Siberian Thrush
Geokichla sibirica (Pallas, 1776) (0, 1)
Photo © By M.Nishimura - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6775788
STATUS
Eastern Palearctic. Polytypic.
OVERVIEW
BOU (1971) accept this 1954 record as the first for Britain. Saunders (1899) found the first three 19th century records unacceptable, with the last record from 1899, in the eyes of the Editors of The Field, being misidentified.
1950-57 RECORD
1). 1954 Isle of May No locality, adult male, 1st to 4th October, trapped 2nd October, photo.
(T. Yeoman & D. G. Andrew, Edinburgh Bird Bulletin 5: 1; D. G. Andrew, J. A. Nelder & M. Hawkes, British Birds 48: 21-25, plates 7 & 8; BOU (1956), Ibis 98: 155; E. V. Baxter, Scottish Naturalist 68: 3; W. J. Eggeling, Scottish Naturalist 68: 46; W. J. Eggeling, Scottish Birds 8: 114; Thom, 1986; Forrester & Andrews et al., 2007: photo).
History T. Yeoman & D. G. Andrew (1955) in the Edinburgh Bird Bulletin, Vol. V. p. 1, say: 'The two most outstanding events of the autumn in our area have been the arrival of two birds not previously on the British List - the Wilson's Phalarope at Rosyth and an adult male Siberian Thrush on the Isle of May. This latter bird, which breeds from the Urals east to Japan, came in with the first small influx of Redwing this autumn on 1st October and was trapped and ringed the following day.'
D. G. Andrew, J. A. Nelder & M. Hawkes (1955) in British Birds, Vol. XLVIII. pp. 21-25, say: 'On 2nd October 1954 an adult male Siberian Thrush (Turdus sibiricus) was trapped on the Isle of May. It had been glimpsed, but not positively identified, shortly before dusk on the previous day and was still present on the island when we left on the 4th. It had gone by the 7th. Two photographs of the bird, taken while it was being examined in the hand, are reproduced on plate 7. The following notes are based on the detailed description taken down at the time.
The general body colour was slate-black, against which the long, pure white eye-stripe stood out in brilliant contrast. The feathers on the centre of the belly and the under tail-coverts were broadly tipped off-white, but in the case of the under tail-coverts these whitish tips were not long enough to cover the blackish bases of the feathers and the resulting pattern was one of alternating black and white crescents.
The general colour of the wings was again slate-black with blackish flight-feathers. The complex pattern on the underwing can be seen in the lower photograph on plate 7. The rectangular white panels on the inner webs of the primaries and secondaries (absent on the four innermost secondaries and decreasing in extent on the outer primaries until practically non-existent on the second primary) combined with the white tips of the under greater coverts to form a broad white band running almost the whole length of the under-wing. A narrower, shorter band at the base of the wing was formed by the white bases of the under median coverts and the white tips of the under lesser coverts.
The tail had 12 rectrices, the feathers ending in a fine spike at the tip. The two central pairs were blackish: the remainder, with the exception of the outer pair, were blackish with small pure white wedges at the tips which were most extensive on the outer feathers. The outer pair were sooty, with the outer web narrowly tipped white as in the other feathers but with the inner web broadly tipped off-white. This feature can be seen in the upper photograph on plate 7 where the left hand outer tail-feather has been turned out of position to show the pattern.
Measurements and structure: wing - 125 mm.; tarsus 30-31 mm.; bill: upper mandible 21 mm., lower mandible 5mm. shorter. The lower mandible had been broken off just short of the tip and the upper mandible had grown over this and was strongly decurved at the tip (just apparent in plate 7, upper). The weight when trapped about midday on 2nd October was 59,7 gm. It was re-trapped first thing next morning when it weighed 61.6 gm. The top of the skull was noticeably flat and lacking in "forehead", giving the bird's head a much less rounded outline than is shown in the illustration in A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe, p. 222.
Soft parts: Gape orange-yellow; bill black, except for tip of upper and base of lower mandible which were horn; leg's and feet, front of leg's and top of toes purplish horn, back of leg's, soles and joints dirty yellow; iris dark brown.
Field-characters: In stance, build and behaviour the bird was a typical thrush. In behaviour it most resembled a Blackbird (Turdus merula), tending to skulk under huts and other cover. It was not unduly shy. The white on the under-parts hardly showed up at all in the side view, and the bird appeared almost uniform slate-black with a pronounced bluish tinge except for a paler patch on the flanks (caused by white shafts to the flank feathers) and an appreciably darker colour on the head (caused by black centres to the crown feathers). Viewed from the front, the white belly merely showed up as a narrow whitish stripe between the leg's. The white eye-stripe was always a most conspicuous feature. In flight the white tips to the tail-feathers showed up most strikingly as a row of disjoined white spots. The white band along the underwing immediately caught the eye and, when the wing was fully extended, we also had the impression of a narrower white line along the upper surface of the wing. The bird fed normally in spite of its deformed bill. The only call-notes heard were a gruff squawk when suddenly flushed at close quarters and a short "zit", very much like that of a Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) but softer and perhaps purer, but it was a rather silent bird.
The arrival of this bird on the island coincided with a brief spell of south-east wind and drizzle which started during the night September 30th-October 1st and continued for most of the following day. Some Goldcrests (Regulus regulus) (apparently of the Continental race) came in during the small hours of the morning, but otherwise there was no sign of immigration until midday, when the first Redwings (Turdus musicus) of the autumn began to be seen (those trapped were of the Continental race, T. m. musicus). By the end of the day about 75 of these birds were on the island but the only other arrivals were a Pied Flycatcher (Muscicapa hypoleuca), at least 3 Bramblings (Fringilla montifringilla) and a Reed Bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), and it is rather remarkable that such a small-scale influx should have brought with it a migrant from Siberia. An examination of the synoptic charts for September 1954 casts little light on the wanderings of this bird.
Throughout the month pressure was generally high over south-east Europe and south Russia, with light winds, while a continuous stream of depressions passed eastwards across the Atlantic, then north-east across Europe. The south-east wind which brought this bird to the island was localised over the northern North Sea and the east coast of Britain, suggesting a Scandinavian starting point for the flight across the North Sea, but the meteorological situation further east at that time does not allow any obvious interpretation of the bird's movements.
The breeding range is indicated by the darker, cross-hatched area, the winter-quarters by the lighter, stippled portion. The various European records, are shown by dots. The typical race of the Siberian Thrush, Turdus s. sibiricus, breeds in central Siberia. The breeding range of the species extends eastwards to Japan; Japanese birds are separated as Turdus s. damsoni, and are characterised in the male, among other things, by a near or total absence of white on the belly and under tall-coverts.
It is worth mentioning perhaps that the amount of white on the tail of the bird caught on the Isle of May was greater than that on most, if not all, the adult male skins examined at the British Museum. The species winters in south-east Asia. We are very grateful to Dr. Holder Holgersen for allowing us to reproduce here his map of the distribution of the Siberian Thrush which originally appeared in Stavanger Museums Arbok, 1953, p. 104. In spite of the remoteness of its breeding grounds, this species has been recorded in most European countries and its appearance in Britain is not therefore very surprising.'
NOT PROVEN
0). 1855 Surrey Between Guildford and Godalming, female, shot, winter, now at British Museum.
(Gould, 1862-73; E. Blyth, Field 24th Sept., 1870: 277; J. H. Gurney, jun., Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 4: 629; J. E. Harting, Zoologist 1889: 415; Eds., Ibis 1891: 630; Bucknill, 1900; Eds., British Birds 48: 24-25; Wheatley, 2007).
[BOU, 1883; Saunders, 1899; BOU, 1915].
History Not admitted nationally in their first List of British Birds (BOU 1883: 4).
J. E. Harting (1889) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIII. p. 415, on Frederick Bond's bird collection, says: 'The Siberian Thrush, Turdus sibiricus, Pallas, shot between Guildford and Godalming in the winter of 1860-61, sent to Mr. Bond as a variety of the Redwing, and identified by the late Edward Blyth, who noticed it incidentally in The Field of 24th September, 1870.'
In an Editorial (1891) in The Ibis, Vol. XXXIII. p. 630, under 'Additions to the National Collection of Birds', they say: 'Three British birds, including the only specimen of Turdus sibiricus as yet killed in England; bequeathed by the late Frederick Bond, Esq.'
In an Editorial in British Birds, Vol. XLVIII. pp. 24-25, it says: 'Two previous records, neither of which has received universal recognition, are mentioned in various published works, including The Handbook (Vol. II. p. 141). Their rejection seems to date from the time of Howard Saunders who said in the revised (1899) edition of his An Illustrated Manual of British Birds: "An example of the Siberian Thrush (T. sibiricus, Pallas), said to have been shot in Surrey in the winter of 1860-61, and originally supposed to be a melanism of the Redwing, was in the collection of the late Mr. F. Bond, who bequeathed it to the British Museum; while I fully believe that another was picked up exhausted at Bonchurch, Isle of Wight, in the winter of 1874; but the evidence is as yet not sufficient to warrant the introduction of this species into the British list".'
Substantially the same account appeared in the 1st edition (1889)....The Surrey bird, on the other hand, has a wealth of supporting information as the following account from J. A. Bucknill's Birds of Surrey (1900), pp. 15-16. shows: "The only example of this Asiatic species which has been definitely recorded in this country up till March, 1899 (though Mr. Howard. Saunders, in his Manual of British Birds, p. 12, mentions another possible example from the Isle of Wight, 1874, is a bird which is said (fide Mr. Harting. who was told by Mr. Bond) to have been shot in Surrey between Guildford and Godalming in the winter of 1860-61. It was sold to, and was for many years in the collection of, the late Mr. Frederick Bond (perhaps the best known and most popular collector of the century) by a dealer.
Mr. Bond and others considered it to be merely a melanism or dark variety of the Redwing, and Mr. Edward Blyth (whose technical and practical Eastern experience was very great) was the first to identify it as being a Siberian Thrush.
He mentioned it incidentally, in a note on the various rare thrushes which had occurred in this country, in The Field, September 24, 1870, p. 277, and since that date it has been generally accepted as a more or less genuine example, Yarrell (B. B., 4th-ed., Vol. I. p. 279 note), in particular stating that there seems to be no reason why the account should be disbelieved. [This was of course written by Newton. - Eds.]
Mr. Gould, who figures the specimen in his Birds of Great Britain, Vol. II. states that it was a female and was shot by a Mr. Drewitt at St. Catherine's Hill near Guildford, in the beginning of February, 1855, during the Crimean War.
There is some discrepancy between the two accounts, but I think Mr. Gould's is probably correct, and, with the exception of the date, is not incompatible with the remainder of the other story. This identical specimen is now in the National Collection at the South Kensington Natural History Museum. Although the occurrence is not wholly free from doubt, if, has been so generally accepted that I have no other option than to include it in the present volume. It may also be mentioned in support of its claims that it has occurred without question so near this country as Germany, Belgium, and France, so that its accidental appearance in England and in Surrey is not entirely improbable.
The only additional information available that we have found is the statement by J. H. Gurney (Trans. Norfolk Nat. Soc., Vol. IV. p. 629) that Bond obtained the bird from "Mr. Smither of Farnham in Surrey, near which place it is believed to have been killed by a Mr. Drewett in February 1885 [sic, presumably a misprint for 1855]. Smither was a retired gamekeeper, and Gould gives him a high character in his article on the Dartford Warbler".'
[He was not therefore a dealer in the ordinary sense. The main reason for doubting the validity of this record, where there is no question of the identification being wrong and where there is little likelihood of fraud since the bird was first regarded as a Redwing, appears to be the slight discrepancy over the dates. However, it seems obvious that the 1855 one is correct. Gould would not gratuitously mention the Crimean War if the event had actually occurred later and Gurney (allowing for an obvious misprint) supports him. It seems probable that the 1860-61 winter was the date when Bond acquired the bird from Smither, not that in which it was shot. - Eds.]
0). 1874 Isle of Wight Bonchurch, picked up exhausted, winter.
(Saunders, 1889; J. H. Gurney, jun., Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 4: 629).
[Saunders, 1899; Kelsall & Munn, 1905; BOU, 1915].
History Saunders (1899: 12, 2nd ed.) in a footnote, says: '...while I fully believe that another was picked up exhausted at Bonchurch, Isle of Wight, in the winter of 1874; but the evidence is as yet not sufficient to warrant the introduction of this species into the British list.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1884-89) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. IV. p. 629, says: 'Mr. Howard Saunders has reason to believe that another was picked up at Bonchurch, in the Isle of Wight, in 1873 or 1874 by a gardener of the name of Saunders.'
Kelsall & Munn (1905: 7) record the same in square brackets.
In an Editorial in British Birds, Vol. XLVIII. pp. 24-25, it says: 'Two previous records, neither of which has received universal recognition, are mentioned in various published works, including The Handbook (Vol. II. p. 141). Their rejection seems to date from the time of Howard Saunders who said in the revised (1899) edition of his An Illustrated Manual of British Birds: as above....Substantially the same account appeared in the 1st edition (1889).
The second part of this statement has been much quoted, usually without comment, and in this way it appears in The Birds of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (1905) by J. A. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, but we have been able to trace no further evidence and the record can therefore at this time be safely ignored.'
0). 1895 Lancashire & North Merseyside Liverpool, seen, winter.
(Forbes, 1905; T. A. Coward, Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Committee Report 1922: 31).
[Saunders, 1899; H. W. Robinson, Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Committee Report 1916: 128-129].
History H. O. Forbes (1905 (1): 192) in the Victoria County History of Lancashire, says: 'Seen by the writer in his garden in Liverpool, on may occasions during the severe weather of 1895.'
H. W. Robinson (1916) in the Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Committee 2nd Report, pp. 128-129, says: '...I must doubt his identification, especially as it was presumably made from a distance. Is he aware that there is no reliable evidence that Turdus sibiricus has ever occurred in Great Britain, and that it is an Asiatic species which has seldom been reported in Europe even? Possibly what he saw may have been White's Thrush (Turdus varius = aureus), which, having the light-coloured patch on the underside of the wing as in Turdus sibiricus, might be mistaken for the latter.'
T. A. Coward (1922) in the Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Committee 8th Report, p. 31, says: 'Dr. H. O. Forbes, in his list in the Victoria History of Lancashire, refers to the Siberian Thrush, T. sibiricus Pallas, a species very wisely rejected as British by Saunders, as "seen by the writer in his garden in Liverpool, on many occasions during the severe weather of 1895". It is well to remember that the starved Redwings were driven to the gardens in search of food during that winter.'
0). 1899 Dorset Stanpit Marsh, Christchurch Harbour, Hampshire, seen, 19th June.
(J. B. Nias & E. G. Waddilove, Field 22nd July 1899: 178; H. L. Popham, Field 29th July 1899: 227; J. B. Nias & E. G. Waddilove, Field 12th Aug., 1899: 315).
[Not in BOU, 1971].
History J. B. Nias & E. G. Waddilove of London (1899) in The Field of 22nd July, Vol. XCIV. p. 178, say: 'While botanising on June 19 last on Stanpit Marsh, at the edge of Christchurch Harbour, in Hampshire, our attention was attracted to a bird, strange to both of us. It was very tame, allowing us to approach five or six times within some 10 or 12 yards, and stand and inspect it for several minutes at a time before it flew away. From its general look and short undulating flight - never rising more than 8 or 10 feet from the ground, or travelling more than 50 or 60 yards at a time - we at once recognised the bird as one of the ground thrushes; and, suspecting it to be a White's Thrush, were most particular to observe and note down its peculiarities and distinguishing marks.
In general appearance, from our standpoint, the tout ensemble of the plumage was grey, but the wings were dark (black in places), the side of the head light grey, and the upper tail coverts (an extensive patch) light grey, and the legs dark brown or black. But the most conspicuous characteristic about the bird was its tail, which it spread when it flew something after the manner of a Turtle Dove. The feathers of the tail were all dark (blackish, except the two outer ones, which were white, or edged with white, on the outer margin; and, either owing to its shape or to the manner in which the rest of the tail feathers were spread, this white margin appeared to broaden out at the end of each of the outer tail feathers into a very conspicuous wedge-shaped patch of white.
Another noticeable peculiarity was the perky upstanding attitude of the bird, with his head thrown back, and bill pointing upwards, and tail almost, if not quite, touching the ground, something like the attitude occasionally adopted by a Robin. As to the size of the bird, one of us said at the time that it was about that of a small tame pigeon; the other, that of a large Turtle Dove.
We had no book at hand to consult, or other immediate means of identifying the bird; but on returning to London to investigate the matter, have independently ascertained, and are satisfied beyond doubt, that the bird was an adult male Siberian Thrush (Geokichla sibirica). One of us saw the bird again in nearly the same place on the following morning, but never since, and after a lapse of four weeks it would, so far as the gunner of that locality is concerned, seem safe to publish the above record, which, as the species seems only to have been recorded in Great Britain three times previously - and that without satisfying some eminent ornithologists that the bird should be included in the British list - may possibly be of interest.'
[We regret to have to dissent in toto from the view expressed, and believe our correspondents to have been mistaken in regard to the species of bird seen by them. It is not likely to have been the Siberian Thrush, to which their account of size and colour does not apply, and it is highly improbable that that species of thrush would be here now, or in spring. The size of the bird is said to have been "that of a small tame pigeon". That is about twice as large as the Siberian Thrush, and the spreading of the tail in flight, "after the manner of a Turtle Dove", is not in accordance with the usual habit of the thrushes. When first seen, our correspondents, judging from its appearance, suspected it to be a White's Thrush, which resembles a very boldly marked Mistletoe Thrush. The late Mr. Seebohm, who saw and shot the Siberian Thrush in Siberia, described it as "a dark-coloured thrush with a very conspicuous eyebrow". See his account of this species in the first volume of his work on British Birds (p. 204), and his entertaining book, Siberia in Asia (p. 132). - Ed.]
H. L. Popham (1899) in The Field of 29th July, Vol. XCIV. p. 227, says: 'As I have had many opportunities of observing the Siberian Thrush in its native forests, I may say that I entirely agree with your editorial remarks on the reported occurrence of this thrush in Hampshire. The Siberian Thrush appears to the observer to be black, not grey, though the colour is really a uniform dark slate grey, and had it been a mature male, your correspondents could not have failed to notice the very conspicuous white stripe over the eye. It is a peculiarly shy bird, and I have never been able to obtain a specimen without a careful stalk.
The bird seen near Christchurch was, however, "very tame". The male is generally to be seen perched on the top of a willow whistling a few rich notes, but darts down out of sight at the slightest alarm. I have never observed the spreading of the tail in flight as described, although I have spent many hours in studying their habits and watching for their return to nests to identify the eggs. In all the skins of the male I possess, there is not a white patch on the lower breast, but possibly this may be absent in very old individuals. The female, owing to its sombre brown colour and retiring habits, is not so often seen.'
J. B. Nias & E. G. Waddilove of London (1899) in The Field of 12th Aug., Vol. XCIV. p. 315, say: 'In reply to your criticisms upon our communication on the above subject on the 22nd ult., we cannot admit their validity. Although we found a cursory inquiry sufficient to satisfy us as to the species, we took care not to send our communication to you until we had consulted many authorities, in addition to those mentioned in your note, besides inspecting stuffed specimens and many skins.
We found no difficulty in identifying the bird, and have no doubt whatever that it was as stated, an adult male Siberian Thrush (Geokichla sibirica). Indeed, what else could it have been?'
Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.
