185; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 127, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 33.) About March 1st, 1889, a taxidermist at Great Yarmouth received four Pine Grosbeaks in the flesh, affirmed to have been shot in the Wolmer Forest, Hampshire, Probably either a trick had been attempted by the sender, or an unconscious mistake made; and instead of having been killed in Hampshire, very likely they were sent in ice from Russia, as happened a few years ago when some of these birds were sent in a frozen state to the principal poulterer at Brighton.'
O. V. Aplin of Bloxham (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. pp. 184-185, says: 'There can, I think, be no doubt about the origin of the four Pine Grosbeaks received by the bird-stuffer at Great Yarmouth on or about March 1st 1889, and stated to have been shot in Wolmer Forest (No. 33 in Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., supplementary list, Zool., 1890, p. 128).
On the 7th of that same month I received two specimens from Leadenhall Market, where they had been sent in a frozen condition from Northern Europe. Norway was given as the locality, but it is very possible that they came from Russia, as Mr. Gurney suggests. Although these Grosbeaks were rather dry when thawed, especially about the head and feet, they were fresh enough to make me a couple of very fair skins....I feel sure that these specimens could be set up months after they were killed in such a manner that it would be impossible to tell that they were mounted from perfectly fresh specimens....So there is now an additional reason for suspecting the origin of Pine Grosbeaks and other northern birds said to have been killed in this country.'
Comment Probably imported. Four together is very suspicious. Not admitted by the BOU (1971). Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1890 Devon Powderham, male, shot, undated.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 128-129).
[W. S. M. D'Urban, Zoologist 1890: 183-184; D'Urban & Mathew, 1892; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. pp. 128-129, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 36.) Lastly, some reference should be made to a Pine Grosbeak, a red male, affirmed to have been shot at Powderham, in Devonshire, and stuffed by a gardener named Major, since dead. Without any evidence one way or the other, I may simply state that I do not in the least believe that it was killed anywhere in England, although the late Mr. Byne, of Taunton, and Mr. Truscott, of Exeter, both believed in it. According to my experience, the shooters of such rare British birds as the Great Black Woodpecker, Spotted Sandpiper and Pine Grosbeak are generally found to be dead when wanted to give evidence - an inconvenient circumstance which naturally casts some doubt on the marvellous statements attributed to them.'
W. S. M. D'Urban (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. pp. 183-184, says: '...He also said he had a Pine Grosbeak which was shot and stuffed by a gardener at Powderham (this I believe to be a Hawfinch, Truscott often confusing the two species when speaking of them, as many persons do). I think Mr. Gurney has mixed these two reputed occurrences together.'
Not accepted locally (D'Urban & Mathew 1892: 70-71).
Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971). Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1890 Norfolk No locality, pair, obtained, undated, now at British Museum.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 128).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 128, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 34. In the Natural History Museum at South Kensington may be seen a male and female Pine Grosbeak labelled "Norfolk", which probably came from a notably unreliable birdstuffer named Hubbard, now deceased. But, from whatever source received, there is no evidence whatever to support the statement that those two birds were procured in Norfolk.'
0). Pre 1890 Suffolk Beccles, killed, undated.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 128).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 128, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 36.) Mr. J. G. Millais has shown me a Pine Grosbeak, said to have been killed by a gardener at Beccles, in Suffolk, and given to him by a tailor at Lowestoft named Freeman. Mr. Crowfoot of Beccles, has endeavoured to ascertain more about it, but without success, and were it not that its owner has implicit belief in the statement made to him concerning it, I confess I should feel much doubt about it. It seems clear that it cannot be identical with either of the other specimens reported from Suffolk, and it should be remembered how often mistakes me made without the slightest intention to deceive.'
0). Pre 1890 Sussex Shoreham-by-Sea, immature male, obtained, undated.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 127-128; Borrer, 1891).
[Walpole-Bond, 1938; Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Northrepps (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. pp. 127-128, in a further review of the species, says: 'No. 31.) Mr. T. J. Monk, of Lewes, has favoured me with the sight of a handsome yellow male bird of this species, obtained at Shoreham, which he procured through the late Mr. Swaysland.
It is said to have been killed near the old bridge, far away from any trees, a curious place for this dweller among forests; possibly it may have escaped from captivity - a supposition which is favoured by its yellow plumage. In the Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park, there have been several in captivity.'
Accepted locally (Borrer (1891) but not by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 103) who adds: 'Mr. A. F. Griffith wrote to me concerning this example as follows: - "No confirmatory evidence, beyond the word of the dealer who sold the bird to Monk, has ever been forthcoming".'
Comment Swaysland has been discredited (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.
0). 1901 Berkshire Wellington College, male, 17th November to 8th December.
(C. M. Rogers, Nature 65: 129; Fraser & Youngman, 1976; Swash, 1996).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History C. M. Rogers of Wellington College, Berks. (1901) in Nature, Vol. LXV. p. 129, says: 'Is it not of rare occurrence that a Pine Grosbeak (Pyrrhula enucleator) has been seen here, not on one day, but on two?
I was informed this morning that Mr. O. T. Perkins had seen this handsome bird out of his window, apparently either eating beech buds or else hunting for insects on them. During this the bird was attacked by three sparrows, who began making a great noise and eventually drove him off. This morning I saw the same grosbeak, or another one, in a like manner feeding on beech. And what is more strange he was again attacked by sparrows and had to beat a hasty retreat. I may add that the bird, to all appearances, was in excellent condition, its plumage being brilliant.
I wonder if any other of your readers have noticed any of these handsome but rare birds?'
0). 1905 Kent Near Hawkhurst, two: immature male and female, killed, 25th October, female now at Leicester Arts & Museums (Acc. No. L.Z162.1969.401.0).
(W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 16: 47-48; E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 1: 17-18; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 247; Ticehurst, 1909; N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 4: 24; A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 111: 228-230).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1906) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XVI. pp. 47-48, at the 120th Meeting of the Club held on 17th January 1906 at the Restaurant Frascati, London, says: 'Mr. C. B. Ticehurst exhibited an immature female example of the Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator), which was one of two young birds shot by Mr. Oliver out of a small flock in some fir-trees near Hawkhurst, Sussex [sic], on the 25th October, 1905. The flock contained some rosy adult birds.
The two killed were forwarded to Mr. G. Bristowe [sic], of St. Leonards, and were seen by the exhibitor on the following day. Mr. Ticehurst remarked: - "I exhibit the bird because there are so few records of its occurrence in the British Isles, which are beyond suspicion, many so-called occurrences having been proved to be escaped cage-birds, while in 1889 many examples were imported frozen. On October 30th, 1890, an adult male in rosy plumage was shot by Mr. Dixon near Annesley, in Notts., and recorded by Mr. J. Whitaker. This example is in the collection of Mr. Musters".'
E. N. Bloomfield (1906) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. I. pp. 17-18, says: 'I am indebted to Messrs. N. F. Ticehurst and W. Ruskin Butterfield for the following notices of rare birds which have occurred in our own and in neighbouring districts. In neighbouring districts of Kent and Sussex - Pinicolor [sic] enucleator, L., Pine Grosbeak, Hawkhurst, October 25th, 1905.'
Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. I. p. 247, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', and locally by Ticehurst (1909: 164-165).
N. F. Ticehurst (1928) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 24, says: 'The female from Hawkhurst (Vol. I. p. 18) and one of the males from Netherfield (Vol. III. p. 75) are now in the Dyke Road Museum at Brighton.'
Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.
0). 1905 Sussex Netherfield, three: two males and female, shot, 30th October, two now at Booth Museum, Brighton.
(H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 247; Ticehurst, 1909; N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 4: 24).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. I. p. 247, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.
Ticehurst (1909: 165) says: 'A few days later (than 25th October), it is interesting to note, a flock, probably the same one, appeared in one of the large fir woods on the outskirts of Ashburnham Park, in Sussex. Two or more birds, one of them being a rosy adult cock, were shot by one of the Earl of Ashburnham's keepers, and are preserved in the collection of Mr. Fleetwood Ashburnham.'
N. F. Ticehurst (1928) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 24, says: 'The female from Hawkhurst (Vol. I. p. 18) and one of the males from Netherfield (Vol. III. p. 75) are now in the Dyke Road Museum at Brighton.'
Admitted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 103) who states that two are now in the Booth Museum, Brighton.
Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.
0). 1908 County withheld Locality withheld, adult pair, seen, 1st to 28th March, three immatures, June.
(H. A. Cherry, Field 13th Feb., 1909: 284).
[Ed., Field 13th Feb., 1909: 284].
History H. A. Cherry (1909) in The Field of 13th Feb., Vol. CXIII. p. 284, says: 'It may interest some of your readers to hear of the occurrence two years in succession in the Midlands of the Pine Grosbeak (Loxia enucleator).
I first observed the bird of March 1, 1908, feeding under a holly tree on the fallen berries, a few yards from my window, about 8 a.m. I and the members of my family used to watch these birds, a cock and a hen, about the same time every morning through field glasses, and were able to compare them with the description given by Bewick, which I find to be the most accurate of several that I have read.
On March 28 the hen was seen, after feeding, to pick up and fly off with a piece of lichen, indicating that she was building a nest. This was the last occasion we observed the birds at the time, as we left home till June, when again I saw three of the birds some distance off on the lawn; they were in immature plumage and apparently young birds. Twice within the last week I thought I saw one of these birds feeding under the same holly tree, but it was not light enough to be quite certain; but one morning I watched for ten minutes through glasses a hen bird, not more than twelve yards distant, feeding on the berries.
The birds are rather slow in their movements on the ground, keeping very much to the same spot, and drive off any Blackbirds or others that may come to feed near them. The cock bird, a most gorgeous fellow, is of much brighter colouring than the hen, much resembling a Goldfinch in this respect, but the crimson colour completely covers the whole of the head. The bill is of a slaty grey (according to Bewick "dusky"). As I fear the collector's gun, please do not publish my address.'
[Without wishing to impugn our correspondent's accuracy of observation, we strongly suspect the birds were Crossbills. In both species the cock bird is red, the hen green, and the immature birds yellow and green and brown, changing by degrees to the adult plumage, according to the sex. Crossbills are not uncommon here in winter; Pine Grosbeaks are very rare at any time. Crossbills breed annually in the British Islands; Pine Grosbeaks never do so. - Ed.]
0). 1909 Kent Biddenden, male and female, shot, 4th March.
(E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 1: 206, 207; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History E. N. Bloomfield (1909) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. I. pp. 206, 207, says: 'We are again indebted to Dr. N. F. Ticehurst for a long list of rare birds which have occurred in our own and neighbouring districts, to which Mr. Butterfield has made some good additions. In neighbouring districts - Pinicola enucleator, L., Pine Grosbeak, Biddenden, a pair, March 4th.'
Ticehurst (1909: 165) says: 'On March 6th, 1909, Mr. Bristow received another pair of these birds, one of which he also brought to me in the flesh. They were both in the orange phase of plumage, and had been shot at Biddenden on the 4th, the day of the great snowstorm.'
Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.
0). 1914 Sussex Brightling, two, adult males, obtained, 20th January.
(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 7: 292; Anon., Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 170).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1914) in British Birds, Vol. VII. p. 292, says: 'On January 21st, 1914, I was shown a couple of very fine Pine-Grosbeaks (Pinicola e. enucleator) that had been, obtained the previous day at Brightling, Sussex. They were both males, and one was of a beautiful rosy colour and of a far more gaudy tint than the other.'
Anon. (1917) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. II. p. 170, says: 'Pine Grosbeak, two adult males, Darvel Bank, Brightling, 20 January; also adult female from the same locality, 25 January. Presented to the Hastings Museum by Mr. W. H. Mullens.'
Locally, Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 103-104) adds: 'Three were recorded in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, but only two are accepted in British Birds and in A Practical Handbook of British Birds, 1919.'
Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.
0). 1914 Sussex Brightling, adult female, obtained, 25th January.
(Anon., Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 170).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Anon. (1917) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. II. p. 170, says: 'Pine Grosbeak, two adult males, Darvel Bank, Brightling, 20 January; also adult female from the same locality, 25 January. Presented to the Hastings Museum by Mr. W. H. Mullens.
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1914 Sussex Brightling, adult male, obtained, 22nd February, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMS.Z.1914.22.1).
(J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan, British Birds 104: 543, plate 286).
[J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan, British Birds 104: 543, plate 286].
History J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan (2011) in British Birds, Vol. CIV. p. 543, in a Letter, under 'Hastings Rarities in the Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh', state that the following species were sold to the museum during 1913 and 1914 by George Bristow, the taxidermist of St Leonard's, who was at the heart of the fraud known as the 'Hastings Rarities', just before Witherby challenged him in 1916 over the amount of rarities recorded in the area. An adult male from Brightling on 22nd February 1914 (Acc. No. 1914.22.1).
0). 1917 Sussex Netherfield, adult male, obtained, 2nd February.
(W. R. Butterfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 75; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History W. R. Butterfield (1919) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 75, says: 'An adult male was shot at Netherfield, on February 2nd.'
Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 104) who states that this record was omitted in A Practical Handbook of British Birds, 1919.
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1938 Highland Tomatin, Inverness-shire, four, seen, May.
(B. V. Fitzgerald, Scottish Naturalist 58: 115).
[Witherby et al., 1940-52; BOU, 1971; Thom, 1986; Scottish Birds 18: 141].
History Brian Vesey Fitzgerald, naturalist Editor for The Field (1938) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LVIII. p. 115, says: 'On the 15th May four pine grosbeaks were seen at Tomatin, Inverness-shire. I have not seen an example myself, but the description given me leaves no possible room for doubt, and the call also described by my correspondent is quite accurate. I am familiar with the birds in Lapland and Northern Finland and the description is perfect. The birds were seen on three separate days, the first being the 12th May, and at a distance of only a few yards.'
0). 1955 Kent Charing, adult male, 7th April.
(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1955: 30; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).
[D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers, British Birds 99: 463].
History E. H. Gillham (1955) in the Kent Bird Report, Vol. IV. p. 30, says: 'An adult male seen on ground at 8 yards range, in garden at Charing on Apl. 7. Size: about that of Song Thrush; upper back, neck and underparts pink, not any other shade of red or russet etc.; faint white bars on closed wings which were brownish; heavy mandibles fitted closely together and were definitely not crossed (Sir H. and Lady Woodward).
Although the tail length did not strike observers as particularly long, possibly because of the angles at which the bird was seen, we are satisfied that the bird was correctly identified and that there was no confusion with a Crossbill. Points concerning the identification have been discussed with both observers who have since examined skins of this species. The two previous records for the county were of birds shot in 1905 and 1909.
It is interesting to note that there was an irruption of Pine Grosbeaks into S.W. Norway, Central and S. Sweden, and Denmark, between Oct.-Dec. 1954, and that one was caught on the Isle of May, Scotland, in Nov. of that year (cf. B. B., 48: 133-4).'
D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers (2006) in British Birds, Vol. XCIX.p. 463, in a review of certain rarities during the period 1950-57, found this record to be unacceptable.
