Red-throated Pipit
Anthus cervinus (Pallas, 1811) (11, 5)
Photo © Rob Stonehouse - Peninnis, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, 7 October 2019
STATUS
Palearctic. Monotypic.
OVERVIEW
September and October is when this migrant appears with spring records confined to May.
RECORDS
1). 1908 Fair Isle No locality, seen and heard, 2nd October, immature female, obtained, 3rd October, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMSZ 1909.222.35).
(W. E. Clarke, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1909: 72; Clarke, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; BOURC (2006), Ibis 148: 198-201).
History Wm. Eagle Clarke (1909) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XVIII. p. 72, says: 'I have long been on the look-out for this Pipit at Fair Isle, and had examined, with the aid of a field-glass, great numbers of Meadow Pipits in the hope of detecting it. During my last visit, however, this bird proclaimed its presence on two occasions by its notes, which are quite different from those of any other Pipit with which I am acquainted....It has not previously been recorded for Scotland.'
Clarke (1912 (2): 89) under 'A Year at Fair Isle' in George Stout's diary of 1908, says: '2nd October - South-east, light, misty, then sunny and hot; south-west, very light, pm. Red-throated Pipit seen and heard.' Further, p. 90, Red-throated Pipit, an immature female: it rose from potatoes, and was detected by its strange note heard by me for first time in Fair Isle yesterday.'
Further, p. 122, Clarke adds: 'I had paid careful attention to the pipits, and examined many thousands, through my field-glasses, in the hope of detecting this species. It was not, however, until 2nd October, 1908, that success was achieved, and then my attention was drawn to the bird by its peculiar note as it passed overhead. I was fortunate enough to secure it, and it proved to be a female of the long-looked-for bird. Its note was not at all like that of any pipit or other bird with which I was acquainted.'
Admitted nationally as the first for Britain (BOURC (2006) Ibis 148: 198-201).
2). 1908 Fair Isle No locality, seen and heard, 1st November.
(W. E. Clarke, Annals of Scottish Natural History 1909: 72; Clarke, 1912; Witherby, 1920-24; Thom, 1986).
History Wm. Eagle Clarke (1909) in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, Vol. XVIII. p. 72, says: 'I have long been on the look-out for this Pipit at Fair Isle, and had examined, with the aid of a field-glass, great numbers of Meadow Pipits in the hope of detecting it. During my last visit, however, this bird proclaimed its presence on two occasions by its notes, which are quite different from those of any other Pipit with which I am acquainted....It has not previously been recorded for Scotland.'
Clarke (1912 (2): 97) under 'A Year at Fair Isle' in George Stout's diary of 1908, says: '1st November - South, light; clear. Red-throated Pipit, one observed at close quarters.' However, p. 122, Clarke adds: '...another was heard on 1st November of the same year [1908].'
3). 1910 Outer Hebrides St Kilda, seen and heard, 21st September.
(Clarke, 1912; Eds., British Birds 6: 151; Witherby, 1920-24; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
History Clarke (1912 (2): 212) under 'The Birds of St Kilda', says: 'Red-throated Pipit - On 21st September 1910, one flew over my head uttering its unmistakable note, vividly recalling the occasion on which I first made the bird's acquaintance at Fair Isle under precisely similar circumstances on 3rd October 1908.'
In an Editorial (1912) in British Birds, Vol. VI. p. 151, under 'Additional records for Fair Isle and St Kilda', they say: 'In his Studies in Bird-migration, Mr. Eagle Clarke gives a good deal of hitherto unpublished information about the rarities observed in Fair Isle and St. Kilda, and a few new facts about those in the Flannans and Sule Skerry. The most important additions thus made to the details given in our Hand-List of British Birds are as follows: - St. Kilda: One seen September 21st, 1910.'
4). 1911 Outer Hebrides St Kilda, seen, 8th October.
(Clarke, 1912; Eds., British Birds 6: 151; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 32: 280; Witherby, 1920-24; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
History Clarke (1912 (2): 212-213) under 'The Birds of St Kilda', says: 'Red-throated Pipit - One was seen at very close quarters on 8th October 1911 (Sunday). It was perched on a wall immediately behind the village, and our attention was drawn to it by its characteristic note.'
In an Editorial (1912) in British Birds, Vol. VI. p. 151, under 'Additional records for Fair Isle and St Kilda', they say: 'In his Studies in Bird-migration, Mr. Eagle Clarke gives a good deal of hitherto unpublished information about the rarities observed in Fair Isle and St. Kilda, and a few new facts about those in the Flannans and Sule Skerry. The most important additions thus made to the details given in our Hand-List of British Birds are as follows: - St. Kilda: One seen October 8th, 1911.'
W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1913) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXXII. p. 280, on the unexpected occurrences for 1911, says: 'One shot, St. Kilda, October 8th.'
5). 1913 Orkney Auskerry, first-year male, 1st October.
(W. E. Clarke, Scottish Naturalist 34: 7; Eds., British Birds 7: 303; Witherby, 1920-24; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
History Wm. Eagle Clarke (1914) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. XXXIV. p. 7, says: 'A young male was obtained on 1st October - a welcome addition to the few authentic British records of the occurrence of this native of the high northern regions of the Old World. It is an addition to the fauna of Orkney.'
In an Editorial (1914) in British Birds, Vol. VII. p. 303, they say: 'Mr. Clarke now (Scot. Nat., 1914, pp. 5-8) gives a remarkable list of other rare and interesting migrants noted on the island in the autumn of 1913. Of these the following are the most interesting: - Red-throated Pipit (Anthus cervinus). - A young male on Oct. 1st.'
6). 1931 Fair Isle No locality, seen, September/October.
(G. Stout, Scottish Naturalist 52: 38; Eds., British Birds 26: 27; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
History George Stout of Fair Isle (1932) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LII. p. 38, says: 'We did not have many birds on Fair Isle this autumn, owing to too much westerly wind, but I observed a few unusual visitors....a Red-throated Pipit.'
In an Editorial (1932) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. pp. 27-28, they say: 'Other rare birds recorded are: Red-throated Pipit (A. rufogularis)...are also mentioned as having occurred, but no dates or particulars are given and it is a great pity that these interesting records are published in such an incomplete form.'
7). 1936 Fair Isle No locality, 16th September.
(Witherby et al., 1940-52; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Dymond, 1991).
History Witherby et al. (1940-52) says: 'Six seen Fair Is. May 8, 1936, One Sept. 16, two Oct. 5 and one Oct. 6, 1937 (G. Waterston in litt.).'
8). 1936 Fair Isle No locality, two, 5th October.
(Witherby et al., 1940-52; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Dymond, 1991).
History Witherby et al. (1940-52) says: 'Six seen Fair Is. May 8, 1936, One Sept. 16, two Oct. 5 and one Oct. 6, 1937 (G. Waterston in litt.).'
10). 1937 Fair Isle No locality, 6th October.
(Witherby et al., 1940-52; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
History Witherby et al. (1940-52) says: 'Six seen Fair Is. May 8, 1936, One Sept. 16, two Oct. 5 and one Oct. 6, 1937 (G. Waterston in litt.).'
11). 1938 Kent Dungeness, seen, 5th September.
(H. G. Alexander, British Birds 32: 233; R. Whitlock, South-Eastern Bird Report 1938: 40; Harrison, 1953).
History H. G. Alexander (1938) in British Birds, Vol. XXXII. p. 233, says: 'On September 5th, 1938, at about 12.30, while Miss C.K. James, Mr. W. E. Kenrick and I were sitting on the beach at Dungeness Point, a small bird came flying across the sea from east-south-east and settled on the shingle close to the water's edge. As it settled, we saw that it was a pipit, and from the dark appearance of its upper-parts at a distance of some twenty yards, I supposed it must be a Rock or Water Pipit.
Dr. N. H. Joy, who was also on the beach at about an equal distance the other side of the bird, formed the same opinion in the first instance. However, closer inspection showed that the legs were the wrong colour and that the dark appearance of the upper-side was due not to the fairly uniform dark grey-brown of Rock and Water Pipits, but to very dark centres of all the feathers on the upper-side from beak to tail. The bird took a number of short flights across the beach. It was not at all shy, and once whilst it was pecking about among some poppies, it allowed Kenrick and myself to approach within six or seven feet. As it more than once got up from such very close distances, we could satisfy ourselves that the dark centres of the feathers extended right down the back. Unfortunately it refused to utter any note. We had it under observation for quite half an hour, but when we went to look for it again an hour later, it had disappeared.
I have since examined a number of skins at South Kensington. Although some Tree Pipits show slight dark centres to the feathers on the lower back and rump, none show anything like the conspicuous, almost black, centres which are characteristic of the Red-throated Pipit (A. cervinus) and there seems to be no doubt that the bird must have been of that species. As there seems to be some doubt about the colours of the soft parts of some of the pipits, it is perhaps worth adding that this bird had pinky-buff legs with practically purple feet, brown beak, and dark eye with a light orbit.'
R. Whitlock (1938) in the South-Eastern Bird Report, p. 40, quotes from British Birds. Locally, it is still admitted by the Kent Orn. Society in April, 2013
1950-57 RECORDS
12). 1950 Shetland Quendale, Mainland, 12th September.
(L. S. V. Venables, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 1 (10): 46; Venables & Venables, 1955).
History L. S. V. Venables (1953) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. 1 (X). p. 46, says: '...My only other Dunrossness record is also September 12th, in 1950, - an astonishing coincidence!'
Venables & Venables (1955) say: 'We have seen two autumn migrants (Quendale on 12th September, 1950 and Levenwick, also 12th September in 1952). Apparently these are the only records for Shetland.'
13). 1952 Fair Isle Vaasetter, 31st May.
(K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 1952: 5; K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 1 (7): 39-41; K. Williamson, British Birds 46: 212; K. Williamson, British Birds 46: 424; Venables & Venables, 1955).
History K. Williamson (1952) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. I (VII). p. 24, says: 'As I came away from the Blue Fulmar Cliff on the morning of May 31st 1952 a small bird flew across my path uttering a callnote which, whilst it was clearly the note of a pipit, was entirely new to me. I followed the bird and got excellent short-range views of it as it walked to and fro on the heathery moor. It was a Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus, in very bright plumage. Later in the morning Miss Peggy Condliffe and my wife also watched the bird with me for an hour or more: we tried to bring it into the area served by the Gully and Double-Dyke Traps, but it was very loath to leave the open heather-grown moorland....'
K. Williamson (1953) in British Birds, Vol. XLVI. p. 212, says: 'May 31st. I had excellent views of this brightly-plumaged bird as it foraged on the heather-grown moorland at Vaasetter, and it was also watched by my wife and Miss Peggy Condliffe. It was of Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis) size, but stockier looking, and, we thought, rather shorter-legged and less active in its movements than the commoner pipits. It was a darker, richer brown above and more coarsely streaked than either Tree or Meadow Pipits, this streaking extending to the rump - a point which could be observed quite easily as the bird often walked with the wing-points carried below the level of the tail. Much of the head was of the same chestnut colour as the breast, and this colour was much richer than in any of the specimens figured in The Handbook (Vol. I. plate 21) and was more nearly matched by the brighter of the birds figured in H. E. Dresser's Birds of Europe (Vol. III. plate 136), an adult male example.
The only call-note we heard was a clear and rather strident "pee-ez", faintly but decidedly disyllabic. It was sometimes uttered singly when the bird was disturbed, but on other occasions was repeated three or four times, and without doubt this is the note rendered as "skeez" in The Handbook (Vol. I. p. 200). The clear, ringing tone of the call was sufficiently distinct from that of the Tree Pipit to attract immediate attention.
Of the 25 or so records of this pipit in the British Isles only 4 are for the spring, the most recent being of 6 birds seen at Fair Isle on May 8th, 1936. The present is later by nine days than the previous latest spring occurrence.'
14). 1952 Shetland Levenwick, Mainland, 12th September.
(L. S. V. Venables, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 1 (10): 46; K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 1952: 5; K. Williamson, British Birds 46: 212; Venables & Venables, 1955).
History L. S. V. Venables (1953) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. 1 (X). p. 46, says: 'A Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus was on Levenwick dunes on September 12th; it gave the correct "chup" call-note several times when flushed. My only other Dunrossness record is also September 12th, in 1950, - an astonishing coincidence!'
Venables & Venables (1955) say: 'We have seen two autumn migrants (Quendale on 12th September, 1950 and Levenwick, also 12th September in 1952). Apparently these are the only records for Shetland.'
15). 1954 Fair Isle Gaila, 8th to 11th May.
(K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 2: 171; K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 1954: 4; R. K. Cornwallis, British Birds 48: 430).
History K. Williamson (1954) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. II. p. 171, says: 'A handsome specimen frequented the short-cropped turf at Gaila between May 8th and 11th; on the last day, a fine and sunny one, it was heard to give snatches of a low, warbling song. There was less chestnut on the head than in the example recorded on May 31st 1952 and a noticeable feature of the heavily streaked mantle plumage was the pair of buffish-white streaks running down the inner edges of the scapulars. The call-note, Tree Pipit like but stronger, was often heard.'
R. K. Cornwallis (1955) in British Birds, Vol. XLVIII. p. 430, says: 'During the next week there was much redetermined passage and an anticyclone developed on 8th May after two days of westerly weather....On 9th-10th May there was a major passage of Black Terns through Britain (see antea, pp. 148-169). Highlights on the East Coast during this period were a Red-throated Pipit, a Grey-headed and Blue-headed Wagtails at Fair Isle.'
16). 1954 Norfolk Cley-next-the-Sea, 8th June.
(M. W. Woodcock, British Birds 47: 443-444; Seago, 1977).
History M. W. Woodcock (1954) in British Birds, Vol. XLVII. pp. 443-444, says: 'On June 8th, 1954 while walking on the east bank at Cley, Norfolk, I flushed a dark-looking pipit from the edge of a small pool. It settled on a large muddy island in the pool, and I noticed at once that it had a brick-red throat. Thinking that it might be a Red-throated Pipit (Anthus cervinus) I sat down and made a number of sketches of it, and took full notes on its plumage at a distance of about 10 yards.
These were as follows; the crown, mantle, wings and tail were dark brown, darker and without the greenish tinge of a Tree-Pipit (A. trivialis) the back was heavily streaked, and there was a single wing-bar, formed by pale tips on the greater wing-coverts, as in a Meadow Pipit (A. pratensis); the primaries were dark-brown or blackish, with pale edges. In flight, a narrow strip of white could be seen on either side of the tail, but this was difficult to see when the bird was at rest. There was a distinct buffish eye-stripe, and the chin, ear-coverts and throat were brick-red. The under-parts were rather dark buff, and there were several brown or black streaks on the flanks and the side of the breast.
The bird gave the impression of being darker than a Meadow Pipit and possibly a little larger. Unfortunately it did not utter any note or call. It was seen later in the day by Mrs. R. F. Meiklejohn, who knows the bird abroad, and W. F. Bishop, the official watcher of Cley Marsh. What appeared to be the same bird was seen in flight two days later by myself, and A. H. Daukes. On this occasion it uttered a note like "cheeze.'
NOT PROVEN
0). 1854 Shetland Unst, obtained, 4th May.
(J. E. Harting, Field 26th Aug., 1871; Harting, 1872; F. Coburn, Zoologist 1896: 101; Witherby, 1920-24; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
[Yarrell, 1871-74; Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1883; Seebohm, 1883-85; Smart, 1886; Walpole-Bond, 1938; M. G. Pennington, Shetland Bird Report 2004: 120; Ibis 148: 198-201].
History Harting (1872) says: 'One, Unst, Shetland, 4th May 1854, in collection of Mr. Bond: Harting, The Field, 26th August, 1871.'
Alfred Newton (1871-74 (1): 579, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, in a footnote, says: 'A. cervinus. This has been included as a British bird by Mr. Harting and Mr. Gould but on evidence which the Editor deems as yet insufficient. A skin of the species in Mr. Bond's possession, bought at the sale of the late Mr. Troughton's collection, bears a ticket indicating that it was obtained in Unst, 4th May, 1854, as it possibly may have been, but there is nothing to show by whom it was procured or that it is not a foreign example to which a label has been tied.'
Gurney (1876: 253-254) under 'Analysis of the Claims of Certain Birds to be Accounted British' says: 'The Red-throated Pipit must be the subject of a note, as I am going to show that it has no title to be included as a British bird, and to prove that, I must quote some extracts from a pamphlet or paper, professing to be "A list of the birds that have been observed to breed in the island of Arran, Scotland, since the year 1835, by Dr. Martin Barry".* The bird has been admitted into our lists, as most naturalists are aware, on the faith of a skin labelled "Unst, 4th May, 1854", in neat characters by an unknown hand. The mysterious interloper was lot 401, at the sale of the collection of Mr. Troughton of Coventry, and its purchaser was Mr. F. Bond. I turn to the list I have just spoken of, and there I find the Red-throated Pipit, and at the end the following remarkable sentence: "I have received a nest with the old birds from Uist (sic), taken May 4th.' I have not the smallest doubt that here we have the identical bird, the date agreeing and the locality also, though the latter appears to be misspelt; and the obvious explanation is that Mr. Troughton had bought it at the sale of the collection said to have been formed by Dr. Barry. It only remains for me to show that this list, of which I have never seen but one copy, is untrustworthy, and from the tissue of mis-statements contained in it I will select as follows: - "I believe that this is the first time the Aigle Jean-le Blanc, Circaetus gallicus (Vieillot), has occurred in Scotland. I have several times seen specimens in Ireland; the last one was nailed up to warn the smaller fry not to steal poultry.' "The Great Black-headed Gull, Larus ichthyaetus, was obtained by myself on the island of Arran, June 5th, 1844, with the eggs". "It is strange to find the Slender-billed Tern, Anous tenuirostris, breeding so far north - my pair of birds were shot on the Island of Arran, and three eggs obtained June 10th, 1844". *A recent, and I need hardly say, a trustworthy list of the 'Birds of Arran', with notes, appeared in 1872 from the pen of Mr. Robert Gray. As a matter of course the Red-throated Pipit is not admitted.'
Harting (1877) states he has seen this bird in Mr. Bond's collection.
It was not admitted in the first List of British Birds (BOU 1883).
Seebohm (1884 (2): 229) says: 'The Red-throated Pipit has scarcely any valid claim to be regarded as a British bird. The only authority upon which it is inserted in the British list is that of a single individual in the possession of Mr. Bond, who obtained it from the Troughton Collection, labelled "Isl. Unst, May 4th, 1854".'
Smart (1886) p. 41, says: 'Professor Newton says of the 'Unst' specimen, "A skin of the species in Mr. Bond's possession, bought at the sale of the late Mr. Troughton's collection, bears a ticket indicating that it was obtained in Unst, 4th May 1854; as it possibly may have been; but there is nothing to show by whom it was procured; or that it is not a foreign example to which the label has been tied. It was however labelled where procured, and when. Mr. Seebohm says it has "scarcely any valid claim to be regarded as British". Both authors coincide in the view that there is little doubt that it visits Britain; and its recognition is a matter of time; as it frequently occurs in Heligoland, and in most countries in Europe.'
F. Coburn of Birmingham (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. p. 101, says: '...As Dr. Bowdler Sharpe, in his recently published volume on the Birds of Great Britain in Allen's Naturalists' Library, discards the doubtful specimen from Unst in the collection of the late Frederick Bond.'
Admitted nationally (Witherby 1920-24).
Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 229) says: 'For until Witherby's (and others) Hand-List of British Birds appeared in 1912, a specimen from Unst (Shetland) bearing date of May 4th 1854, had been disallowed, though not because of its identity.'
Baxter & Rintoul (1953) admitted it saying: '...captured on Unst in 1854.'
Accepted locally by Pennington et al. (2004) who state that its provenance is a little unclear.
Comment Pennington (e-mail) with knowledge of the above details has now agreed to reject the record and has published the fact in the Shetland Bird Report 2004: 120. Not acceptable.
0). 1854 Isle of Wight Near Freshwater, September.
(Harting, 1872).
[KAN].
History Harting (1872) says: 'One, the same year [1854] but in September, near Freshwater, Isle of Wight: Harting, l. c.'
Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Not acceptable.
0). 1866 Yorkshire Near Huddersfield, killed, 22nd March.
(S. L. Mosley, Hardwicke's Science Gossip 1866: 277).
[M. C. Cooke, Hardwicke's Science Gossip 1866: 277].
History S. L. Mosley of Huddersfield (1866) in Hardwicke's Science Gossip, Vol. II. p. 277, says: 'A specimen of the Red-breasted Pipit (Anthus montanus) was killed by my father on the 22nd of March. It was in company with some Meadow Pipits (Anthus pratensis).'
[The specimen above alluded to, which is the second recorded to have occurred in Britain, should be carefully examined and compared, and not taken for granted as a new British species. It is, at the least, doubtful. - Ed.]
Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.
0). 1880 Kent Rainham, Gillingham, shot, April.
(W. Prentis, Zoologist 1884: 272).
[N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 278; Ticehurst, 1909; Witherby et al., 1940-52].
History Walter Prentis of Rainham (1884) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. VIII. p. 272, says: 'Having read Mr. Gurney's note (p. 192), on the occurrence of the Red-throated Pipit, Anthus cervinus, at Brighton, I have pleasure in sending you word of another specimen answering the description, which I obtained here in the month of April, 1880. I shot the bird myself, one fine day, while feeding and singing along the fresh turned-up furrows behind my plough, and not identifying it, sent it to Dover to be preserved for a bright example of the Meadow Pipit.'
[At our request, Mr. Prentis very kindly forwarded the bird for inspection. Mr. Sharpe has examined it and compared it with specimens in the British Museum, and pronounces it to be undoubtedly an example of Anthus cervinus. - Ed.]
N. F. Ticehurst (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 278, says: 'During the past summer I paid a visit to the Rochester Museum, which contains the admirable and excellently cared for collection of the late Mr. Walter Prentis, of Rainham, and at Mr. Nicoll's request carefully examined the bird to which he refers in the above letter. With, much regret I came to the same conclusion with regard to it, as he has done with regard to the Sussex specimen: it is undoubtedly nothing more than an unusually bright Meadow Pipit (A. pratensis). The breast is pinkish-yellow, not red, and the rump and upper tail-coverts are entirely devoid of the large black centres to the feathers, which are such a characteristic feature of A. cervinus.'
Ticehurst (1909: 103-104) reiterates what he said in British Birds.
Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1882 Sussex Near Brighton, two, caught, late March.
(Clifton, Field 29th Apr., 1882: 576).
[Walpole-Bond, 1938].
History Lord Clifton from Brighton (1882) in The Field of 29th Apr., Vol. LIX. p. 576, dated 22nd April, says: 'About the end of last month were caught (by the prescribed race of bird-catchers) a couple of pipits, which at once attracted attention, as being different from the Meadow Pipit.
In fact, but for their long hind claws, they might well have been taken for Tree Pipits. Though male and female, there was no difference of plumage between them. Having procured one, I have very carefully examined it, and have now no hesitation in pronouncing it to be Anthus cervinus, though not in full summer plumage. Nevertheless, the red tone of colouring is sufficiently perceptible, both on the throat and breast and on the upper parts, the edges to the quills and the upper tail-coverts being especially tawny in colour. The bars on the wing are both broader and yellower in colour than those on the wing of a Meadow Pipit at this time of the year. The legs are a shade darker, the hind claw longer, and the beak rather stronger: a buff eye-streak is in strong contrast to the dark ear-coverts and pale fawn throat. The spots on the breast are more distinct and wide apart than in the Meadow Pipit.
It happens, oddly enough, that we were taken in here a year or two ago at the same time of year by a wonderfully red-breasted Meadow Pipit, which seemed to have retained its autumn plumage. But in that case the red breast was the only point of similarity to Anthus cervinus, the upper surface, beak, legs, feet, wings, and tail being those of A. pratensis....of Anthus cervinus I think I can trust my own identification, having met with the species in Egypt.'
Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1884 Sussex Brighton, obtained, 13th March.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1884: 192; Borrer, 1891).
[M. J. Nicoll, British Birds 2: 278-279; Witherby et al., 1940-52].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., writing from Nutwood, Reigate (1884) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. VIII. p. 192, under 'Red-throated Pipit at Brighton', says: 'On the 13th March a Red-throated Pipit, Anthus cervinus, was brought to Mr. Swaysland, the well-known naturalist, with a Stonechat and Meadow Pipit, by a Brighton bird-netter. I saw it the following morning in the flesh; its tail and wings were perfectly uninjured, and it evidently had not been dead many hours. The whole of the breast in this interesting Pipit is richly suffused with bright rufous, and some of this colour extends to the belly, and even to the eyebrows. Mr. Swaysland pointed out that its legs, compared with the Meadow Pipit's (also in the flesh) were darker. This is a character that would be sure to disappear very rapidly, and I fear the beautiful tints on the breast, if not kept from the light, will fade also. As some doubt may well be expressed about what has long been one of the most doubtful birds in the British list, I am glad to be able to add that its identity has been confirmed by Mr. R. B. Sharpe, by whom it was exhibited at the last meeting of the Zoological Society.'
Borrer (1891: 101-102) says: 'This beautiful species, which had, for a long while, been confounded with the preceding [Meadow Pipit], was included as a "British Bird" by Mr. Harting and Mr. Gould on evidence that to many ornithologists seemed inconclusive, though they fully admitted that it was one which, sooner or later, was likely to appear in Britain.
The first example which no doubt could exist was brought to Mr. Swaysland, of Brighton, on March 13th, 1884, and on the next day was seen in the flesh by Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., who recorded the fact in the Zoologist of that year (p. 192)....'
M. J. Nicoll (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. pp. 278-279, says: 'The first recorded "British" example of the Red-throated Pipit (Anthus cervinus) is said to have been obtained near Brighton on March 13th, 1884 (Borrer, Birds of Sussex, p. 101; Saunders, Manual, p. 135, 2nd ed.). This example went into the "Monk" Collection, and finally passed into the Booth Museum at Brighton.
A few months ago I had the opportunity of examining the specimen in question, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is not a Red-throated Pipit at all, but merely a brightly coloured example of the Meadow-Pipit (Anthus pratensis).
During the spring (March and April) large flocks of Meadow-Pipits arrive on the coast of Sussex, and all the males of these immigrants are very brightly coloured - in some the coloration of the throat and upper breast is almost as red as in some examples of Anthus cervinus - and it is undoubtedly owing to this fact that the bird in question has been wrongly identified.
If we exclude the Red-throated Pipit which was formerly in the collection of the late Mr. Bond, labelled "Unst, May 4th, 1854" (Saunders, Manual, p. 135), the first British example is either the bird obtained by Mr. Prentis at Rainham, Kent, in April, 1880, or the undoubted example of A. cervinus shot near St. Leonards, Sussex, on November 13th, 1895 (cf. Zool., 1896, p. 101).
The Red-throated Pipit may be readily identified at all stages of plumage - except, perhaps, that of the nestling - by the clear black marking to the centre of the feathers of the rump and upper tail-coverts. The dark streaks on the longest pair of under tail-coverts are not a reliable feature, as these markings are frequently absent in Anthus cervinus and often present in Anthus pratensis.
While on the subject of Pipits, I should like to point out that all the examples of red-breasted Rock-Pipits in Case 16 in the Booth Museum are "Scandinavian" Rock-Pipits (Anthus rupestris Nilss.); none of them are Water-Pipits (Anthus spinoletta), as has been formerly suggested.'
Comment Unbelievable, that two of the foremost naturalists' of the day should misidentify this specimen. It is way out of its normal migration period. Probably imported. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1885 Borders Stobo, Peebleshire, eight/ten, seen, undated.
(J. Thompson, Transactions of the Edinburgh Naturalists' Field Club 1: 291-292; J. Thompson, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 11: 547).
[Evans, 1911].
History John Thompson of Stobo (1886) in the Transactions of the Edinburgh Naturalists' Field Club, Vol. I. pp. 291-292, says: 'Next on the list is the Red-throated Pipit (Anthus cervinus). I have never had an opportunity of handling a specimen of this species, but after a careful scrutiny of the coloured plate and perusal of the accompanying description in Morris's British Birds, I feel quite assured that I once saw a flock of eight or ten in the parish. They were feeding on a bank of short turf, near a road which ran close to one of the larger burns in this neighbourhood.
It was a spot where Meadow Pipits (Anthus pratensis) are frequently seen, and at the first sight of their graceful running motions I concluded they must be these birds; but, stealing up to within fifteen yards of them, I saw their colour quite distinctly, and was convinced that I had never identified any such species before. The males and females could easily be distinguished - the rose-coloured red on the breast and forepart of neck being very visible on some of the birds, presumably the former, whilst on others it was nearly or entirely a wanting. Saving on that one occasion, I never saw them before nor since.'
J. Thompson (1886) in the History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, Vol. XI. p. 547, says: 'Last year (1885), I communicated a notice of 'The Rarer Birds of Stobo' to another Society: - The Edinburgh Naturalists' Field Club - and so shall here merely give the names and dates of those noticed in that communication.' Further, p. 552, he adds: 'A small flock of birds which I believe were Red-throated Pipits once came under my notice. The opportunities I had for identifying them are stated in the paper before referred to.'
Evans (1911: 73) placing the record in square brackets, says: 'Mr. J. Thompson gives this species, as having occurred at Stobo, in a list of the birds of that parish (Hist. Ber. Nat. Club, Vol. XI. p.547), but further evidence is necessary before accepting the record, as he tells us (Trans. Edin. Nat. Field Club, Vol. I. p. 291) that he never had an opportunity of handling a specimen.'
Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. No supporting details. Not acceptable.
0). 1885 Lothian Threipmuir, Balerno, Midlothian, seen, 28th March.
(Kirke Nash, 1935).
[Kirke Nash, 1935].
History Kirke Nash (1935: 52) says: 'Mr. William Evans has a note of one example of this rare species: "1885, March 28th. One seen by me today, and watched for a considerable time in a newly ploughed field on the north side of Threipmuir Pond, Balerno. It was in the company of a number of Meadow Pipits, from which it was easily distinguished by its ferruginous throat and breast". Mr. Evans, with characteristic caution, has placed this note in square brackets, as it may have been only an extra bright Meadow Pipit.'
Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1895 Sussex Near St Leonards-on-Sea, obtained, 13th November, now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1962Z10.124).
(F. Coburn, Zoologist 1896: 101; W. R. Butterfield, Zoologist 1896: 193-194; F. Coburn, Zoologist 1896: 256-257; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1896: 300-302; J. Cordeaux, Zoologist 1896: 302; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1896: 353; F. Coburn, Zoologist 1901: 264-267; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Watson, 2010).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History F. Coburn of Birmingham (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. p. 101, says: 'I have lately added to my collection an adult male example of the Red-throated Pipit, Anthus cervinus, which I procured through Mr. Bristow, of St Leonards, near which place it was shot on Nov. 13th last.
As Dr. Bowdler Sharpe, in his recently published volume on the Birds of Great Britain in Allen's Naturalists' Library, discards the doubtful specimen from Unst in the collection of the late Frederick Bond, the present specimen may be regarded as the third authentic instance on record for Great Britain.
As this is a bird which, in its winter dress, might be easily passed over as a Meadow Pipit, Anthus pratensis, it may be of interest to point out its distinguishing characters. It is much paler in colour than pratensis. There is a well-defined pale streak over the eye; the wing-coverts are broadly margined with pale buff, which forms two bars; the outer tail-feathers are conspicuously white; the dark markings to the centre of the feathers on the back are very bold, and the legs and toes dirty white. A bird which has been mounted since November last might when quite fresh have had the legs tinged with flesh-colour. Looked at separately, it resembles, A. pratensis, but placed among a few of these birds its distinguishing features are readily observable. Indeed I feel sure that, in the field, I could single out one among a flock of A. pratensis without the aid of a field-glass.
This specimen has been inspected by Prof. Newton and by Dr. Bowdler Sharpe, who are both satisfied as to its correct identification.'
W. Ruskin Butterfield of St Leonards-on-Sea (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. pp. 193-194, says: 'As I am perhaps in some measure responsible for the recognition of the specimen of Anthus cervinus reported in a recent issue of the Zoologist (supra, p. 101), I may be allowed to add one or two particulars.
The bird was shot by a boy near this town on Nov. 13th last, and was taken by him to Mr. G. Bristow, our well-known taxidermist. After setting it up Mr. Bristow asked me to examine it, when I suspected its identity. My suspicion was confirmed after reading the account of this species in Mr. Dresser's Birds of Europe, and in the work of the same name by the late Dr. Bree, and I submitted the specimen for examination to Prof. Newton. Not having an example of A. cervinus in winter plumage available for comparison, Prof. Newton was unable to pronounce with certainty, but was inclined to regard it as assignable to this species. Mr. Dresser next examined the bird, and found, after "carefully comparing it with a series of specimens of both A. pratensis and A. cervinus, that in all specimens of the latter the markings on the breast are much larger and broader".
Dr. Sharpe then examined the bird, and declared it to be without any doubt an example of A. cervinus (Pall.). It was then exhibited at a meeting of the B. O. U. Club held in the month of December last. Your correspondent omitted to point out that the specimen in question is the first one obtained in Britain in autumn - the others have occurred in spring (cf. Sharpe's Brit. Birds in Allen's Naturalists' Library, Vol. I. p. 109).
I cannot agree with the assertion of your correspondent that the distinguishing features [of the lately procured specimens when placed among a series of A. pratensis] are readily observable.' A similar comparison in my own case convinced me of the truth of the remark by Col. Irby, that "in winter the difference between the two species is hardly distinguishable" (Key List, 2nd ed, p. 20).
In the diagnosis here, "under tail-coverts" is printed for "upper tail-coverts", the same slip having also crept into this author's Ornithology of the Straits of Gibraltar, 2nd ed, p. 115). My thanks are due to the three gentlemen above mentioned for kindly examining the bird, and to Mr. Bristow for drawing my attention to it.'
F. Coburn of Birmingham (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. pp. 256-257, says: 'Owing to absence in the north of Ireland, I have only just read Mr. Ruskin Butterfield's note (p. 193). As he challenges my assertion that I could easily detect the specimen of Anthus cervinus amongst a flock of autumn-plumaged Anthus pratensis in the field, a few words in reply are necessary.
Mr. Butterfield seems surprised that I did not make special mention of the fact that the specimen in my possession is the only one in autumn or winter plumage which has been met with in Great Britain; such a statement, however, would have been superfluous, for two previous examples only are on record, and in each case the period of the year when they were procured is well known. I have glanced again at my winter-plumaged A. cervinus, and compared it side by side with winter-plumaged A. pratensis, and cannot withdraw in any degree whatever from the assertion I made (supra, p. 101).
The pale and very distinct cream-coloured stripes down the back, as well as on the crown, accompanied as they are by the bold blackish stripes; the generally pale coloration of the sides of the head, with the rufous tinge pervading, and the narrow stripes of black down the breast, are characteristics which at once distinguish the bird from the winter-plumaged A. pratensis.
Wild birds arrange their feathers with a neatness and order which the most skilful taxidermist would find it difficult to imitate, and I do not hesitate to say that the most skilfully prepared skins, and probably the bulk of mounted specimens of either A. cervinus or A. pratensis have an untidy, disarranged appearance, which make them quite unlike the living originals. This observation has special reference to birds which have either dark or light tips to their feathers on the head, back, or breast.
Taking the Pipits as an example, it will be found that in most cabinet specimens - and I am sorry to say in most illustrations too - the dark tips to the feathers are made to look like spots over the back or breast. But look at the living bird wild bird, and you will find that these dark tips to the feathers are arranged with such perfect order and regularity one over the other that they form clearly defined stripes and not spots.
This is important when making a comparison between the winter-plumaged A. cervinus and A. pratensis, for, with its feathers neatly arranged in their proper order, the stripes of A. cervinus show far more distinctly and boldly than those do of A. pratensis. But if a skin or carelessly mounted specimen be used in comparison, the points of difference in most cases are obscured and identification becomes difficult. I have remounted the A. cervinus since I have had it in my possession, for I am very careful to show these distinctive stripes in all the specimens in my collection. The remounting has so altered the appearance of the bird, and brought out its special features so prominently, that if Mr. Butterfield were to see it now, he would perhaps scarcely recognise it, but would see at a glance how materially it differs from an autumn-plumaged A. pratensis mounted in exactly the same style, and placed side by side with it. I have laid stress on "winter-plumaged" A. cervinus and A. pratensis. Some importance attaches to this point, for A. pratensis in winter is a very different-looking bird to A. pratensis in spring or summer; the difference in the plumage of A. cervinus at these two seasons is well known to all. In this district Anthus pratensis occurs only as a winter visitor, and most of the specimens in my collection are in winter plumage.
In April last I visited North Wales, and near Cader Idris I procured this bird in full breeding plumage. I was anxious to get one from this district, for I knew that I should not be likely to find clear-plumaged birds elsewhere. Now comes the important point. Place this spring-plumaged A. pratensis by the side of the winter-plumaged A. cervinus, and the resemblance is so striking that I should be sorely puzzled to distinguish between the two birds at a very little distance indeed. In fact, I might not be able to do so unless I had the birds in my hands. And here I venture to think that Mr. Butterfield, and perhaps the authorities quoted by him, may have been led into some confusion with regards to these by comparing undated specimens of A. pratensis which may have been in spring plumage, with winter specimens of A. cervinus; this would not be a fair comparison. It must be obvious that when I stated that I could readily distinguish the difference between A. pratensis and A. cervinus in the field, I was referring to both birds in winter plumage, for who would ever expect to see them together in the field A. cervinus in winter and A. pratensis in spring dress? The quotation from Mr. Dresser's letter that "the dark tips to the feathers in all stages of A. cervinus are broader than in A. pratensis" surprises me much, for in all specimens of A. pratensis I have the dark tips as broader than in A. cervinus. It will be noted that I have stated above that one of the characteristics of my A. cervinus is the narrow stripes down the breast. Unfortunately I do not possess a series of skins of A. cervinus for comparison; indeed, this is the only specimen of the bird I have ever seen. It would perhaps have been better to quote more of Mr. Dresser's letter. I may here state that an important point of distinction between the two birds, apart from plumage, is that the bill of A. cervinus is much smaller and finer than in A. pratensis, and in cabinet specimens the legs of the latter dry much darker in colour than the former. In conclusion, then, so far as my observations go, A. cervinus and A. pratensis, both in winter plumage, may be readily distinguished one from the other, even in the field; but A. cervinus in winter so closely resembles A. pratensis in spring that it is extremely difficult to distinguish them, so far as plumage is concerned.'
O. V. Aplin of Bloxham, Banbury (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. pp. 300-302, says: 'I have been much interested in Mr. Coburn's remarks upon Anthus cervinus in winter dress (pp. 101, 256, 257), but I confess that I cannot follow him when, referring to his specimen shot in November, he writes, "It is much paler in colour than pratensis" (p. 101). And as Mr. Coburn, in his second note (p. 257), tells us that this is the only specimen of the bird he has ever seen, I hope he will pardon me if I suggest the possibility of his having got hold of a rather peculiar specimen. I have only four specimens of A. cervinus in my possession, viz. a male from Egypt, killed in December; two spring females from Lapland; and a male which I shot in Tunis in the early part of April, but cannot be said to have assumed the full summer dress, although it is changing. All these birds are distinctly darker in colour on the upper parts than A. pratensis (of which I have a good series) in winter plumage, which in that stage always shows an oil-green tinge, lost in spring and summer. I have only seen A. cervinus alive in a wild state in April in North Africa, and in June in Arctic Norway; but it was then so distinctly a darker coloured bird than A. pratensis that (in view also of my Egyptian skin) I cannot imagine that in its ordinary winter dress it could be rightly described as lighter in general colour than A. pratensis at the same season. I have recently examined examples of A. cervinus in the museums at Tromsö, Trondhjem, and Christiana, and although most of these were adults in summer dress, I find in my note-book, the following remarks on eleven examples at Christiana (viz. seven adult males, and females, summer: three immature; and one adult female, autumn): - "All generally darker than pratensis, though the light edges are more pronounced, contrasting with the conspicuously dark centres; markings of under parts very bold, black, and big".
The autumn female would not be different from the birds in winter dress, and probably the three immature examples would not differ very much. My impression of A. cervinus, founded upon the small amount of personal observation here detailed, is that it is certainly in all stages of plumage a darker bird than in A. pratensis at corresponding seasons. The light coloured edges to the feathers of the upper parts of A. cervinus (they appear to be nearly white in some cases) give it a bright look; it is a brighter, more brilliant, and more striking bird than A. pratensis, but not, I think, a lighter coloured bird. Mr. Coburn writes that the resemblance is striking between an example of A. pratensis killed in April and his example of A. cervinus.
As I write I have before me my Egyptian winter-killed A. cervinus, and an adult male A. pratensis killed on the 30th April, but there is no striking resemblance between them. In the general colour of the upper parts they certainly approach one another more closely than do examples of each species both in winter plumage. But A. cervinus is more distinctly marked on the back, and, not to mention other points of difference, the arrangement of the markings on the throat and upper breast is different. In my experience this last difference is more or less noticeable in all stages of plumage. In summer it is remarkable in live birds seen at a little distance (I have several times seen the two species within an hour of each other), and I can see no reason why it should not be equally noticeable in winter. A comparison of the skins in my collection shows that the differences alleged by Mr. Coburn to exist in the size of the bill, and the colour of the (dried) legs of the two species, cannot invariably be relied upon, although possibly A. cervinus will be found to have the bill usually smaller than average examples of A. pratensis.
As I have only four examples of A. cervinus to compare, I can at present only say that the bills of these are not smaller than the bills of some of my examples of A. pratensis. The size of the bill varies in both species, and birds of both species likewise vary more or less in size. I do not think there ought to be any difficulty in distinguishing (so far as plumage is concerned) between examples of A. cervinus and A. pratensis in any stage of plumage, when one has the specimens in one's hands. And, given a clear view at a reasonable distance, taking the size of the bird into consideration, it ought not to be difficult to recognise A. cervinus in a wild state.
The first time I saw this species I was not at all expecting to meet with it; but I saw at once that it was a Pipit I had not met with before, although it was rather shy, and it was not until the following day, when I made a special search for the stranger, that I was able to secure a specimen. In conclusion, I wish to say that this note is not intended as a hostile criticism of Mr. Coburn's careful account of his specimen, but merely as a statement of the result of my own observations upon a species which has an especial interest for British field ornithologists, since it is not unlikely to occur on our coasts any season.'
J. Cordeaux of Great Cotes House (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. p. 302, says: '...I agree with Mr. Coburn (p. 256) that a living wild bird in nature is a very different thing to the most skilfully prepared skin; at the same time I think it would be utterly impossible for any ornithologist, either with or without a glass, to distinguish amongst a flock of A. pratensis an example of A. cervinus in winter plumage.'
O. V. Aplin of Bloxham, Banbury (1896) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XX. p. 353, says: 'After reading my remarks on A. cervinus Mr. Coburn was good enough to send his specimen for my inspection. It is paler in colour than any other example I have seen, and I think he was right in stating that it was paler than A. pratensis. Whether his bird is an abnormally light-coloured one or not I cannot say; its pale coloration arises from the great development of the light edges of the feathers of the back and wings, and the predominance of the light edges of the feathers of the back over the dark feather-centres. Neither Mr. Coburn or I can detect in his specimen "the almost black broad central marking of the longest pair of under tail-coverts", said to be a distinguishing mark of this species (vide p. 302); although I can find it in my specimen of A. cervinus. Yet Mr. Coburn's bird was undoubtedly correctly named. The very light colour of the edges of the feathers of the mantle and wings, together with the boldly marked rump and upper tail-coverts, and the absence of the oil-green tinge on the upper parts, all point to this conclusion. Mr. Coburn's bird well exemplifies the character of a "brighter, more brilliant, and more striking bird than A. pratensis". To my eye the difference in the arrangement of the markings of the throat and upper breast (I should have added face and sides of the head - plainer and less marked in A. cervinus, and the ear-coverts light brown - in my former note) is also apparent, although it is much less so than in some other examples, and Mr. Coburn writes that he did not detect it. Mr. Coburn's bird is probably a bird of the year which had not long completed its autumn moult when it was killed. This would account for the very extensive feather-edgings which in the Pipits gradually wear away as the season advances. It is this abrasion of the feathers which gives such entirely different characters to the plumage of the upper parts in Pipits in autumn and in spring.'
Accepted locally as the first for Sussex (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 229).
Watson (2010) in detailing the J. L. Auden collection in the Birmingham Museum lists a male specimen that was obtained at St Leonards-on-Sea, Sussex, on 13th November 1895, adding that lot 858 was bought at the sale of Coburn's collection at Birmingham on 16th April 1915.
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1901 Sussex Ninfield, immature female, 26th November.
(R. Bowdler Sharpe, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 12: 35; L. A. Curtis Edwards, Zoologist 1902: 25; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 112; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History R. Bowdler Sharpe, Editor (1901) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XII. p. 35, at the 83rd Meeting of the Club held on 18th December 1901 at the Restaurant Frascati, London, says: 'Mr. Howard Saunders exhibited a specimen of the Red-throated Pipit (Anthus cervinus), which had been sent to him by Mr. L. A. Curtis Edwards, of St. Leonards-on-Sea. The specimen was obtained in a garden at Ninfield, in Sussex, on the 26th of November, 1901, and, on dissection, had proved to be a female. It was in very perfect condition and was evidently a young bird which had just competed its first moult.'
L. A. Curtis Edwards of St Leonards-on-Sea (1902) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VI. p. 25, says: 'I happened to be in the shop of Mr. G. Bristow, taxidermist, of St. Leonards, on the morning of Nov. 30th last, when a Pipit was brought in (in the flesh), which we believed to be Anthus cervinus. After the bird was mounted I sent it to Dr. Bowdler Sharpe at the British Museum, who kindly confirmed our identification. The bird was shot in a garden at Ninfield, Sussex, on Nov. 26th, 1901. It proved on dissection to be a female. It was exhibited at the meeting of the British Ornithologists' Club on Dec. 18th, 1901, by Mr. Howard Saunders.'
Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1907) in British Birds, Vol. I. p. 112, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899, who say: 'A female (young) obtained in a garden at Ninfield on November 26th, 1901, was exhibited at the B.O.C. by Mr. Howard Saunders on behalf of Mr. L. A. Curtis Edwards (Bull. B.O.C., XII. p. 35).' Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 229).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1904 Sussex Rye, adult male, obtained, 7th May.
(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 4: 25; Griffiths, 1927; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History N. F. Ticehurst (1928) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 25, says: 'A male shot at Rye on May 7th, 1904, and stuffed by Gasson, of Rye, passed into Sir Vauncey Harpur Crewe's collection and is now in the Dyke Road Museum at Brighton. It does not appear to have been previously recorded in our Journal.'
Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 230) who adds: '...A few months later, however, the specimen was bought by Mr. G. Bristow, who in March, 1905, sold it to Sir Vauncey H. Crewe. Shortly after Crewe's death in December 1924, it was purchased for the Booth Museum, Brighton.'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1905 Leicestershire & Rutland Near Ayston, Rutland, seen, 20th February.
(Haines, 1907).
[Haines, 1907; Fray et al., 2009].
History Haines (1907: 40) recording the record in square brackets, says: 'On February 20, 1905, Mr. J. G. Thring observed with his field-glasses for some time near Ayston a bird which was "obviously a pipit but had most distinctly a reddish chin and throat with whitish belly".'
Not accepted locally (Fray et al. 2009).
0). 1909 Kent Near Wittersham, adult female, obtained, 29th April, now at Leicester Arts & Museums (Acc. No. L.Z271.19898.0.0).
(E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings & East Sussex Naturalist 1: 206-207; J. B. Nichols, British Birds 3: 256; Ticehurst, 1909; A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 111: 228-230).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History E. N. Bloomfield (1909) in the Hastings & 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 - Anthus cervinus, Pallas, Red-throated Pipit, Wittersham Levels, adult female, April 29th, 1909.'
J. B. Nichols (1910) in British Birds, Vol. III. p. 256, says: 'A female Red-throated Pipit (Anthus cervinus) was shot near Rye, Sussex, on April 29th, 1909. It was examined by me in the flesh on the following day.' See A History of the Birds of Kent, by N. F. Ticehurst, p. 104.
Ticehurst (1909: 104) says: 'A genuine example, however, was shot in the Rother marshes, near Wittersham, on April 29th, 1909, and sent to Mr. Bristow at St. Leonards, in whose shop it was examined in the flesh by Messrs. J. B. Nichols and L. A. Curtis Edwards, and four days later by the author. The bird is a female in full breeding plumage, somewhat worn, but exhibits the distinctive feature of the species, indicated above, with great clearness.'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1913 Sussex Hooe, two, adult males, 22nd May.
(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 7: 52; E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings & East Sussex Naturalist 2: 99; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1913) in British Birds, Vol. VII. p. 52, says: 'On May 22nd, 1913, a couple of adult male Red-throated Pipits (Anthus cervinus) were obtained at Hooe, Sussex, and were examined by me in the flesh on May 23rd. The colour of the neck and breast was distinctly of a rusty-red, and the feathers on the back and rump had dark brown stripes, as described in Dr. N. F. Ticehurst's Birds of Kent. The under tail-coverts of one had brown stripes, but these were absent in the other specimen.'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 230).
Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.
0). 1922 Sussex Little Common, male, killed, 17th May.
(W. R. Butterfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 259; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History W. R. Butterfield (1923) in the Hastings & East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 259, says: 'A fine and well-marked male was shot at Little Common on May 17th (G. Bristow).' It was accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 230).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1936 Fair Isle No locality, six, 8th May.
(Witherby et al., 1938; K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 1 (7): 41; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Dymond, 1991).
[D. N. Shaw, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 2003: 115; Pennington et al., 2004].
History Witherby et al. (1938) says: 'Six seen Fair Is. May 8, 1936, One Sept. 16, two Oct. 5 and one Oct. 6, 1937 (G. Waterston in litt.).'
K. Williamson (1951) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. I (VII). p. 41, says: 'The Handbook gives some twenty British records of the Red-throated Pipit, but only four of these are for the spring. Several of the records are from Fair Isle. The most recent concerns six birds seen on the isle on May 8th 1936.'
Pennington et al. (2004) says: 'This record of six on Fair Isle on 8th May 1936 must also be open to doubt, the earliest in recent years occurred on 13th May and a total of six in one day is without precedent, although presumably one bird was seen.'
Not accepted locally (D. N. Shaw, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 2003: 115).
0). 1957 Fair Isle Gully and Gilsetter, 22nd October.
(P. E. Davis, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 1957: 20; P. E. Davis, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 4: 10, 17).
[D. N. Shaw, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Report 2003: 115; Pennington et al., 2004].
History P. E. Davis (1958) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. IV. p. 10, says: 'The second rare pipit of the autumn was a Red-throated Anthus cervinus, on October 22nd. As I clambered up to the mouth of the gully trap towards dusk on this grey afternoon, a small bird went away from the entrance and over the bank to the Gilsetter marsh, giving an unfamiliar call not unlike a Tree Pipit's single note, but harsher and louder. I soon picked up the bird again, and pursued it over the wet tussocky ground until the light failed. It would allow me within 15 yards, then fly for about 50 before plumping back to earth, and give the same call once, each time when it was flushed.
Eventually I had a fair idea of its appearance; a pipit of about Meadow or Tree size, with a very broad and distinct vertical barring on the breast, and a clear, creamy-white supercilium; the mantle rather dark, closely stippled with darker brown. The rump was not well seen, but was clearly streaked rather than uniform in colour. A lengthy search of the marsh on the following morning yielded no further trace. Some seven or eight previous autumn occurrences at Fair Isle are on record, and three in the spring.'
Pennington et al. (2004) says: 'This record was recently reviewed by BBRC and found to be unacceptable. The description does not rule out Olive-backed Pipit, a species unknown in Britain at the time.'
0). 1957 Yorkshire Spurn, 16th and 30th November.
(R. Chislett, Naturalist 83: 67).
[R. Chislett, Naturalist 83: 67].
History R. Chislett (1958) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. LXXXIII. p. 67, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'A pipit flushed south of the Spurn Chalk Bank on November 16th, which gave a single call "zee" or "zeet" repeated two or three times, is included under this heading because it was so first called. A pipit seen on November 30th by several observers was most probably the same bird, proved very difficult to observe; and so far as they were seen "details of plumage, notes, and behaviour do not fit any pipit in The Handbook".'
