Tawny Pipit

Motacillidae

Apr 7

Anthus campestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (22, 39)

Photo © KG Webb - Golf Course, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, April 2023

STATUS

Western and Central Palearctic. Monotypic.

OVERVIEW

Spring occurrences are April and May with stragglers into June, while return passage is August through to October, a few in November.

Mainly east and south coasts with a few inland.

RECORDS

1). 1858 Sussex Shoreham-by-Sea, obtained, 17th August.

(G. D. Rowley, Ibis 5: 38-39; Yarrell, 1871-85; Seebohm, 1883-85; Borrer, 1891; M. J. Nicoll, Zoologist 1904: 454; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

History George Dawson Rowley (1863) in The Ibis, Vol. V. pp. 38-39, says: 'It now came to our remembrance that another specimen, which had been sold to Henry Collins Esq., of Aldsworth, near Emsworth, for an Anthus ricardi, was exactly the same as one under examination.

Upon this I wrote to Mr. Collins, a gentleman whose collection is rich in British-killed birds; and he, in the most liberal manner, directly placed it at my disposal. I knew that there could not be the smallest doubt that this latter was a bonâ fide British bird, as it had been shot by Harding, a domestic servant in Brighton and a highly respectable man, with whom I am well acquainted, and can quite depend upon.

I was therefore much pleased to find it exactly correspond with the other (particularly in the short hind claw, which is long in A. ricardi), and to observe that Mr. Collin's example is even finer than Swaysland's. I ascertained the particulars of its capture from Harding myself. It was shot by him, August 17, 1858, about 7 o'clock in the morning, close to a shallow pool (a good locality, which I hold in great respect), near Shoreham Harbour....I asked Harding what called his attention to this bird more than others, since he said there were several Rock Pipits about at the time, and the Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) is abundant. He said the note struck him as different to the Titlarks. "It came piping down from above", and allowed him to approach with great facility. Mr. Collin's Pipit, though rather hard hit, is evidently older than Swaysland's, and is also, I believe, a male. It seems probable that, when we consider the time it was killed, that it had bred somewhere in this country, perhaps not far off, and was then thinking of departure. The Rottingdean bird likewise had migration in view, doubtless. I have preserved the sternum of the latter.'

Alfred Newton (1871-74 (1): 592-593, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'To Mr. Rowley is due the credit of making known this addition to our casual Fauna. In The Ibis for 1863 (pp. 37-39) he stated that an example was shot near Shoreham Harbour, on the 17th August, 1858, which being mistaken for a Richard's Pipit, passed into the collection of Mr. Henry Collins of Aldsworth, and there remained as such until Mr. Rowley's attention being especially drawn to a pipit, shot near Rottingdean on the 24th September, 1862, and examined by him in the flesh, he found that both this specimen, now in Major Spicer's possession, and that previously obtained belonged to a species not hitherto known to have been observed in Britain.'

Admitted nationally (Seebohm 1884 (2): 239) and accepted locally by Borrer (1891: 105) who states the 15th.

M. J. Nicoll of St Leonards (1904) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VIII. p. 454, says: 'Aug. 15th, 1858, the first British example.'

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 212) who adds: '...that it was eventually acquired by Mr. J. B. Nichols.'

Comment 15th or 17th? Newton who was the eminent ornithologist of the era declared it as the 17th.

2). 1868 Isles of Scilly Tresco, male, shot, 19th September.

(E. H. Rodd, Zoologist 1868: 1458; E. H. Rodd, Field 26th Sept., 1868: 264; E. H. Rodd, Zoologist 1870: 2233; Yarrell, 1871-85; Harting, 1880; J. Clark & F. R. Rodd, Zoologist 1906: 247; Witherby, 1920-24; Penhallurick, 1978).

History E. H. Rodd of Penzance (1868) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. III. p. 1458, dated 19th September, 1868, says: 'I have just examined a good-plumaged specimen of the Tawny Pipit, shot at Scilly to-day by Mr. A. Pechell. It is a male bird, and apparently in its recently acquired autumnal plumage. The upper plumage is almost hair-brown, with the centres of the feathers a shade darker, scarcely giving the bird a mottled appearance; the whole of the under parts, with a little variation here and there, white with a wash of white; moustache indistinct; upper rump greyish brown, fat [feet] much smaller than the Tree Pipit; tarsi longer than the Tree Pipit's, flesh-colour: back-claw almost straight, and short; outer tail-feather white, the next blotched on the inner web half-way with brown.'

E. H. Rodd (1868) in 'The Field' of 26th Sept., Vol. XXXII. p. 264, says: 'I received yesterday from Scilly a fine-plumaged male specimen of this rare pipit (Anthus campestris), which was shot by Augustus Pechell, Esq., near Old Grimsby. Some Richard's Pipits and Tree Pipits were shot at the same time. The Tawny Pipit, in plumage, bears a strong resemblance to A. richardi.

It is, however, remarkable for its small feet, lengthened tarsi, and flesh-coloured legs, and the hind claw, which is almost straight, and only ⅛th of an inch in length. Both this species (which is altogether smaller than A. richardi) and A. richardi have rudimental moustaches. The upper plumage too, has a more uniform tone of colouring, without the centre of the feathers being much darker. The rump feathers are greyish brown.'

E. H. Rodd (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. p. 2233, adds: 'Scilly Isles: this first example of the occurrence of this pipit in Cornwall, was shot by Augustus Pechell, Esq., near Old Grimsby, Isle of Trescoe, in Scilly, September 1868, and the specimen is in my cabinet.'

Harting, Editor (1880) in Rodd's Birds of Cornwall, says: 'I am enabled to record the capture of this rare Pipit in Cornwall, from the fact of my possessing a specimen which was shot by Mr. A. Pechell near Old Grimsby, Tresco, Scilly, in September 1868.'

3). 1869 Sussex Rottingdean, two, both shot, one beyond repair, 6th September, now at Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 208134).

(T. W. Wanfor, Zoologist 1869: 1918; F. Bond, Zoologist 1870: 1984; Borrer, 1891; Booth, 1901; Walpole-Bond, 1938; James, 1996).

History T. W. Wanfor of Brighton (1869) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. IV. p. 1918, undated, says: 'Mr. [G. R.] Guthrie, of Rottingdean, shot on the 6th of September two specimens of the Tawny Pipit, at Rottingdean. He was attracted by the unusual note of the birds: unfortunately his gun was loaded for larger birds, and they were so much damaged that Pratt has only been able to mount one.'

Frederick Bond of South Hampstead, London (1869) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. IV. p. 1984, dated 15th December, 1869, says: 'I think the following list of birds, all taken (except the Serin Finch) near Brighton, between September of the present year and the 6th of December, are worth recording in The Zoologist. I have seen every one of the birds except the Shore Lark. Tawny Pipit. I saw a fine specimen of this bird that was shot on the 6th of September; another was killed at the same time, but was too much injured for preservation.'

Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 105), while Booth (1901: 211, 3rd ed.) adds: 'Killed near Rottingdean, Sussex, by Mr. G. R. Guthrie, September 6th, 1869. It was in company with another bird of the same species, and their note attracted attention, being very different from that of the other Pipits.' Also accepted (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 213) and by James (1996: 394-395) who adds that one is now in the Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 208134).

5). 1871 Sussex Near Brighton, caught, October, now at Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 208133).

(Booth, 1901; James, 1996).

History Booth (1901: 211, 3rd ed.) says: 'Another, from the Borrer Collection, caught near Brighton, October, 1871.'

James (1996: 394-395) adds that it is now in the Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 208133).

6). 1875 Sussex Near Brighton, first-winter, caught, 12th October.

(F. Bond, Zoologist 1877: 299; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

History F. Bond of Staines (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 299, says: 'On looking over some of my small birds recently, I found a specimen of the Tawny Pipit, Anthus campestris, the capture of which I do not think has been recorded. It was taken near Brighton on the 12th October, 1875, and is a young bird, as evidenced by the light edgings to the feathers.'

Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 105-106) and by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 214) who says: 'I see Harting (1901: 365) makes out that this is the same as Swaysland's.'

Comment Swaysland's being the undated 1874 record now found to be unacceptable.

7). 1876 Sussex Ditchling Bostall, immature, obtained, 29th September.

(G. D. Rowley, Field 21st Oct., 1876: 471; M. A. Mathew, Zoologist 1877: 342; Borrer, 1891; Harting, 1901; M. J. Nicoll, Zoologist 1904: 454; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

History Murray A. Mathew of Bishop's Lydeard (1877) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. I. p. 342, says: 'I am able to add another unrecorded Tawny Pipit from Sussex, which is also an immature bird, in the plumage described by Mr. Bond (p. 299).

This example was shot at Ditchling Bostel [sic], on the 29th September, 1876, as I was informed by Mr. Pratt, of Brighton, from whom I obtained it. There is a great superficial resemblance between the Tawny and Richard's Pipits. The Tawny might well pass for a small example of Anthus richardi. Both have long tarsi, and pretty much the same coloured plumage. I was struck by the resemblance when examining Mr. Vingoe's Penzance specimen last summer, which, if I remember rightly, was also a bird of the year.'

Borrer (1891: 106) says: 'According to p. 342, s.s. 1877, another immature specimen was shot at Brighton on the 29th of September, and taken to Mr. Pratt.'

M. J. Nicoll of St Leonards (1904) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VIII. p. 454, says: 'Sept, 1877. One.'

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 214) who adds: 'Borrer and Nicoll erroneously thought the date was 1877.'

Comment Borrer merely stated the reference and not the year of the bird. I think Nicoll has made an error by recording the year the record was published which is what he did for another Tawny Pipit record in his list of British occurrences. The Cornish specimen does not appear to have been recorded!

8). 1879 Dorset Stanpit Marsh, Christchurch Harbour, Hampshire, shot, August, now at Leicester Musuem.

(Kelsall & Munn, 1905; Witherby, 1920-24; Clark, 2022).

History Kelsall & Munn (1905: 46) say: 'One in Mr. Hart's collection was shot at Stanpit, near Christchurch in August, 1879.'

9). 1887 Sussex Near Brighton, male, caught, 25th August, now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1924Z18.3539).

(R. W. Chase, Zoologist 1887: 432; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Watson, 2010).

History R. W. Chase of Edgbaston (1887) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XI. p. 432, says: 'A specimen of this rare visitor, the Tawny Pipit, Anthus campestris, was taken in a net close to the Ditchling Road, about a mile from Brighton, on August 25th, and upon dissection proved to be a male.'

[The number of rare passerines birds (rare, that is, in England) which are captured by the birdcatchers near Brighton is very remarkable. In this locality Anthus campestris has occurred more frequently than in other parts of England, while its visits, always in autumn, have hitherto been confined to the southern counties. - Ed.]

Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 106; Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 214).

Watson (2010) in detailing the R. W. Chase collection in the Birmingham Museum lists this male specimen and quoting from his Notebooks adds that it was received in the flesh from Pratt & Son of Brighton; stuffed by J. Cullingford of Durham.

10). 1889 Suffolk Near Lowestoft, adult, caught, 2nd September.

(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1890: 57; A. H. Patterson, Zoologist 1900: 402; J. H. Gurney, jun., British Birds 13: 257; Witherby, 1920-24; Ticehurst, 1932).

History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Norwich (1890) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIV. p. 57, says: 'On the 2nd [September] a Tawny Pipit, an old bird in change, was caught near Lowestoft, but only survived its capture a few days. I had an opportunity, in company with Sir Edward and Prof. Newton, of examining this rare bird, and am indebted to the former gentleman for the notice of its capture. Anthus campestris has not previously been identified in either Norfolk or Suffolk.'

Admitted by A. H. Patterson (1900) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IV. p. 402, under 'Birds of Great Yarmouth.'

J. H. Gurney, jun. (1920) in British Birds, Vol. XIII. p. 257, admits this as the first record for the Norfolk/Suffolk area.

Accepted locally for Suffolk by Ticehurst (1932: 109) who adds: '...in the Gurney collection.'

11). 1896 Kent Near Lydd, obtained, 2nd August.

(Harrison, 1953; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).

History Harrison (1953 (2): 205) says: 'In so far as Kent is concerned, its claim to inclusion rests on...and a specimen in Boyd Alexander's collection obtained on 2nd August 1896, near Lydd.'

12). 1899 Cornwall Near Bodmin, male, caught, 16th September, died in captivity 18th September.

(J. Clark, Zoologist 1907: 283; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 113; Witherby, 1920-24).

History J. Clark (1907) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XI. p. 283, says: 'On the 16th September, 1899, a male Tawny Pipit was captured at Bodmin, but it refused to eat dead insects and ant eggs, and died in two days. This is so far the only specimen recorded for the Cornish mainland, though Pechell shot one at Scilly on the 19th September, 1868.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1907) in British Birds, Vol. I. p. 1132, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.

13). 1910 Norfolk Blakeney, shot, 15th September.

(W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 27: 16; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1911: 168; Witherby, 1920-24; C. Borrer, British Birds 4: 210; S. H. Long & B. B. Riviere, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 9: 789; J. H. Gurney, jun., British Birds 13: 257; Pashley, 1925; Seago, 1977; Stoddart & Joyner, 2005).

History W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1910) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXVII. p. 16, at the 161st Meeting of the Club held on 19th October 1910 at Pagani's Restaurant, London, says: 'Mr. Clifford Borrer, on behalf of Mr. F. I. Richards, exhibited two of our rarer British visitors which had been obtained last month in Norfolk: one was an adult Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) procured on the 15th of September.'

J. H. Gurney, jun., of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1911) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XV. p. 168, says: 'September 15th. N.E., 3. A Tawny Pipit shot on the coast (Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, xxvii, p. 16).'

Clifford Borrer (1911) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 210, says: 'At a meeting of the British Ornithologists' Club, held on October 19th (Bull. B.O.C., XXVIL. p. 16), I exhibited on behalf of my friend, Mr. F. I. Richards, an adult specimen of the Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) obtained by one of his collectors in east Norfolk on September 15th, 1910.'

Admitted in the Sixth List of Additions by S. H. Long & B. B. Riviere (1914) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. IX. p. 789.

J. H. Gurney, jun. (1920) in British Birds, Vol. XIII. p. 257, admits this as the third record for the Norfolk/Suffolk area.

Pashley (1925) says: '1910. September 18th. A Tawny Pipit said to have been taken a few days ago. In the collection of Mr. F. I. Richards as reported by C. Borrer in British Birds 4: 210.'

Stoddart & Joyner (2005: 21) add that it was shot by Frank Richards.

14). 1912 Sussex The Crumbles, caught, 24th September, now at Eastbourne Museum.

(E. C. Arnold, British Birds 6: 218; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 34: 272; Arnold, 1936; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

History E. C. Arnold (1912) in British Birds, Vol. VI. p. 218, says: 'On October 1st, 1912, a birdcatcher caught a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) at Eastbourne, and this specimen has now come into my possession.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 216) says: 'Arnold (1936) says there is one in the Eastbourne Museum which was netted on 24th September 1912, although in British Birds he gave the date as 1st October.'

W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1914) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXXIV. p. 272, on the unexpected occurrences for 1912, says: 'One taken, Eastbourne (Sussex), October 1st.'

15). 1919 Kent Near Lydd, seen, 28th May.

(W. H. Mullens, British Birds 13: 272; W. Ruskin Butterfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 127; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).

History W. H. Mullens (1920) in British Birds, Vol. XIII. p. 272, says: 'The following were observed by Mr. M. J. Nicoll and myself; on May 28th, 1919, near Lydd, a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris).'

W. Ruskin Butterfield (1920) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 127, says: 'A Tawny Pipit was seen near Lydd on May 28th by Major W. H. Mullens, Dr. N. F. Ticehurst, and Mr. M. J. Nicoll. Being well acquainted with the species in the field, Mr. Nicoll was able clearly to identify the bird.'

16). 1927 Sussex Near Rye, seen, 4th September.

(H. Bentham, British Birds 21: 177; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Witherby, 1940-52).

History Howard Bentham (1927) in British Birds, Vol. XXI. p. 177, says: 'On September 4th, 1927, I saw a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) on the coast near Rye. The absence of striations on the buff breast and flanks and whitish under-parts at once attracted my attention, as did also the very clearly defined buff eye-stripe. The feathers of the upper-parts were sandy-brown with dark centres, the tail reddish-brown. I infer that the bird was in winter plumage, the moustachial streaks not being at all pronounced. After allowing me to watch it from a distance of four or five yards, on my nearer approach the bird rose, emitting a shrill, double chirp, quite unlike the notes of any of our breeding Pipits. Later in the day I noticed the bird on a grassy track, along which it ran with astonishing swiftness for about fifty yards before taking wing.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 216).

17). 1932 Sussex Near Eastbourne, immature female, shot, 17th September.

(J. M. Harrison, British Birds 26: 222; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Witherby, 1940-52).

History J. M. Harrison (1932) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. p. 222, says: 'A Tawny Pipit (Anthus c. campestris) was shot on September 17th, 1932, on the Sussex coast not far from Eastbourne. The bird on dissection proved to be a female. It is in freshly moulted plumage, and has the central part of its cranial vault still membranous as a proof of immaturity. The wing measures 87.5 mm.' It was accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 217).

18). 1933 Fair Isle No locality, shot, spring.

(G. Waterston, Scottish Naturalist 56: 62; Eds., British Birds 30: 231; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 64: 51; Thom, 1986; Dymond, 1991; Pennington et al., 2004).

History George Waterston (1936) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LVI. p. 62, under 'Bird Notes from Fair Isle', says: 'Tawny Pipit - First record for Scotland. George Stout obtained one in spring 1933.'

In an Editorial (1936) in British Birds, Vol. XXX. p. 231, they say: 'Fair Isle. - Mr. G. Waterston gives details (Scot. Nat., 1936, pp. 61-64) of a number of interesting birds, which have occurred in Fair Isle and have not hitherto been recorded. Amongst these we may mention the following: - Tawny Pipit (Anthus c. campestris). - One is recorded as having been obtained in the spring of 1933.'

Kenneth Williamson (1952) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIV. p. 51, in a summary of previous occurrences, says: '...spring 1933, sight record by George Stout.'

Pennington et al. (2004) state that it was shot and that the specimen cannot now be found.

19). 1935 Fair Isle No locality, first-winter male, shot, 8th October, now at National Museums of Scotland.

(G. Waterston, Scottish Naturalist 56: 62; Eds., British Birds 30: 231; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 64: 51; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Dymond, 1991).

History George Waterston (1936) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LVI. p. 62, says: 'Tawny Pipit - Jerome Wilson's son Robert obtained a young bird which was just beginning to assume its first-years plumage. The identification was confirmed by Mr. Kinnear and H. F. Witherby, who examined the specimen. It is now at the National Museums of Scotland.'

In an Editorial (1936) in British Birds, Vol. XXX. p. 231, they say: 'Fair Isle. - Mr. G. Waterston gives details (Scot. Nat., 1936, pp. 61-64) of a number of interesting birds, which have occurred in Fair Isle and have not hitherto been recorded. Amongst these we may mention the following: - Tawny Pipit (Anthus c. campestris). - ...another (a first winter bird) got on October 8th, 1935, is now in the Royal Scottish Museum. The bird had not previously been recorded for Scotland.'

Kenneth Williamson (1952) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIV. p. 51, in a summary on previous occurrences, says: '...a first-winter male collected by Jerome Wilson.'

20). 1943 Fair Isle No locality, seen, early May.

(G. Waterston, British Birds 38: 228; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 64: 51; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; Williamson, 1965; Dymond, 1991; Pennington et al., 2004).

History G. Waterston (1945) in British Birds, Vol. XXXVIII. p. 228, under the title 'Notes from Fair Isle, 1939-45, says: 'Tawny Pipit - One seen at beginning of May, 1943. G.S.'

P. E. Davis (Williamson 1965) says: 'One is also said to have been seen in early May 1943.' However, Pennington et al. (2004) still find it acceptable.

21). 1947 Somerset Cheddar Reservoir, seen, 4th May.

(B. King, British Birds 40: 343-344; F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1947: 7; Somerset Ornithological Society, 1988).

History B. King (1947) in British Birds, Vol. XL. pp. 343-344, says: 'On May 4th, 1947, by Cheddar Reservoir, Somerset, Mr. R, p. Gait and the writer obtained very close views of a small wagtail-like bird which was evidently a Tawny Pipit Anthus c. campestris. It first attracted our attention by its generally light brown plumage, sleek appearance and unusually upright stance. Watched - from a car - at approximately four yards range with 8 x binoculars, it looked slightly larger than a Yellow Wagtail Motacilla f. flavissima, a few of which were near at hand, and its almost uniform light brown colour, the relatively long legs and the upright stance were plainly visible.

The following plumage details were noted - head brownish-grey with a well-defined pale buff streak over the eye; mantle, scapulars and the whole wing light brown, the only apparent darker markings being on the secondaries. No white on the outer tail-feathers was seen. The throat was light buffish-brown, the pale coloured breast and flanks showed no signs of streaking whatever, the bill was brown, and the legs conspicuously pale pinkish-brown.

The bird was stationary when first seen and displayed a slow but regular up and down movement of the tail. It was then observed to run extremely quickly to and fro, then in one direction for some ten yards, and, still maintaining its upright stance, easily outstripped a Yellow Wagtail close by.

We both remarked that on no previous occasion had we seen a bird of its comparative size run so rapidly. It then perched in full view on a grass mound about ten yards distant. With a repetition of the extremely quick running the bird was temporarily lost to view in longish grass, but soon re-appeared in flight about 20 yards away, giving clear Yellow Wagtail-like notes which Mr. Gait and I simultaneously remarked upon. They only differed from those of that species in being louder, deeper and more musical. It is particularly desired to emphasize here the similarity of the call to that of the Yellow Wagtail.

Seen in flight - which was noticeably undulating and of long deep sweeps - the bird looked distinctly light brown. Having carefully consulted The Handbook we fully realize that the Tawny Pipit has very seldom been reported in the British Isles in spring, but these are the observations as we made them.'

F. L. Blathwayt (1947) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XXXIV. p. 7, quotes from British Birds.

22). 1948 Sussex Pett Level, seen, 24th October.

(G. des Forges, Sussex Bird Report 1948: 6).

History G. des Forges (1948) in the Sussex Bird Report, Vol. I. p. 6, says: 'One at Pett Level on October 24th (A.D.W.).'

1950-57 RECORDS

23). 1950 Sussex The Midrips, 30th September.

(G. des Forges & D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1950: 8; Eds., British Birds 45: 146; Harrison, 1953).

History G. des Forges & D. D. Harber (1950) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 8, say: 'On September 30th one was making its way westwards in short flights with intervals of feeding at the Midrips. "Larger than Meadow Pipits and more erect; a conspicuously sandy-coloured bird - under-parts paler than upper; no markings on under-parts and none visible on upper-parts except on the wings where there was dark brown with a little whitish; no white noticed in tail; legs yellowish; call, loud, clear and rather metallic". (D.D.H.).'

Comment Locality is in Sussex (Sussex Bird Report 1953: 5).

24). 1950 Devon Lundy, 6th to 7th October.

(D. Lea, British Birds 44: 234; D. Lea, Lundy Field Society Report 1950: 16; M. Brooks-King, Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report 1950: 12; Moore, 1969).

History D. Lea (1951) in British Birds, Vol. XLIV. p. 234, says: 'One seen near the Observatory on October 6th and 7th. It first drew attention to itself by its call-note, a clear rather musical "chweep", a much louder note than one hears from the commoner pipits. The general shape and mode of flight were very like a wagtail. The upper-parts were of a sandy-brown with a few indistinct streaks on the head and some darker brown markings on the wing-feathers. The under-parts appeared light buff with a very few darker marks on the breast. The tail was dark brown and noticeably longer than in the Meadow-Pipit (Anthus pratensis), and the legs were light, almost flesh-coloured.'

25). 1950 Cornwall St Columb Major, 13th and 22nd October.

(B. H. Ryves, H. M. Quick & A. G. Parsons, Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1950: 11; Eds., British Birds 45: 140).

History B. H. Ryves, H. M. Quick & A. G. Parsons (1950) in the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, Vol. XX. p. 11, say: 'October 13th and 22nd, one seen at St. Columb Porth. (Satisfactory evidence given. - Eds.). W.M.D.'

26). 1951 Essex Colne Point, 31st August.

(D. Lack & E. Lack, British Birds 45: 365-366; G. A. Pyman, Essex Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1952: 31; Eds., British Birds 47: 91; Hudson & Pyman, 1968; Cox, 1984).

History D. Lack & E. Lack (1952) in British Birds, Vol. XLV. pp. 365-366, say: 'On August 31st, 1951, at Colne Point, Essex, we had excellent close views of a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris). It was first seen perched on telephone wires and later flew to the ground. The chief characteristics noted were the extremely pale upper-parts, almost or quite unstreaked underparts, the eye-stripe and the soft rather musical disyllabic call quite unlike that of any other pipit and somewhat recalling that of a Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava). Members of the latter species were near it for comparison.

Though obviously a pipit not a wagtail, the bird appeared to some extent intermediate between the two genera in its field characters, including the long tail. We have seen the species before, in Holland, and one of us has also seen and heard all the other European species of Anthus. This appears to be the first record of the Tawny Pipit for Essex.'

G. A. Pyman (1952) in the Essex Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, p. 31, add: 'This, the first record of the species for Essex...' It was accepted locally (Hudson & Pyman 1968; Cox 1984).

27). 1951 Kent The Wicks, Dungeness, 1st September.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 13; Eds., British Birds 46: 149).

History N. F. Ticehurst (1952) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 13, says: 'One, Wicks, Sept. 1st (D.D.H.).'

28). 1951 Fair Isle Meoness, first-winter, 15th September; same, Buness, trapped 17th September.

(K. Williamson, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 1 (4): 23-25; K. Williamson, Scottish Naturalist 64: 50-51; K. Williamson, British Birds 45: 230-231; Thom, 1986; Dymond, 1991).

History K. Williamson (1951) in the Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin, Vol. I (IV). pp. 23-25, says: 'A Tawny Pipit Anthus campestris was found on the short grassland of Meoness on the afternoon of September 15th 1951 by George Waterston and Misses D. and P. Campbell and G. Johnstone. Later the same day it was watched by Holger Holgersen, M. F. M. Meiklejohn, Ian Wallace and the writer. It was not seen the following day, but on the 17th what must certainly have been the same bird was found on similar grassy land at the foot of Buness, two miles to the north. All the watchers then at the Observatory , including T. Yeoman, W. J. Wallace, Miss P. Condliffe and Mrs. Williamson in addition to those named above had splendid views of it at close range. After two hours of continuous observation and gentle "shepherding" in the direction of a clap-net set up in its favourite feeding-area, the bird was caught....'

K. Williamson (1952) in British Birds, Vol. XLV. pp. 230-231, says: 'One, first seen on September 15th, was "shepherded" into a clap net on September 17th. An account of this is given in Bulletin, number 4, pp. 23-25, from which we extract the following : "in the field it was a strikingly pale pipit, of Rock-Pipit size, but with a more horizontal bearing; indeed its carriage as it ran swiftly over the short grass, reminded us forcibly of the close affinity of the pipits and wagtails, an impression which was enhanced when the bird, alighting after short nights, nicked the tail up and down two or three times in characteristic wagtail fashion".

The upper-parts were pale brown with a greenish olive cast, the head and nape appearing greyer. The head and back were faintly streaked, the wings were pale brown, the secondaries, tertials and greater coverts having huffish white fringes. The median coverts were darker and presented the appearance of a blackish brown wing-bar and these feathers were tipped with buffish white. There was a noticeable black line above the eye contrasting with a pale eye-stripe ; the ear-coverts were greenish olive and there were white moustachial streaks bordered by dark lines; the throat was white, the breast vinous-buff faintly streaked at the sides, the belly and vent whitish and unstreaked. The long tail appeared to have white outer feathers when seen in the field, but these proved to be buffish white when the bird was examined in the hand.

On the 15th a somewhat lark-like chirrup was heard, but on the 17th the only note heard was a soft 'tee up' sometimes repeated as the bird made short nights. The note was fuller and lacked the squeaky quality of that of the commoner pipits; the flight was undulating and rather wagtail-like.

When examined in the hand the bird proved to be a first winter juvenile and the bill is described as pinkish flesh on lower mandible and cutting edges, dark horn on culmen and at tip; legs flesh coloured".'

29). 1951 Devon Lundy, 19th September.

(P. E. Davis, British Birds 45: 297; P. E. Davis, Lundy Field Society Report 1951: 19; M. Brooks-King, Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report 1951: 11; Moore, 1969).

History P. E. Davis (1952) in British Birds, Vol. XLV. p. 297, says: 'One on September 19th, and what was probably a different individual on the 29th. Second and third records for Lundy.'

P. E. Davis (1951) in the Lundy Field Society Report, p. 19, says: 'It is not absolutely certain that the birds of September 19th and 29th were different individuals, though it seems unlikely that such a bird could have escaped notice for ten days. On both occasions good views were had (on the 29th the bird was watched for ninety minutes), and the sandy coloration, wagtail-like appearance, and distinctive "twick" call-note were recorded.'

30). 1951 Devon Lundy, another, 29th September.

(P. E. Davis, British Birds 45: 297; P. E. Davis, Lundy Field Society Report 1951: 19; M. Brooks-King, Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report 1951: 11; Moore, 1969).

History P. E. Davis (1952) in British Birds, Vol. XLV. p. 297, says: 'One on September 19th, and what was probably a different individual on the 29th. Second and third records for Lundy.'

31). 1952 Lothian Aberlady Bay, 10th May.

(K. S. Macgregor & F. D. Hamilton, Scottish Naturalist 64: 167-168; F. D. Hamilton & K. S. Macgregor, Edinburgh Bird Bulletin 3: 30; Thom, 1986).

History K. S. Macgregor & F. D. Hamilton (1952) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIV. pp. 167-168, say: 'When at Aberlady Bay on 10th May 1952 we came across a bird which immediately attracted our attention by its generally pale colouring. An approach was made to within 15 to 20 yards and, with the aid of 8 x 30 binoculars and a 40 x telescope, the following description was taken. in excellent conditions, the sun being on our left. Forehead, crown, nape, back and rump pale greyish brown, with very faint underlying markings not easily visible even through binoculars; underparts buffish cream, slightly paler on belly; throat unmarked; breast finely streaked dark brown with odd faint markings on flanks; eye dark brown with conspicuous pale buff eye-stripe; wings dark brown, primaries edged buff; upper and under tail dark brown with white outer feathers; bill darkish brown; legs appearing fairly dark but owing to the grass that the bird was on the definite colour was not obtained.

The bird was alone. In size it was definitely larger in body, legs and tail than the Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis, which is common in the area. In build it resembled a wagtail, this being especially noticeable when, on landing, and occasionally at other times, it bobbed its tail for a few seconds.

When flushed it did not fly far, always returning to more or less the same spot, on grassy saltings with small dried-up pools. Its flight was undulating. The only sound it made was a faint "tseep" when flushed. Most of the time it was in a rather hunched-up attitude, but occasionally it took short runs after insects.

We watched it for about an hour-and-a-half, one of us attempting without success to contact other observers by telephone.

With south-east winds prevailing, there was obviously a large movement of passerines at this time; we noted also in the same area a male Blue-headed Wagtail Motacilla f. flava, and a Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus, both scarce visitors to the bay.

After consulting the Handbook and later the skins in the Royal Scottish Museum, we were of the opinion that the bird could only have been a Tawny Pipit, Anthus campestris.'

F. D. Hamilton & K. S. Macgregor (1953) in the Edinburgh Bird Bulletin, Vol. III. p. 30, say: 'An outstanding occurrence, which was not mentioned in this Bulletin at the time due to problems in identification, was a Tawny Pipit which appeared after a period of South-East wind on 10th May 1952...A note which appears in the Scottish Naturalist (1952: 167-8) gives full details of plumage, characteristics, etc., of this, the first recorded occurrence on the mainland of Scotland.'

32). 1953 Dorset Near Portland Bill, two, 17th September.

(K. B. Rooke, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 75: 202; J. S. Ash, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 76: 188).

History K. B. Rooke (1953) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LXXV. p. 202, says: 'Two on stubble c. ½ mile from Portland Bill, Sept. 17th - the first recorded in Dorset. When first flushed at 15.00 GMT they flew a long way, with wagtail-like undulating flight, initially using a rather lark-like call, rendered "cheep-reep" (J.R.B., J.J.H.), not heard subsequently. Later, they were much less shy, flying shorter distances with less undulating flight, and used a softer, variable call, difficult to describe and variously rendered "cheu", "chewp", "cheeoo", "cheu-up", etc.

This call occasionally had a faint resemblance to the "tsweep" of a Yellow Wagtail, but was much less shrill, and completely different from the calls of Meadow, Tree and Rock Pipits. They were watched through binoculars and telescope at ranged down to 20 yards for over ½ hour in evening sunlight, feeding in stubble and often affording good views as they perched on straw bales.

On the ground, they looked fairly large and slender, very wagtail-like in shape, carriage, tail-movements and behaviour, and in lack of conspicuous streaking on rather pale plumage. Upper-parts sandy brown, distinctly streaked and mottled darker, at close range; median coverts conspicuously dark with broad creamy-buff edges; well-marked creamy-white supercilium; under-parts mainly creamy-whitish; dark moustachial streaks at sides of throat; "necklace" of dark streaks across upper breast; outer tail-feathers whitish; legs yellowish-flesh, very like straw in some lights (J.R.B., J.J.H., R.C.P., K.B.R.).

They were considerably less pale and unstreaked than breeding adults seen by K.B.R. in North Africa, and were presumably first-winter birds. The two different calls heard correspond closely with those described at Fair Isle (British Birds, XLV. 230-1), a lark-like "chirrup" and a softer "tee-up", and were evidently distinctive from the harsh strident call of Richard's Pipit, from which young Tawny Pipits are said to be difficult to distinguish by plumage.'

J. S. Ash (1954) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LXXVI. p. 188, under 'The Birds of Portland', adds: 'Two there on Sept. 17th, is the first record from Portland and Dorset.'

34). 1954 Sussex The Crumbles, 17th September.

(G. des Forges & D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1954: 22; E. M. Nicholson, British Birds 49: 367).

History G. des Forges & D. D. Harber (1954) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 22, say: 'One on the Crumbles for at least 3 hours on September 17th (D.D.H.). "Larger and longer-legged than a Meadow Pipit. A rather slim, long-tailed bird, distinctly wagtail-like in its movements. General sandy coloration, upper-parts darker than under-parts and with a tinge of greyish. Only slight, inconspicuous markings on upper-parts except on (closed) wings. Slight markings at sides of breast, under-parts otherwise unmarked. Conspicuous pale buffish eye-stripe. In flight outer tail-feathers seen to be paler than rest but not white. Legs flesh coloured. Characteristic single, loud, rather metallic call in flight".

A strong SW wind. No Meadow Pipits about on the ground, though a few flying in from the sea.'

35). 1954 Sussex The Crumbles, 26th to 27th September.

(G. des Forges & D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1954: 22; Eds., British Birds 49: 367).

History G. des Forges & D. D. Harber (1954) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 22, say: 'On September 26th D.D.H. found another bird in the same locality. This was likewise present for some hours and was later seen by R.H.C. and J.C.S., the former finding it still present the next day. D.D.H. describes it as "like the last bird; except, generally somewhat greyer; forehead, crown and back with much more distinct, quite noticeable darker streaks and more streaks too at sides of breast. Typical call in flight - a loud "tcheuk". As before a strong SW wind with a few Meadow Pipits coming in from the sea.'

36). 1954 Greater London/Surrey Perry Oaks Sewage-farm, Middlesex, juvenile, 17th October.

(B. L. Sage & M. Cooper, British Birds 49: 330; London Natural History Society, 1964; Wheatley, 2007; Self, 2014).

History B. L. Sage & M. Cooper (1956) in British Birds, Vol. XLIX. p. 330, says: 'On 17th October 1954, at approximately 11.15 hours G;M.T., whilst walking round the Perry Oaks sewage farm, Stanwell, Middlesex, we saw a pipit which immediately attracted our attention on account of its large size and pale coloration.

The following account is compiled from our joint field notes: - The bird was first seen feeding on one of the sewage-beds at a range of about 12-15 yards and it was accompanied by a Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis). In comparison it was noticeably larger and paler with a more upright stance and longer legs. The dorsal surface from the crown of the head to the rump was a light sandy colour; the back had a slightly mottled and striated appearance, but this did not extend to the nape of the neck or rump which were unmarked. The central tail-feathers were darker and the outer tail-feathers (seen in flight) were white. The wings generally were darker than the back, particularly the secondaries and greater wing-coverts, both of which had buff tips to the feathers, most noticeable on the latter. The lores and ear coverts were the same colour as the crown and there was a faint but noticeable superciliary stripe which broadened out immediately behind the eye. The whole of the ventral surface was a light buff shade; the throat was unmarked and there was no moustachial effect. The breast was boldly but not densely streaked, these streaks becoming sparser towards the lower belly and flanks which were unmarked. Bill dark brown, legs difficult to determine as they were almost obscured by mud; M.C. thought they were brownish and B.L.S. thought they were reddish but neither of us could be certain. The gait was a fast walk and the flight undulating. We both heard the bird call and B. . . rendered it as "tzi-ic" with a quite noticeable pause between the two syllables. The call did not seem as loud or harsh as that of the Meadow Pipit.

We later consulted The Handbook and decided that the bird was a juvenile Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) in the process of moulting into first-winter plumage.'

37). 1954 Northumberland Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 4th November.

(G. W. Temperley, Transactions of the Northumberland, Durham & Newcastle-upon-Tyne Natural History Society 11: 127; Galloway & Meek, 1978-83; Kerr, 2001).

History G. W. Temperley (1954) in the Transactions of the Northumberland, Durham & Newcastle-upon-Tyne Natural History Society, Vol. XI. p. 127, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'On November 4th on waste ground overlooking the Tyne and well within the City boundary, a Pipit was under close observation for 45 minutes. It was seen both perched and in flight. The upper-parts were uniform pale olive-brown completely unstreaked; the head, crown, nape and cheeks rather darker. There was a distinct white ring round the eye, but no sign of an eye-stripe. The crown had several thin black streaks. The rump was as the upper-parts, but was slightly striated. The wings were definitely barred, including two black bars, very conspicuous while perched and in flight. The tail was long and rounded at the tip, with dark central feathers and pure white outer ones. Chin, belly and under-parts whitish shading to cream. Legs and bill reddish-brown. Except for the lack of a pale eye-stripe this bird closely resembled a Tawny Pipit and it is probable that it was an example of the variant described by T. A. Coward in Birds of the British Isles, Vol. III. p. 105. (B.L.).'

G. W. Temperley (1955) in the Transactions of the Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Natural History Society, Vol. XI. pp. 208-209, says: 'On October 8th on St Mary's Island, N., a pipit attracted attention by its larger size, longer legs, slimmer build and longer tail, which it continually jerked like a Wagtail. On closer inspection it showed a warmish brown, unmarked back, light cream throat, pale eye-stripe and pale breast with very few slight marks on sides, and long fleshy yellow legs. Sketches made on the spot prove that it was undoubtedly a Tawny Pipit (J.A. & T.H.A.).'

On November 4th, 1954, on waste ground in Newcastle, a similar bird was seen and described by B.L. It agreed in almost every particular with the above, except that it lacked the pale eye-stripe. A variant has been described by T. A. Coward in which the eye-stripe is missing. In O. R., 1954, this record was placed in square brackets, but in view of this second occurrence, the species can now be added to the Northumberland list.'

Accepted locally as the first for Northumberland (Galloway & Meek 1978-83; Kerr 2001).

38). 1955 Isles of Scilly Gugh, 9th May.

(B. H. Ryves, H. M. Quick & A. G. Parsons, Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1955: 33).

History B. H. Ryves, H. M. Quick & A. G. Parsons (1955) in the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, Vol. XXV. p. 33, say: 'On May 9th, on the Gugh (St. Agnes), I saw what at first appeared to be a very pale Thrush. A closer approach showed the bird to be a Pipit, plain yellowish grey above, and with unstreaked creamy underparts. I also saw a white superciliary stripe. The bird ran about at great speed, and finally flew and was no more seen. H.M.Q.'

39). 1955 Essex Goldhanger, 12th July.

(G. A. Pyman, Essex Bird Report 1955: 36; Hudson & Pyman, 1968; Cox, 1984).

History G. A. Pyman (1955) in the Essex Bird Report, p. 36, says: 'Goldhanger: a single bird with two Meadow Pipits on the wire fence above Lauriston beach, July 12th (J.W.A.). Describes as longer and slimmer than the Meadow Pipits with fairly long tail (flicked in wagtail fashion), long legs, pronounced eye stripe, creamy throat and belly, pinkish-buff breast (unspotted) and flanks, whitish outer tail feathers, etc. The second Essex occurrence.'

40). 1955 Norfolk Blakeney Point, two, 23rd August, one to 24th August.

(M. J. Seago, Norfolk Bird Report 1955: 55; R. K. Cornwallis, British Birds 50: 109).

History M. J. Seago (1955) in the Norfolk Bird Report, p. 55, says: 'Blakeney Point: two, August 23rd and one on 24th "Zeep" call-notes heard (R.A.R.). Observer familiar with bird in Camargue. These are the third and fourth records for the county.'

42). 1955 Dorset Holt Heath, adult, 18th September.

(K. B. Rooke, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 77: 74).

History K. B. Rooke (1955) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LXXVII. p. 74, says: 'Excellent views obtained at 20-25 yards range (with binoculars) of an adult, Holt Heath, Sept. 18th (V.G.). Summary of description: a large pipit - upper-parts sandy coloured, lightly streaked; conspicuous light eye-stripe; under-parts warm sandy-buff, without visible streaks; legs pinkish; outer tail-feathers whitish; legs and tail longer the (e.g.) Tree Pipit's; shape and carriage somewhat wagtail-like; flight undulating - no sound heard; perched first on low bush, then on pine branch. This is the second Dorset record - one day later than in 1953, when the first two were seen at Portland.'

43). 1955 Northumberland St Mary's Island, 8th October.

(G. W. Temperley, Transactions of the Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Natural History Society 11: 208-209; Galloway & Meek, 1978-83).

History G. W. Temperley (1955) in the Transactions of the Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Natural History Society, Vol. XI. p. 208, says: 'On October 8th on St Mary's Island, N., a pipit attracted attention by its larger size, longer legs, slimmer build and longer tail, which it continually jerked like a Wagtail. On closer inspection it showed a warmish brown, unmarked back, light cream throat, pale eye-stripe and pale breast with very few slight marks on sides, and long fleshy yellow legs. Sketches made on the spot prove that it was undoubtedly a Tawny Pipit (J.A. & T.H.A.).'

44). 1956 Somerset Steart, 1st August.

(G. H. E. Young, Report on Somerset Birds 1956: 35; Somerset Ornithological Society, 1988).

History G. H. E. Young (1956) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XLIII. p. 35, says: 'One seen at Steart, Aug. 1, was watched at close range for 15 minutes by B.C.P. and E.M.P. who noted amongst other details, pronounced cream stripe extending a little behind the eye; nape, back and rump sandy coloured and unstreaked; wings dark brown; primaries and secondaries paler edged sandy brown; tail blackish brown with dirty - white outer-tail feathers; strikingly long pale flesh-coloured legs. Flight undulating, with call similar to that of a Yellow Wagtail.'

45). 1956 Sussex Camber Sands, two, 3rd and 5th September, one to 6th September.

(D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1956: 25; K. Williamson, British Birds 52: 349).

History D. D. Harber (1956) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 25, says: 'Two on Camber sandhills on September 3rd and 5th and one there on 6th (M.S.J.S.)...Full descriptions have been supplied [of all this years birds in Sussex] and include: large size, slimness, long legs (yellowish in the birds at Camber sandhills and the one on the Crumbles, pale pinkish in the rest), general sandy coloration, upper-parts being darker than under-parts and uniform or only slightly marked except on closed wing, under-parts unmarked or with faint markings at sides of breast, noticeable pale eye-stripe, creamy or pale buff, outer tail feathers pale or whitish....An unusual number of Tawny Pipits was recorded on the south coast in September.'

47). 1956 Sussex The Crumbles, 4th September.

(D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1956: 25; K. Williamson, British Birds 52: 349).

History D. D. Harber (1956) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 25, says: 'One on the Crumbles on 4th (D.D.H.)...Full description supplied [see above].'

48). 1956 Norfolk Blakeney Point, 6th September.

(K. Williamson, British Birds 52: 349; M. J. Seago, Norfolk Bird Report 1956: 50; Seago, 1977).

History K. Williamson (1959) in British Birds, Vol. LII. p. 349, says: 'Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris). Several were recorded in coastal counties from Norfolk to Dorset during September, the following in the period under review: 2 at Camber, Sussex, on 3rd and 5th September and one there on the 6th; one on the Crumbles, Sussex, on the 4th; one at Blakeney Point on the 6th; one at Dungeness and 3 at Portland on the 9th; and one at Hove, Sussex, on the 10th.'

49). 1956 Dorset Portland Bill, three, one first-winter trapped, 9th September, one remaining to 11th September.

(K. D. Smith & J. S. Ash, British Birds 51: 28; A. J. Bull et al., Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 78: 46; K. D. Smith, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 3: 159; K. Williamson, British Birds 52: 349).

History A. J. Bull (1956) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LXXVIII. pp. 46-47, says: 'Portland Bill: a party of three was watched on Sept. 9th and one of them, which proved to be a first-winter bird, was caught and ringed. One (presumably one of the above) was present on Sept. 10th and 11th....There are only two previous Dorset records.'

52). 1956 Kent Dungeness, 9th September.

(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1956: 36; K. Williamson, British Birds 52: 349).

History E. H. Gillham (1956) in the Kent Bird Report, Vol. V. p. 36, says: 'Singles at: Dungeness on Sept. 9 (J.J.S., C.M.P., J.T.R.S. et al.); at Egypt Bay on Sept. 23 (D.F.M.); and at Warden, Sheppey on Oct. 21 (J.J.M.F.), are the first records for close on forty years. Birds were also seen in Norfolk, Sussex, and elsewhere in same month (cf. County Reports). Full details received in all cases. Shape: similar to Yellow Wagtail but longer legged and upright stance; size: larger than Meadow Pipit or stockier than Yellow Wagtail; upper parts: pale sandy brown with some faint streaking; superciliary stripe: off-white or pale cream-buff; chin, throat and belly: unstreaked and off-white tinged buff or pale sandy buff, the chin or throat noted as paler; tail: noticeably darker than upper parts in first and last birds and in all cases the outer feathers paler-either white, buff-white or off-white; legs: yellow buff, yellow flesh or pale yellow. D.F.M. has previous experience of this species.'

53). 1956 Isles of Scilly St Agnes, 10th September.

(B. H. Ryves, H. M. Quick & J. E. Beckerlegge, Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1956: 29).

History B. H. Ryves, H. M. Quick & J. E. Beckerlegge (1956) in the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, Vol. XXVI. p. 29, say: 'September 10th. One on St. Agnes in company with two Meadow Pipits. The pale, unspotted colouring was very noticeable, H.M.Q.'

54). 1956 Sussex Hove Lagoon, 10th September.

(D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1956: 25; K. Williamson, British Birds 52: 349).

History D. D. Harber (1956) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 25, says: 'One on Hove front early on 10th [Sept.] (G.A.S.)...The Hove bird only called once and no clear impression was gained...Full description supplied [see above].'

55). 1956 Sussex Camber Castle, two, 22nd September.

(D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1956: 25).

History D. D. Harber (1956) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 25, says: 'Two near Camber Castle on 22nd [Sept.] (R.C.S.). Full description supplied [see above].'

57). 1956 Kent Egypt Bay, 23rd September.

(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1956: 36).

58). 1956 Kent Warden, Sheppey, 21st October.

(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1956: 36).

59). 1957 Sussex Sidlesham, two, 8th September.

(D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1957: 21).

History D. D. Harber (1957) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 21, says: 'Two at Sidlesham on September 8th (M.S.). "Large slender pipits approximately the size and build of a Yellow Wagtail. Upper-parts light sandy brown, under-parts lighter, inclining more to buffish-white. Neither upper- nor under-parts were streaked save for a few light streakings at the sides of the breast. Pale buffish eye-stripe. Legs appeared reddish in strong sunlight. Showed some whitish at sides of tail in flight.

Very distinctive call "che-uk", varied with "chuk" and sometimes run together as "che-uk chuk chuk". There is no previous county record for anywhere W of Shoreham.'

61). 1957 Sussex The Midrips, 22nd September.

(D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1957: 21).

History D. D. Harber (1957) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 21, says: 'One at the Midrips on September 22nd (M.C., W.H.D., R.W.). An adequate description has been given.'

Comment Locality is in Sussex (Sussex Bird Report 1953: 5).

NOT PROVEN

0). 1862 Sussex Near Rottingdean, caught in a net, 24th September.

(G. D. Rowley, Ibis 5: 37-38; Yarrell, 1871-85; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History George Dawson Rowley (1863) in The Ibis, Vol. V. pp. 37-38, says: 'The fact that the Tawny Pipit is common in France would lead us to suppose that it might be found, more or less frequently, on our south coasts. I think I have established, in two instances, that it already has been taken near Brighton, and have little doubt that more examples would have been known had the attention of ornithologists been directed towards the species.

Late on the evening of Sept. 24th last, a person named Wing brought a pipit, in the flesh, to Mr. George Swaysland, naturalist, 4, Queen's Road, Brighton, with directions to stuff it for him. Swaysland saw at once that it was a curious bird, and, after some conversation, induced Wing to part with it, calling to his attention that he did not collect, and it could not be a particular object of interest to any one but an ornithologist.

Having succeeded, Swaysland took down the particulars, and sent for me. I read Wing's address and the paper, which stated he had shot the bird on a cliff, about a mile and a half from Rottingdean, near Brighton. It was pointed out to him by a coast-guard or fisherman; and the bird flew just over the cliff at first, then alighted on the edge, and was killed. I examined the shot-marks, and next compared it with Yarrell and Morris, at first thinking it was Anthus ricardi; but the hind claw proving much too short, I began to suspect we had a new species before us. Taking time to reflect, I mentioned it to Mr. Alfred Newton, who observed, "Can it be Anthus rufescens, a bird I always expected to turn up in England"?

Ultimately I sent it up to Mr. Gould, whose answer I give in his own words: - "The bird is Anthus rufescens; apparently a fine old male in summer plumage. It is unusual for it to have spotted markings on the chest; but I have no doubt I am right as to its name. Others ought to be found on the south coast, as the bird is common in the central parts of France and Spain.'

I had previously thought, and Swaysland with me, that it was a young bird of the year, and still incline to that view, though hesitating to differ from so great an authority. We did so partly on account of the fine hair-like feathers about the vent, and the spangles or light edges to the feathers on the back, which all our Larks and Pipits have in their first plumage.'

Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 105; Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 212).

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1864 Sussex Between Brighton and Rottingdean, male, caught in a net, 30th September, now at Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 08132).

(G. D. Rowley, Zoologist 1864: 9327-28; Anon., Proceedings of the Zoological Society 1864: 377; G. D. Rowley, Ibis 7: 113; Yarrell, 1871-85; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938; James, 1996).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History G. Dawson Rowley of Brighton (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. pp. 9327-28, dated 15th October 1864, says: 'I send you a notice of the occurrence of the Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris or A. rufescens). On the 30th of September, 1864, a boy caught in a clap-net one of this species near Brighton, and brought it alive to Mr. Swaysland, naturalist, living in the Queen's Road, Brighton, where I saw it alive about an hour afterwards.

This is the third known British example. The first two were pointed out by me in the Ibis, Vol. V. No. 17, January, 1863, p. 37. Hitherto, these birds had passed for Anthus ricardi, and I very much wish that any gentleman possessing a supposes Richard's Pipit, well authenticated as killed in the British Isles, would examine it, and ascertain he has not got a Tawny Pipit by mistake.

The difference between the two species is so well known that I do not wish to take up your space mentioning it here. However, I would only say if he has any doubt let him compare the hind claw of his bird with Yarrell's figure, p. 388, Vol. I. 1st edition. If it does not correspond in length, he may conclude that he has not Richard's Pipit, which is extremely rare in Great Britain, even if it has ever been killed here, of which I entertain strong doubts.

My own belief, which is corroborated by the communications of several of our best ornithologists made to myself, is that Anthus rufescens may be met with pretty often on our south coast, and if public attention is turned to this bird, others will doubtless be discovered. The particular one now in Mr. Swaysland possession had apparently been struck by a hawk, as there was a wound unhealed under the feathers, of such magnitude as to indicate a narrow escape. Yet the bird, which I consider is a male, was in good health and fine condition.

And hear I may remark how nearly the period of the year corresponds in each date belonging to the three examples. The first was shot on August 17, 1858; the second taken September 24, 1862; and the third September 30, 1864: the two last in nets. It may be asked, why have none ever been obtained before? To this I reply that they have probably been overlooked, and also that of late years a new system has prevailed on these downs of catching larks by means of a decoy bird and clap-net - a plan long pursued with other kinds, but only recently adopted with larks, which were always either shot or taken in a drag-net.'

Anon. (1864) in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, p. 377, at the meeting held on 8th November 1864, says 'Mr. Gould exhibited a specimen of the Emberiza pusilla of Pallas, which had been lately captured in a clap-net near Brighton, being the first instance of its occurrence in the British islands. Also a specimen of the Anthus campestris of the Continent, caught in the same locality.'

George Dawson Rowley of Brighton (1865) in The Ibis, Vol. VII. p. 113, dated 25th November, 1864, in a Letter, says: 'On the 30th of September, this year, another living example of the Tawny Pipit, caught near Brighton, was brought alive to Mr. Swaysland, who showed it to me at once. This is the third I have seen: the two former ones were mentioned in The Ibis (1863, pp. 37, 38); and I consider this Pipit now takes rank as a British bird.'

Alfred Newton (1871-74 (1): 593, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, adds: 'Now in Mr. Monk's collection.'

Locally, Borrer (1891: 105) adds: '...seen alive by Mr. Rowley, and passed into the collection of Mr. Monk.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 213) and by James (1996: 394-395) who adds that it is now in the Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 208132).'

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1869 Yorkshire Barmston, male, obtained, 20th November.

(T. Boynton, Zoologist 1870: 2021; H. Reeks, Zoologist 1870: 2067-68; C. R. Bree, Zoologist 1870: 2100-01; Cordeaux, 1872; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; Nelson, 1907; Witherby, 1920-24; Mather, 1986).

[Wilson & Slack, 1996].

History T. Boynton (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. p. 2021, says: 'The enclosed letters refer to a bird which I shot on the 20th of November, and which, on referring to Bree's Birds of Europe, Dr. Boulton, of Beverley, Sir H. Boynton and myself decided was the Tawny Pipit (Anthus rufescens). I, however, communicated the capture to Dr. Bree, and having sent the bird for his inspection, you will observe that he and Mr. Sclater pronounce it to be the Pennsylvanian Pipit (A. ludovicianus).

"East Hill, Colchester, December 21, 1869. "My dear Sir - I must apologise for not answering your letter in reference to the pipit sooner, but the fact is the bird is a puzzle: this is, I conceive, owing to its moulting condition. After careful examination I came to the conclusion that it is the Anthus ludovicianus of my Birds of Europe. The tail-feathers, however, being those of A. rufescens, I sent the specimen up to Dr. Sclater, the Secretary of the Zoological Society, from whom I had the type specimen of A. ludovicianus figured in my work. From his reply you will see that Dr. Sclater confesses himself unable to decide the matter, but thinks I am right, and sends down the specimen I figured for me to compare: - Dear Sir - I return the box with the pipit. It is certainly very like a faded specimen of A. ludovicianus; but I am not sufficiently acquainted with this very difficult group to give you a decided opinion. I send you the skin you figured, which is from California, that you may form your own opinion. Yours, &c., P. L. Sclater".

I will state to you the pros and cons. I never saw a Tawny Pipit in any plumage so thoroughly olive-green as your specimen, but still when the bird is taken out of the case there are the remains of real tawny colouring on the primaries, and the two outer tail-feathers are those of Anthus rufescens. The claw, however, of the hind toe is against us; it is longer than the toe, and this a character of A. ludovicianus: and again, your specimen is in all its measurements, length, length of wing from carpal joint, tarsus and beak, exactly those of A. ludovicianus, which is altogether a smaller bird than the Tawny Pipit, and the beak is slightly declinated or curved at the extremity of the upper mandible - another character of A. ludovicianus. The group is a very difficult one, but I think we may pronounce your specimen one of A. ludovicianus in moulting plumage. The only other species likely to be confounded with it is our Meadow Pipit, but the hind claw decides this at a glance. I will send the bird down to Beverley to-day. Pray make use of this letter in any communication you may make to The Zoologist. Believe me, &c., C. R. Bree. "P.S. - You will notice that the base of the second tail-feather on its outer web is dark: usually in A. ludovicianus the second feather is merely spotted with white at the end".

You will gather from Dr. Bree's pros and cons a description of the bird, with this exception, that the colour of the legs and feet is (or at least when newly shot) a pale flesh, and this corresponds with A. rufescens. If you would like to see the bird I shall be glad to forward it to you for inspection. The pipit is a male bird, and was shot about three miles to the south of Bridlington, on the coast, and appeared to be feeding at the time on a sand-hill near to some long coarse grass.'

Henry Reeks of Thruxton (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. pp. 2067-68, dated 18th February 1869 [possibly erroneous as all other Notes are for February, 1870], says: 'At my request Mr. Boyton most obligingly forwarded me the little pipit shot by him at Bridlington. I am not surprised that my friend Dr. Bree should have felt puzzled to identify the bird, for it is certainly in a most abnormal state of plumage.

Being almost as familiar with Anthus ludovicianus as with our own common A. pratensis, I saw immediately that the bird was not an American species, and that for the following reasons: - 1. The bird was altogether larger, being 0.50 longer than the largest specimen of A. ludovicianus I have ever seen; but some of this may be owing to want of exactness in setting up. 2. It stood higher on its legs, from the feet of being 0.10 longer in the tarsi than the largest specimens in the Smithsonian Institution, or any examined by myself. 3. The bill, feet and legs differed entirely from those of Anthus ludovicianus in colour. The tail, and almost entirely unspotted breast, distinguished it again from the American bird. The claw of the hind toe evidently deceived Dr. Bree; but I can assure that learned author that too much reliance should not be placed on this part. Dr. Bree will see the force of this remark if he compares a quantity of skins of A. pratensis. I have by me while writing two of the latter species in the flesh: one has the claw the same length as the hind toe; the other 0.12 longer. Professor Baird would seem to have noticed this discrepancy in the American species, as he does not even allude to the hind toe or its claw in the various measurements given by him in Birds of North America.

Although, on examination, I soon saw that Mr. Boyton's bird was not A. ludovicianus I could not, for want of better knowledge of European species, be certain to which species it really did belong, but certainly thought it should be A. rufescens.

However, to settle this point, I sent the specimen to Mr. Gould, who writes me that "The bird you have submitted to my inspection is unquestionably the Tawny Pipit in abraded and dirty plumage". It is figured in part 9 of Mr. Gould's magnificent work on the Birds of Great Britain, under the name Anthus campestris, with Anthus rufescens as part of its synonymy.'

C. R. Bree of Colchester (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. pp. 2100-01, dated 19th March 1870, says: 'Whether Mr. Boyton's bird is Anthus ludovicianus or not I do not believe it can be said positively by Mr. Reeks, Mr. Gould, or any other naturalist. The reasons given by Mr. Reeks are most unsatisfactory, as a few fractional differences in measurements go for very little. As for the bird being A. rufescens, I am not convinced even by the dictum of so high an authority as Gould. The outer tail-feathers are those of the bird certainly; but then Baird mentions an instance in which the same feathers existed in A. ludovicianus. Did Mr. Gould ever see a specimen of A. rufescens in any age or plumage which was olive-green below, with dark spots? In fact the bird is an abnormity; but, in my humble opinion, it resembles A. ludovicianus more than any other pipit. I shall not grieve or be disappointed should it turn out anything else.'

Cordeaux (1872) p. 45, adds: 'My notice of this rare visitor is restricted to a single specimen, a male, with the plumage in a very faded and abraded state, shot on the 20th of November, 1869, on the sand-hills three miles south of Bridlington Quay, by T. Boyton, Esq., of Ulrome Grange.'

Accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881: 26) and by Nelson (1907 (1): 134) who adds: 'I had the pleasure of examining it.' Mather (1986: 434) adds: 'T. H. Nelson examined it while in T. Boynton's collection, but the date is very late for the species.' However, Wilson & Slack (1996: 258) say: 'The first record for Yorkshire does not correspond with the established pattern of occurrences for this species.'

Comment I am not convinced that this has been identified correctly. Also, it is a very late date for this species, but November records are not unknown (under ten to date - 2006). Not acceptable.

0). 1870 Sussex Rottingdean, shot, 29th September.

(F. Bond, Zoologist 1870: 2383; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History Frederick Bond (1870) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. V. p. 2383, undated, but in the November, 1870, issue, says: 'I saw the following birds at Mr. Swaysland's very shortly after they were taken: - Tawny Pipit. A very interesting specimen of this bird was taken near Brighton by a bird-catcher. It is a young bird of the year, and in plumage similar to the young of the Sky Lark in its first dress, having all the back, the scapulars and the two middle feathers of the tail edged with cream-colour. Can this bird have been bred in this country? for, though full grown, it seems almost too young to have travelled far. It will go into Mr. Monk's beautiful collection at Lewes.'

Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 105; Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 213).

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1873 Sussex Near Brighton, killed, 5th or 6th October.

(G. D. Rowley, Field 11th Oct., 1873: 385; G. D. Rowley, Zoologist 1874: 3832; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History George Dawson Rowley of Brighton (1873) in The Field of 11th Oct., Vol. XLII. p. 385, and (1874) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. IX. p. 3832, dated 8th October, 1873, says: 'Today I saw a male Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris, Bechstein), stuffed at Mr. Swaysland's, which had been taken in a clap-net outside Brighton a few days back. It was in very good condition. Since I first pointed this out as a British bird (Ibis, 1863, p. 37) various other specimens have been obtained. The dates may be seen in Mr. Harting's Handbook p. 168; they range from August 17th to the present one, October 5 or 6.'

Accepted locally by Borrer (1891: 105) who adds that it was purchased by Sir John Crewe. Also accepted (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 213).

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1873 Sussex Near Brighton, killed, 7th November.

(G. Swaysland, jun., Zoologist 1875: 4694; G. D. Rowley, Field 21st Oct., 1876: 471; Harting, 1901; Walpole-Bond, 1938; G. des Forges & D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1953: 6).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History G. Swaysland, jun., (1875) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. X. p. 4694, undated, says: 'A young male Tawny Pipit (Anthus rufescens) was caught in a pair of clap-nets by a birdcatcher at the east end of Brighton, and was purchased by Mr. Swaysland.'

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 214) who adds: 'It was not mentioned by Borrer at all.'

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1874 Sussex Near Eastbourne, caught, 8th November.

(A. J. Clark-Kennedy, Zoologist 1875: 4456; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Shrubb, 1979).

[KAN].

History Arthur J. Clark-Kennedy of Onslow House, Eastbourne (1875) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. X. p. 4456, dated 9th April, 1875, says: 'I have to record the capture of a Tawny Pipit, which was netted here by a man employed in catching Goldfinches, on the 8th of November, 1874, who first took it for a young Lark and then for a male titlark.'

Accepted locally (Borrer 1891: 105) and by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 213) who adds: 'On November 8th (not October 8th, as stated by Harting, 1901, p. 365, an example was caught near Eastbourne.'

Comment November is extremely late for this species. Probably misidentified. Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.

0). 1874 Sussex Brighton, first-winter male, caught, undated.

(M. J. Nicoll, Zoologist 1904: 454; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Shrubb, 1979).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History M. J. Nicoll of St Leonards (1904) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VIII. p. 454, says: '? 1874. One.' Borrer (1891) p. 105, says: '...and at p. 4694, s.s., Mr. Swaysland records the purchase of a young male, taken in the same way [caught in a clap-net], at the east end of Brighton.'

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 213) who says: 'Whilst presumably during the same year [1874], as I read Mr. G. Swaysland's note in The Zoologist, 1875, p. 4694, another example was captured at the east end of Brighton, but without date.'

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1882 Sussex Near Brighton, caught, 23rd October, now at Natural History Museum, Tring.

(T. Parkin, Zoologist 1883: 34; Eds., Ibis 1884: 470; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[BOU (1980), Ibis 122: 565].

History Thomas Parkin of Halton, near Hastings (1883) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. VII. p. 34, says: 'On the 23rd October a Tawny Pipit, Anthus campestris, was caught by a birdcatcher in the neighbourhood of Hastings. Five instances of the occurrence of this bird in England are recorded in Mr. Harting's Handbook of British Birds (p. 108), Since the publication of this work, in 1872, two more have been reported, which, together with the subject under notice, bring the number up to eight. It seems somewhat strange that, with a single exception (the one from Scilly, noticed by Mr. Rodd, Zool., 1868, p. 1458), all these specimens have been obtained in the neighbourhood of Brighton.'

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 214) who adds: 'Borrer again omits this record.'

In an Editorial (1884) in The Ibis, Vol. XXVI. p. 470, under 'Additions to the Collection of Birds in the British Museum of Natural History in 1883', they say: 'A specimen of the Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris), caught at Brighton in October 1882; presented by Messrs. G. Swaysland and Sons.'

Comment Misidentified. It turned out to be the first Blyth's Pipit recorded in Great Britain, which has since been found to be unacceptable due to its involvement with Swaysland (BOURC (2018), Ibis 160: 938).

0). 1886 Sussex Near Brighton, three, caught, early October.

(H. Swaysland, Field 16th Oct., 1886: 555; H. Langton, Zoologist 1886: 490-491; Borrer, 1891; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98].

History H. Swaysland (1886) in The Field of 16th Oct., Vol. LXVIII. p. 555, says: 'Amongst the large number of small birds annually taken during the autumn migration by the Brighton birdcatchers, some very uncommon species are occasionally detected amongst the pipits, wagtails, buntings and finches. On Oct. 2 a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) was secured, and is now in my possession. It is not the first which has been taken here, but is decidedly of rare occurrence.'

Herbert Langton of Brighton (1886) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. X. pp. 490-491, says: 'Three Tawny Pipits (Anthus campestris) were caught on the downs to the north-east of Brighton, about the beginning of October last. They were all secured by the same bird-catcher at the same place on different days.'

Borrer (1891: 105) placing the record in date order after the 1862 record and before the 1886 record, says: 'I have in my own collection three specimens, all taken near Brighton.' Further, he adds: 'Three were caught on the Downs north-east of Brighton, in October, 1886 (p. 490).' Further, in a footnote, he adds: 'One of these was probably Mr. Gurney's specimen.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 213) who adds: '...three specimens all from near Brighton and all formerly in Borrer's collection.' Further, p. 214, he adds: 'The year 1886 was, I think, responsible for four county "Tawnies". One was shot at Rottingdean on 3rd October, as Mr. J. H. Gurney told Borrer; while early in the same month three more were netted on the downs north-east of Brighton, by the same bird-catcher, but on different days. Nicoll only allowed three in his Pipit papers as did Harting (1901: 365).'

Comment Swaysland has been found unreliable (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98). Not acceptable.

0). 1893 Sussex Near Brighton, caught, October.

(J. Brazenor, Field 13th Oct., 1894: 579).

[J. M. Collinson, British Birds 105: 325-331].

History J. Brazenor of Brighton (1894) in The Field of 13th Oct., Vol. LXXXIV. p. 579, says: 'On Oct. 1...Last year, at nearly the same date, I had one of these rare visitors brought in that had been caught in the neighbourhood.'

Comment Brazenor Bros, taxidermists, of Brighton were known to buy specimens from Leadenhall Market for stuffing (J. M. Collinson, British Birds 105: 325-331). Records in The Field would also appear in The Zoologist if they were acceptable. Apparently this one did not.

0). 1894 Sussex Near Brighton, shot, 1st October.

(J. Brazenor, Field 13th Oct., 1894: 579).

[J. M. Collinson, British Birds 105: 325-331].

History J. Brazenor of Brighton (1894) in The Field of 13th Oct., Vol. LXXXIV. p. 579, says: 'On Oct. 1 a birdcatcher brought me a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) which he had that morning caught near the edge of the cliff between Rottingdean and Newhaven. Last year, at nearly the same date, I had one of these rare visitors brought in that had been caught in the neighbourhood.'

Not accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938).

Comment Brazenor Bros, taxidermists, of Brighton were known to buy specimens from Leadenhall Market for stuffing (J. M. Collinson, British Birds 105: 325-331). Records in The Field would also appear in The Zoologist if they were acceptable. Apparently this one did not.

0). 1897 Norfolk North Denes, Great Yarmouth, adult female, caught, 9th October, now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1954Z1.1054).

(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1898: 114; A. H. Patterson, Zoologist 1900: 402; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 113; Witherby, 1920-24; J. H. Gurney, jun., British Birds 13: 257; Seago, 1977; Allard, 1990; Dye, Fiszer & Allard, 2009; Watson, 2010).

[KAN].

History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Norwich (1898) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. II. p. 114, says: 'September 9th. A female Tawny Pipit in somewhat faded plumage was netted on Yarmouth Denes, and exhibited at the next meeting of the Norf. and Nor. Nat. Soc. by Mr. Southwell, who took the opportunity of giving a resumé of the present status of Norfolk ornithology. It has been added to Mr. Connop's extensive collection, a catalogue of which Mr. Southwell has recently published (Zool., antea, p. 96).'

Admitted by A. H. Patterson (1900) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IV. p. 402, under 'Birds of Great Yarmouth.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1907) in British Birds, Vol. I. p. 113, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899'.

J. H. Gurney, jun. (1920) in British Birds, Vol. XIII. p. 257, admits this as the second record for the Norfolk/Suffolk area, but states the date as "October 9th, 1897".'

Watson (2010) in detailing the W. R. Lysaght collection in the Birmingham Museum lists a female specimen caught in a clap-net on the North Denes, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, on 7th October 1897, adding that it came from George Smith a taxidermist at Great Yarmouth.

Comment Passed through Mr. George Smith's hands, the unreliable Yarmouth dealer, with the specimen being faded adding to the issue. Not acceptable.

0). 1903 Sussex Rye Harbour, immature male and immature female, shot, 22nd September; immature male and immature female, shot, 24th September.

(R. Bowdler Sharpe, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 14: 18, 25; M. J. Nicoll, Zoologist 1903: 431-432; M. J. Nicoll, Ibis 1904: 476; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 112-113; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

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

History R. Bowdler Sharpe, Editor (1903) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XIV. p. 18, at the 99th Meeting of the Club held on 21st October 1903 at the Restaurant Frascati, London, says: 'Mr. M. J. Nicoll exhibited two Tawny Pipits (Anthus campestris) which he had obtained at Rye Harbour on the 22nd of September.'

Further, p. 25, R. Bowdler Sharpe says: 'Mr. M. J. Nicoll sent the following correction to the account of his remarks in the last number of the Bulletin. There were four instead of two Tawny Pipits (Anthus campestris) were obtained on Sept. 22 and 24, 1903.'

M. J. Nicoll of St Leonards (1903) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VII. pp. 431-432, says: 'At the one hundredth meeting of the B.O.C. held on Oct. 21st, I exhibited two pairs of Tawny Pipits, which I shot at Rye Harbour, in Sussex. I obtained the first pair on Sept. 22nd; they were feeding on a stretch of swampy ground which had just been left bare by the falling tide, in company with a large flock of Meadow Pipits.

Their note was a soft double chirp, not unlike that of a Linnet. On Sept. 24th, at the same place, I met another pair, which, like the former, were in immature plumage, though all were just beginning to get a few new feathers on the upper parts. They appeared very pale in coloration when alive, and walked very upright. There have been about nineteen previous records of this species in Sussex, in which county most of the British examples of this bird have been taken.'

M. J. Nicoll (1904) in The Ibis, Vol. XLVI. p. 476, says: 'On referring to my Diary, I find the following notes: Sept. 22. On the same day I shot a pair of Tawny Pipits. Sept. 24. I shot another pair of Tawny Pipits.'

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', say: 'Four were obtained by Mr. M. J. Nicoll on September 22nd and 24th, 1903, at Rye Harbour...Mr. Nicoll has good reasons to suppose that the bird is a regular visitor to this part of Sussex (Bull. B.O.C., XIV. pp. 18 and 25, XV. p. 12, and Zool., 1904, p. 452, and 1906, p. 463). We believe others were obtained in 1905, and we should not be surprised to hear of its nesting.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 214-215).

Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.

0). 1904 Sussex Rye Harbour, two: adult male, shot, 14th August, female, shot 17th August.

(W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 15: 12; M. J. Nicoll, Zoologist 1904: 453; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 112-113; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

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

History W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1904) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XV. p. 12, at the 108th Meeting of the Club held on 19th October 1904 at the Restaurant Frascati, London, says: 'Mr. M. J. Nicoll reported the recent capture of three examples of the Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris) and stated that an adult male and female shot at Rye Harbour on the 14th and 17th respectively were now in the possession of Mr. Bristow, of St. Leonards. Both these birds, in much-worn summer plumage, were shot on the same tract of grass where he himself had last year procured four immature examples....'

M. J. Nicoll of St Leonards (1904) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VIII. p. 453, says: 'On Aug. 14th of this year (1904) an adult Tawny Pipit was met with near here.'

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', say: '...and the following year on August 14th and 17th two more (adult male and female) were shot at the same place and recorded by the same observer....Mr. Nicoll has good reasons to suppose that the bird is a regular visitor to this part of Sussex (Bull. B.O.C., XIV. pp. 18 and 25, XV. p. 12, and Zool. 1904, p. 452, and 1906, p. 463). We believe others were obtained in 1905, and we should not be surprised to hear of its nesting.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 215).

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1904 Sussex Near Brighton, two, adults, seen, 12th September.

(Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[KAN].

History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 215) says: 'On September 12th [1904] I saw two adult "Tawnies" near Brighton.'

Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Other sight records of his have been rejected. Not acceptable.

0). 1904 Sussex Cooden, Bexhill-on-Sea, immature, shot, 26th September, now at the Booth Museum, Brighton.

(W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 15: 12; M. J. Nicoll, Zoologist 1904: 453; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 1: 112-113; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

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

History W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1904) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XV. p. 12, at the 108th Meeting of the Club held on 19th October 1904 at the Restaurant Frascati, London, says: '...On September 26th he had shot an immature Tawny Pipit on the sea-banks of Sussex, between Bexhill and Pevensey, and he thought there could be little doubt that the species was a regular autumn visitor on migration.'

M. J. Nicoll of St Leonards (1904) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. VIII. p. 453, says: 'Lastly, on Sept. 26th of this year (1904), I shot a young Tawny Pipit on the sea-banks near Bexhill.'

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', say: '...Mr. M. J. Nicoll...who also himself shot a further example (a young bird) near Bexhill on September 26th, 1904. Mr. Nicoll has good reasons to suppose that the bird is a regular visitor to this part of Sussex (Bull. B.O.C., XIV. pp. 18 and 25, XV. p. 12, and Zool., 1904, p. 452, and 1906, p. 463). We believe others were obtained in 1905, and we should not be surprised to hear of its nesting.'

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 215) who adds: 'It is now at the Booth Museum, Brighton.'

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1904 Sussex Near Shoreham-by-Sea, adult, seen, 27th September.

(Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[KAN].

History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 215) says: 'Exactly a fortnight later [to 12th September]...and next day I identified another adult near Shoreham, though this bird may have been one of the Brightonians just mentioned.'

Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Other sight records of his have been rejected. Not acceptable.

0). 1905 Sussex Rye, female, obtained, 10th May, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMS.Z.1913.206).

(J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan, British Birds 104: 543).

[J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan, British Birds 104: 543].

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. A female from Rye on 10th May 1905 (Acc. No. 1913.206).

0). 1905 Sussex Locality withheld, pair with eggs, 23rd May.

(M. J. Nicoll, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 1: 183; N. B. Kinnear, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 46: 55-56, 122; N. B. Kinnear, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 46: 124; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

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

History M. J. Nicoll (1907) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. I. p. 183, says: '...A pair undoubtedly bred in Sussex in 1905 and possibly the following year. For obvious reasons I do not give the exact locality. I might say that in 1906 I myself saw one of the adult birds collecting nesting materials.'

N. B. Kinnear, Editor (1926) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XLVI. pp. 55-56, at the 289th Meeting of the Club held on 13th January 1926 at Pagani's Restaurant, London, says: 'The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain exhibited a clutch of eggs of the Tawny Pipit (Anthus c. campestris), and made the following remarks: - ...The only positive evidence of the breeding of this species in England lies in the box which I am exhibiting tonight.

As far as published statements go, nearly all that can be pointed to in support of this assertion is the late M. J. Nicoll's statement in the Hastings and East Sussex Nat. (I. p. 283). Soon after the clutch was taken, the eggs were purchased by the late Sir Vauncey Crewe.

It is generally known that he had a very strong antipathy to any information being published as to eggs or birds in his possession, and stipulated that nothing should be communicated on the subject. No details of the occurrence were allowed to leak out, although known to several people in the neighbourhood.

When the collection was sold on 15 Dec. last, the clutch was catalogued (in italics) as Lot 196 "Tawny Pipit, c/3, June 1905", no locality being given. Probably it was not recognized by any one else present - at any rate, it was sold for a comparatively small sum with another lot. Fortunately the eggs are unusually light in colour, and are therefore readily recognizable. I have received full details of the nesting, but only wish to correct the date assigned, which should be 23 May, 1905. For this information I am indebted to Mr. J. A. Walpole-Bond, who ascertained it from the actual finder of the nest.'

N. B. Kinnear, Editor (1926) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XLVI. p. 122, at the 302nd Meeting of the Club held on 9th June 1926 at Pagani's Restaurant, London, says: 'Mr. Bunyard also made the following correction: - My note on the Sussex record of the eggs of Anthus campestris in the Bulletin for April, no. cccv, p. 112, fourth paragraph, third line, should read May 23rd, 1905, not 1925.'

N. B. Kinnear, Editor (1926) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XLVI. p. 124, at the 302nd Meeting of the Club held on 9th June 1926 at Pagani's Restaurant, London, says: 'The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain stated that Mr. Bunyard's remarks in the Bulletin (pp. 74-75 and 112-112) had no bearing on his published communication on the breeding of the Tawny Pipit in England (pp. 55-56), but referred to statements made in conversation by Mr. Bunyard and attributed to himself. He was aware that the eggs were taken and both parent birds shot by Mr. Bristowe [Bristow], but did not accept the record on that evidence alone, but because it was independently confirmed by that of Mr. M. J. Nicol [Nicoll] and others.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 215-216).

Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.

0). 1906 Sussex Locality withheld, pair, seen, May.

(M. J. Nicoll, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 1: 183; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

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

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 216).

Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.

0). 1907 Sussex Rye, male, obtained, 3rd August, now at National Museums of Scotland (NMS.Z.1913.207).

(J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan, British Birds 104: 543).

[J. M. Collinson & R. Y. McGowan, British Birds 104: 543].

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. A male from Rye on 3rd August 1907 (Acc. No. 1913.207).

0). 1914 Sussex Little Common, male, shot, 30th April, now at Hastings Museum.

(W. H. Mullens, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 170; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

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

History Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 216) who says: 'The bird is now in the Hastings Museum.'

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1917 Sussex Eastbourne, seen, early October.

(Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[KAN].

History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 216) says: 'In Mr. E. C. Arnold "Private Notes" he mentions seeing a Tawny Pipit in the new recreation-ground at Eastbourne, early in October, 1917.'

Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Not acceptable.

0). 1918 Sussex Pevensey, male, shot, 2nd May.

(W. R. Butterfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 2).

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

History W. Ruskin Butterfield (1919) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 2, says: 'A male was shot at Pevensey on May 2nd, and sent to Mr. G. Bristow who showed it to me on May 3rd before it was skinned.'

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1919 Suffolk Lowestoft, seen, 19th October.

(J. H. Gurney, jun., British Birds 13: 250).

[Ticehurst, 1932].

History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Norwich (1920) in British Birds, Vol. XIII. pp. 256-257, says: 'Mr. Cook believes that he identified an example of this occasional visitant - always much rarer than Richard's Pipit - on the denes at Lowestoft on October 19th. There had been a gentle breeze from the west, but nothing unusual to account for its presence. There have been only three previous occurrences of the Tawny Pipit, viz., on September 2nd, 1889, October 9th, 1897, and September 15th, 1910.'

Not accepted locally (Ticehurst 1932).

0). 1921 Sussex Near Eastbourne, seen, 12th September.

(Arnold, 1936; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History Arnold (1936: 20) says: 'Mr. Morris has seen the "Tawny" twice, on September 12th, 1921, on the Downs, and again on July 28th, 1928, near Langney Point.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 216) says: 'In Arnold's Birds of Eastbourne, p. 20, mention is made of one seen on 12th September, 1921 by Mr. R. Morris.'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Harber 1963).

0). 1922 Sussex Pevensey, male, shot, 21st April.

(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 and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 259, says: 'Mr. G. Bristow showed to me in the flesh an old male, which was shot near Pevensey on April 21st.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 216).

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1928 Sussex Near Langney Point, seen, 28th July.

(Arnold, 1936; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History Arnold (1936: 20) says: 'Mr. Morris has seen the "Tawny" twice, on September 12th, 1921, on the Downs, and again on July 28th, 1928, near Langney Point.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 216-217) says: 'Mr. R. Morris saw another near Eastbourne on 28th July, 1928 (Arnold, 1936, p. 216).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Harber 1963).

0). 1929 Somerset Hawen, Dunster, twenty, seen, 14th April.

(F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1929: 7-8).

[F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1929: 7-8].

History F. L. Blathwayt (1929) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XVI. pp. 7-8, recording the record in square-brackets, says: 'A spring observation from the same district is more puzzling. A party of about twenty pipits which attracted attention by their yellowish tint (which suggests this species) was watched by N.G.H. and another observer near the Hawen at Dunster on Apr. 14th. They appeared very little larger than Rock or Meadow Pipits and the description of the breasts as "very distinctly spotted" does not fit the present species well. The occurrence of such a flock of Tawny Pipits in the S.W. of England also appears to be quite unprecedented.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1929 Somerset Porlock Marsh, two, seen, 6th November.

(F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1929: 7).

[F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1929: 7; Eds., British Birds 24: 230].

History F. L. Blathwayt (1929) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XVI. p. 7, recording the record in square-brackets, says: 'Two pipits seen by E. W. H. on Porlock Marsh on Nov. 6th appear to have been this species. They were conspicuously larger than Meadow or Rock Pipits, with upper parts of a tawny colour, breast fawn, striated on upper part, and a marked buffish eye-stripe. The tail feathers were not distinctly seen in flight. They stood high on their legs, which looked pinkish in colour, and ran with great speed. This description on the whole agrees well with the appearance of A. campestris in the field (B.W.T.).'

In an Editorial (1931) in British Birds, Vol. XXIV. p. 230, in a Review of the Report on Somerset Birds 1929, they say: 'A Pipit seen on November 6th on Porlock Marsh may have been a Tawny Pipit, but the evidence is not conclusive.'

Comment Not specifically identified. Not acceptable.

0). 1930 Lincolnshire Tetney, seen, 15th November.

(S. A. Cox, Transactions of the Lincolnshire Naturalists' Union 1930: 63-64).

[Lorand & Atkin, 1989].

History S. A. Cox (1930) in the Transactions of the Lincolnshire Naturalists' Union, 1930: 63-64, says: 'The first Snow Buntings appeared on November 1st. I saw them at Humberstone Fitties, first a solitary bird, then two flocks of nineteen and eight. I also saw over a score of Oystercatchers, On 15th, in the same locality, Mr. May and I were fortunate enough to see a solitary Tawny Pipit. We disturbed it as we were returning along the sea-bank from Tetney Lock, and were unaware of its identity at the time. We made copious notes of its appearance and habits, and were eventually obliged to leave it, owing to the failing light. Its large size, wagtail-like habits, details of plumage, and the single emphatic call-note, which first attracted our attention, all pointed to its being a Tawny Pipit, and Mr. T. A. Coward, to whom we sent a full description, inclined to agree with us.'

Not accepted locally (Lorand & Atkin 1989).

0). 1931 Herefordshire Bishopstone, two, seen, 9th September.

(Gilbert & Walker, 1954; Walker & Smith, 1975).

[KAN].

History Gilbert & Walker (1954: 14) say: 'Two were seen by H. A. Gilbert [one of the authors] at Bishopstone on 9th September, 1931.'

Comment Two together inland would be most unusual. No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Not acceptable.

0). 1933 Lancashire & North Merseyside Fazakerley Sewage-farm, two, seen, 30th September.

(E. Hardy, Proceedings of the Liverpool Naturalists Field Club 1933: 7; Hardy, 1941).

[White, McCarthy & Jones, 2008].

History Hardy (1941) states that on 30th September 1933 he watched two at Fazakerley Sewage Farm (Proc. L. N.F.C., 1933, p. 47), with plenty of Meadow Pipits for comparison, although not associating with the Tawny Pipits. By watching them through a x30 telescope in sunlight they appeared not to be pale enough to be young birds being distinctly more sandy than the common pipits.

Not accepted locally (White, McCarthy & Jones 2008).

0). 1938 Somerset Sea Mills, seen, 16th April.

(F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1938: 8).

[F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1938: 8].

History F. L. Blathwayt (1938) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XXV. p. 8, recording the record in square-brackets, says: 'A pipit seen at Sea Mills on Apr. 16 was large and light-coloured, and drew attention by its loud call-note and song. The latter was delivered from the top of a Scots Fir, and was like that of a Tree Pipit, but much louder. Details of plumage could not be obtained, and the bird was not seen again. It may possibly have been a Tawny Pipit (H.T.).'

0). 1939 Sussex Crumbles, seen, 23rd August.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 6: 65).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1941) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VI. p. 65, says: 'One, "identified for certain", Crumbles, Aug. 23rd, 1939 (N.W.M.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Harber 1963).

0). 1943 Sussex Pett Level, five, 4th September, one shot, c. 13th September, four to 5th November.

(R. Cooke, British Birds 41: 112).

[I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 46: 147].

History R. Cooke (1948) in British Birds, Vol. XLI. p. 112, says: 'On September 4th I saw five Tawny Pipits (A. c. campestris) and on the 13th identified one that someone had unfortunately shot. The other four stayed until November 5th.'

Not accepted nationally (I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 46: 147).

0). 1943 Sussex Pett, juvenile male, shot, 22nd September.

(J. M. Harrison, South-Eastern Bird Report, 1943: 26; N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 6: 160; Eds. British Birds 38: 159).

[I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 46: 147].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1945) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VI. p. 160, says: 'Juvenile male shot, Pett, Sept. 22nd, 1943 (J. M. Harrison, S.E. Bird Report, 1943, p. 26).'

In an Editorial (1945) in British Birds, Vol. XXXVIII. p. 159, in a Review of the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, for 1943, they say: 'Amongst various visitors of interest a Tawny Pipit shot in September may be mentioned.'

Not accepted nationally (I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 46: 147).

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1943 Sussex Pett Level, adult, shot, September.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 6: 139).

[KAN].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1944) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VI. p. 139, says: 'One shot, Pett Level, Sept. (G. Bristowe). It is an adult in worn summer plumage (N.F.T.).'

Comment Bristowe was at the heart of the Hastings rarities fraud (E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384). Not acceptable.

0). 1944 Sussex Pett Level, two, seen, October.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 13).

[des Forges & Barber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1946) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 13, says: 'Two seen, Pett Level, early Oct. 1944 and several times to end of month; two there, end of Feb. and seen constantly to end Apr. and by their behaviour thought to be going to nest, but then disappeared; five seen there, July and on several occasions till Oct. (R. Cooke); one of them seen, Sept. 12th (A.A.W.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1945 Sussex Pett Level, two, late February to late April; five, seen, July to October.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 13; Eds., British Birds 40: 30).

[des Forges & Barber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1946) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 13, says: 'Two seen, Pett Level, early Oct. 1944 and several times to end of month; two there, end of Feb. and seen constantly to end Ap. and by their behaviour thought to be going to nest, but then disappeared; five seen there, July and on several occasions till Oct. (R. Cooke); one of them seen, Sept. 12th (A.A.W.).'

In an Editorial (1946) in British Birds, Vol. XL. p. 30, in a Review of the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, for 1945, they say: 'Two Tawny Pipits were seen constantly on Pett Level from the end of February (a surprisingly early date) to the end of April and from their behaviour were thought to be going to nest, but then disappeared; five were seen there in July and subsequently.'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1946 Sussex Pett Level, five: early April; 11th August; two, 19th October.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 53; Eds., British Birds 40: 383).

[des Forges & Barber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1947) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 53, says: 'One to five seen, several occasions Pett Level, early Ap. and two Oct. 19th (A.D.W.); one Nook Beach, Aug. 11th (E.G.). In each case the description given indicates correct identification.'

In an Editorial (1947) in British Birds, Vol. XL. p. 383, in a Review of the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, for 1946, they say: 'Other noteworthy records are: up to five Tawny Pipits on Pett Level in early April and others recorded in August and October.'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1946 Yorkshire Spurn, seen, 23rd September.

(R. Chislett, Naturalist 72: 67; Eds., British Birds 40: 382; Mather, 1986).

[R. Chislett, Naturalist 72: 67; Wilson & Slack, 1996].

History Ralph Chislett (1947) in The Naturalist, Vol. LXXII. p. 67, under 'Annual Yorkshire Report for 1946', recording the record in square brackets, says: 'Tawny Pipit. Seen at Spurn on September 23rd in company with Meadow Pipits. A Pipit with long yellow legs, long tail, grey sides to head, lightly streaked breast, dull brown back with darker striations. It had an undulating flight (G.H.A. & J.L.).'

In an Editorial (1947) in British Birds, Vol. XL. p. 382, in a Review of the above, they say: 'A large pipit which appears to have been a Tawny, but might possibly have been a Richard's Pipit, at Spurn on September 23rd.'

Comment Not specifically identified. Not acceptable.

0). 1947 Sussex Pett Level, three, seen, 17th to 18th September.

(R. Cooke, British Birds 41: 116; A. Denby Wilkinson, British Birds 41: 116-117; N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 96).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History R. Cooke (1948) in British Birds, Vol. XLI. p. 116, says: 'On September 17th, 1947, there was a large arrival of pipits and buntings on the Sussex coast at Pett Level. Birds were coming in from the south-east with a light S.E. breeze all the morning, the buntings high overhead, too high for specific identification, the pipits low over the waves, Meadow-Pipits (Anthus pratensis) in thousands and Rock-Pipits (A. spinoletta petrosus) in hundreds. The former mostly pitched on to rough ground inside the sea-wall, the latter on to the rocks and foreshore.

Amongst them were three Tawny Pipits (A. c. campestris), birds I have frequently seen before. They appeared to be tired, standing and preening on the rocks and allowing of a very near approach, so that every detail of their plumage could be seen. They afterwards moved to some sandy marram-covered ground inside the sea-wall, where I found them again the next morning. Half an hour later, at 10.15 (G.M.T.), a Richard's Pipit (A. r. richardi) came in and dropped on to the Wooden slipway from which the boats are launched. Running up this at an amazing pace it then flew over the wall on to the same piece of rough ground as the Tawny Pipits. Here I had it under close observation, sometimes within fifteen yards until 10.40, when it flew off westwards in the direction of Cliff End. It was slightly larger than the Tawny Pipits, with noticeably longer legs, a very long hind claw and less upright stance. Its back was much like a Skylark's, the tail-coverts uniformly brown, and it had conspicuous white outer tail-feathers. There was a buffish eye-stripe, the breast and flanks were light buff, with brown flecks on the side of the neck and breast, belly white.'

A. Denby Wilkinson (1948) in British Birds, Vol. XLI. pp. 116-117, says: 'About noon (G.M.T.) on September 17th, at Cliff End, Fairlight, Sussex, a bird coming from the edge of the cliff to the east drew my attention by an unknown, rather loud, harsh call. It dropped about 30 yards from me on the edge of a newly-ploughed field and I had no difficulty in recognizing a Richard's Pipit (Anthus r. richardi). Standing erect and alert, this large pipit looked very long-legged; the head, half turned towards me, was streaked on top, then came a clear, creamy-buff stripe immediately over the eye, and below another patch of the same colour. But, after size and length of leg, its most noticeable feature was the inverted, lightly streaked, crescent of buff on the breast. The points of this crescent turned up, curving in back to the beak, while the same shade of buff showed from under the edge of the wing, but the lower breast was much lighter and faded almost to white under the tail. Such parts of the wings as could be seen were heavily streaked dark brown on a much lighter brown, and the white of the outer tail-feathers was seen when the bird flew. The legs looked very light, yellowish, in the autumn sunlight.

The place where the bird was seen was about 1,000 yards to the westward of Pett Level boat slipway, where Mr. Cooke saw a Richard's Pipit on the same day, and it may be that our observations refer to the same individual, though it is equally possible that more than one was present on this bit of coast on the date in question. The bird seen by me flew away to the west after some minutes.'

N. F. Ticehurst (1948) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 96, says: 'Three arrived with a large Pipit immigration from oversea, Pett Level, Sept. 17th, seen again 18th (R.C.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1947 Sussex Pett Level, seen, 19th October.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 96).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1948) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 96, says: 'One, Pett Level, Oct. 19th (A.D.W.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1947 Yorkshire Near Kilnsea, seen, 31st October.

(R. Chislett, Naturalist 73: 57; Mather, 1986).

[R. Chislett, Naturalist 73: 57; Wilson & Slack, 1996].

History Ralph Chislett (1948) in The Naturalist, Vol. LXXIII. p. 57, under 'Annual Yorkshire Report for 1947', recording the record in square brackets, says: 'Tawny Pipit. A long-legged pipit with a Wagtail-like appearance, smooth grey-brown back and pale underparts, picked about on the Humber shore near Kilnsea on October 31st and may have been of this species. It flew into the dunes before I had completed examination (R.C.).'

0). 1949 Sussex Pett Level, 10th April.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 185).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1950) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 185, says: 'One, Pett Level, Ap. 10th (A.D.W.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0) 1949 Norfolk Cley-next-the-Sea, 6th to 7th September.

(C. E. Gay, Wild Bird Protection in Norfolk 1949: 27).

[C. E. Gay, Wild Bird Protection in Norfolk 1949: 27].

History Miss C. E. Gay (1949) in Wild Bird Protection in Norfolk, p. 27, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'A large pipit seen on Cley beach September 6th and 7th was described as follows: - Very Wagtail-like, long flesh-pink legs, slight superciliary stripe, unspotted breast. (Mrs. R.F.M.).'

0). 1949 Yorkshire Spurn, two, seen, 23rd September.

(R. Chislett, Naturalist 75: 8; Chislett, 1952; Mather, 1986).

[R. Chislett, Naturalist 75: 8; Mather, 1986; Wilson & Slack, 1996].

History R. Chislett (1950) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. LXXV. p. 8, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'Two birds at Spurn on September 23rd differed in size, plumage and notes from any of the three British breeders and were thought by R. M. C. Potter to fit the description of the Tawny-Pipit.'

Chislett (1952: 66) says: 'R. M. C. Potter saw two pipits at Spurn on 23rd September 1949, that were different in size, plumage and note from the resident British species, that he considered them to be of this species.'

Comment Not specifically identified. Not acceptable.

0). 1949 Cornwall Godrevy, seen, 16th October.

(B. H. Ryves & H. M. Quick, Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1949: 15; Penhallurick, 1978).

[KAN].

History B. H. Ryves & H. M. Quick (1949) in the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, Vol. XIX. p. 15, say: 'At Godrevy, on October 16th, a very pale-yellowish bird, seen with Pied Wagtails and Meadow Pipits, attracted my attention. It permitted a close approach, when it was seen to be a Pipit, larger and longer-legged than a Meadow Pipit, and of very distinctive colouration, being a very washed out sandy hue, rather darker than below. The crown, nape and mandible were sandy with a very slight olivaceous hue, and were the darkest plumage parts. The eye was dark and prominent with a slight dark line passing backwards from it; a superciliary stripe, as such, was not evident, being the lighter area sharply bordered below by the eye and dark line, and above by the crown. The closed wings showed two almost white bars on a general sandy effect. The primaries were sandy white, and the secondaries darker: both primary and secondary coverts were white edged.

The resting bird, viewed from behind and above, showed an effect as though there were a broad white V with the apex towards the tail, on the back. The tail appeared almost white, but actually consisted of white-edged feathers with sandy centres: when the bird stood upright the tail was only just clear of the ground. The chin, throat and breast were very pale sandy; some slightly darker breast streaking could only be appreciated at close quarters. The upper mandible was yellowish with a black tip, and the lower mandible yellowish; the legs appeared brownish from the side and pinkish from behind.

Two notes were heard: a rather full one; and a much thinner "peep", when I moved very close to the bird. The bird ran rapidly over the sand of a small cove, taking Diptera; as it caught the flies a final pounce with half-opened wings was made: its actions were all very wagtail-like.

In one long flight the undulating character was well seen. It was tame, and was studied for eight hours at distances varying from 1 to 30 yards. Its most striking feature was its colour, most of which appeared to have "come out in the wash". A.G.P.'

Comment A number of points do not give confidence of it being a Tawny Pipit; it should have a dark loral stripe in front of the eye and show a superciliary eye-stripe; nor does it show a white V on the back. Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1953 Sussex Rye Marsh, 11th October.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 91).

[des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1954) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 91, says: 'One, with Meadow Pipits, Rye Marsh, Oct. 11th (J.A.).

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1953 Staffordshire Tutbury, 29th December.

(E. Reeves, British Birds 47: 443; Harrison et al., 1982; Harrison & Harrison, 2005).

[D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers, British Birds 99: 464].

History E. Reeves (1954) in British Birds, Vol. XLVII. p. 443, says: 'On December 29th, 1953, near Tutbury, Staffordshire, I identified a Tawny Pipit (Anthus campestris). It was seen on an area of sandy waste land with very scanty herbage and littered with rock refuse from the gypsum mines.

A description was taken down on the spot. The bird was wagtail-like in stance and shape, with sandy-brown, unmarked upper-parts. The breast was pale buff without markings, while the flanks, belly and under tail-coverts were creamy-white. The legs were light yellow. Wagtail-like the bird darted about quickly with upward flicks of the tail. When it became aware of me it seemed to have a tendency to seek higher perches - for example, the top of a large stone where it would stand very erect with a much more rapid movement of the tail. The voice, difficult to describe, I wrote down as "seep" or "zeep" and the flight, strong and undulating, was rather like a woodpecker's.' [This is a very late date, the latest of which we have a note being November 20th, though there are other records for that month. - Eds.]

Accepted locally (Harrison & Harrison 2005). However, D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers (2006) in British Birds, Vol. XCIX. p. 463, in a review of certain rarities during the period 1950-57, found this record to be unacceptable.

0). 1954 Sussex Camber, 23rd March.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 137).

[Not in Sussex Bird Reports; des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1955) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 137, says: 'One, Camber, Mch. 23rd (S. E. Linsell).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1954 Sussex Pett Level, 8th April.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 137).

[Not in Sussex Bird Reports; des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1955) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 137, says: 'One, Pett Level, Ap. 8th (R.C.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1954 Sussex Broomhill, 24th April.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 137).

[Not in Sussex Bird Reports; des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1955) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 137, says: 'One, Broomhill, Ap. 24th (Mrs. K. N. Quarterman).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

0). 1954 Yorkshire Spurn, seen, 4th October.

(R. Chislett, Naturalist 80: 90).

[R. Chislett, Naturalist 80: 90; Wilson & Slack, 1996].

History R. Chislett (1955) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. LXXX. p. 90, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'From the details entered in the Spurn log a bird seen by E. Huyton, Cudworth and others on October 4th was probably of this species; the bird flew before examination was complete.'

0). 1955 Yorkshire Knostrop Sewage-farm, Leeds, 12th April.

(R. Chislett, Naturalist 81: 74).

[R. Chislett, Naturalist 81: 74].

History R. Chislett (1956) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. LXXXI. p. 74, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'A large pipit on April 12th at Knostrop S.F. with light unmarked breast and underparts was possibly of this species (P.G.R.B.).'

0). 1956 Dorset Portland Bill, 23rd September.

(A. J. Bull et al., Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 78: 46-47; K. D. Smith, Fair Isle Bird Observatory Bulletin 3: 159; K. D. Smith & J. S. Ash, British Birds 51: 29).

[KAN].

History A. J. Bull (1956) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LXXVIII. pp. 46-47, says: 'Portland Bill: ...A single bird, seen flying towards the Bill on Sept. 23rd, was judged by the observer, who had seen the others and was familiar with the call-note in Africa, to be of this species (P.B.O.)....'

K. D. Smith & J. S. Ash (1958) in British Birds, Vol. LI. p. 29, say: 'A large pipit seen flying south high over the fields on 23rd September was, from the call, a disyllabic "chew-up", considered to be this species by K.D.S. who was very familiar with the bird in Eritrea.'

Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Not acceptable.

0). 1956 Sussex Pett Level, 14th October.

(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 215).

[Not in Sussex Bird Reports; des Forges & Harber, 1963].

History N. F. Ticehurst (1957) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 215, says: 'One, Pett Level, Oct. 14th (R.C.).'

Not accepted locally (des Forges & Barber 1963).

AC pass

Keith Naylor

Tawny Pipit

Anthus campestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (22, 39)

Richard's Pipit

Olive-backed Pipit