Woodchat Shrike (2/2)
Lanius senator Linnaeus, 1758 (70, 61)
Photo © Matthew Naylor, Marazion, Cornwall, 5th October 2023
Ex BBRC species 31/12/1990
NOT PROVEN
0). 1824 Co. Durham Auton Stile, immature, shot, September.
(Bewick, 1826).
[Selby, 1833; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 347].
History Selby (1833 (1): 153) says: 'Bewick, in a late edition of his British Birds (1826), gives the figure of a Shrike, killed in the county of Durham, which he supposes to be the Woodchat. But his description of it is not so fully detailed as satisfactorily to identify the species, and the figure bears a greater resemblance to the female or young of Lanius collurio, than to any state of the adult Woodchat; for the female of this species, like the male, possesses the distinguishing patch of white upon the scapulary feathers; and the markings and disposition of the colours of her plumage are nearly the same as in the male, only possessing less intensity and purity of tint. The bird he has figured may, I allow, have been the young of the species in question, as Temminck remarks that they are very like the female of the Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio), and are chiefly to be distinguished by the different proportions of the wings and tail.'
O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 347, says: 'Durham - Bewick in 1826 figured a shrike which was shot at Auton Stile in this county in September, 1824, and which he supposed was a Woodchat, but as remarked by Selby (Illust. Brit. Orn., I. p. 154), it is not so fully described as satisfactorily to identify the species, and the figure bears a greater resemblance to the female or young of Lanius collurio than to any state of the adult Woodchat; for the female of this species, like the male, possesses the distinguishing patch of white upon the scapulary feathers. It is possible, however, that it may have been a young Woodchat, in which case it would resemble the female of the Red-backed Shrike.'
Comment Not identified to species level. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1831 Cambridgeshire/Norfolk Near Swaffham, killed, undated, now at Saffron Walden Museum.
(Hunt, 1829; J. D. Hoy, Loudon's Magazine of Natural History 4: 343; Selby, 1833; Jenyns, 1835; Yarrell, 1845; J. H. Gurney & W. R. Fisher, Zoologist 1846: 1305; Stevenson, 1866; J. H. Gurney, jun., & T. Southwell, Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 4: 268; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 347; Shipley & Marr, 1904; Lack, 1934; Bircham, 1989).
[Gurney, 1884].
History J. D. Hoy of Stoke Nayland (1831) in Loudon's Magazine of Natural History, Vol. IV. p. 343, dated 16th March, 1831, says: 'The Woodchat may be numbered among our accidental visitants, and one of the most rare....I know of only two instances, within a few years, of its being killed in this country, once near Canterbury, and another time in the neighbourhood of Swaffham, Norfolk; which last bird is in the collection of Reverend R. Hammond of Swaffham.'
Selby (1833 (1): 153) says: 'Rev. R. Hamond of Swaffham informs me of his having seen a Woodchat in a hedge, which bird he followed for a considerable distance, that, by repeated observation, he might assure himself of not being in error as to the species.'
Jenyns (1835: 96) says: '...and near Swaffham, in Norfolk.'
Yarrell (1845 (1): 168, 2nd ed.) says: 'In a communication to the Magazine of Natural History 4: 341, on the British species of Shrikes, by Mr. J. D. Hoy, who is devoted to the study of birds and their habits, that gentleman mentions one instance of the Woodchat being killed in the neighbourhood of Swaffham, Norfolk, and in the collection of Rev. Robert Hammond.'
John H. Gurney & William R. Fisher (1846) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IV. p. 1305, say: 'Two specimens of the Woodchat are recorded to have been taken in the district, the one at Swaffham....'
Stevenson (1869 (1): 64) says: 'Mr. Hunt, in his "List of Norfolk Birds", has the following note on the Woodchat: - "Mr. Scales assures me that he has killed this rare species in the neighbourhood of Beechamwell, where he has known it to breed and rear its young". This statement, except on the authority of two good naturalists, might almost have been questioned from the rarity of this bird, and its occurrence only at uncertain intervals, as a merely accidental visitant, since, with the above exception, I know of only two authentic instances in which specimens of this shrike have been obtained in Norfolk. Mr. Lubbock has recorded one, as killed near Swaffham some years ago, said to have been in Mr. Hamond's collection.'
J. H. Gurney, jun., & T. Southwell (1884-89) in the Transactions of the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society, Vol. IV. p. 268, say: 'A second [for Norfolk] was seen (but not shot) by the Rev. R. Hamond, some time before 1833, at Swaffham (Selby, British Ornithology, Vol. I. p. 153).'
Gurney (1884: 12) says: 'Has been supposed to have been killed four or five times, but I have reason to believe the beautiful male in my father's collection, shot at Yarmouth, in April, 1859, is the only veritable Norfolk specimen.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 347, in a review of the species, who says: 'One killed at Swaffham, recorded by Lubbock, and said by him to have been in Mr. Hamond's collection. This is possible the bird seen by the Rev. R. Hamond of Swaffham, and followed by him for a considerable distance, as recorded by Selby (Illust. Brit. Orn., Vol. I. p. 153).'
A. H. Evans (1904: 89) under 'The Birds of Cambridgeshire' in Marr & Shipley's Handbook to the Natural History of Cambridgeshire, says: 'Has been obtained once, near Swaffham Prior, before 1840. The specimen is in the Saffron Walden Museum.'
Accepted locally for Cambridgeshire (Lack 1934: 63; Bircham 1989).
Comment Rev. Robert Hamond died on the 14th June 1831 and lived at High House, West Acre, Norfolk, about 3 miles north of Swaffham, Norfolk....It wasn't until 1904 the locality changed to Swaffham Prior which is in Cambridgeshire. Perhaps because he was a Reverend they thought it was at Swaffham Prior or maybe that was on the specimen label in the Museum. However, they don't explain the fresh information, so one can only go on the original notices; also, conflicting reports whether it was seen or shot. Stevenson had made this into two records, Beechamwell being not very far from Swaffham. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1831 Kent Near Canterbury, immature male, killed, undated.
(J. D. Hoy, Loudon's Magazine of Natural History 4: 343; Jenyns, 1835; Yarrell, 1845; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 349; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[KAN].
History J. D. Hoy of Stoke Nayland (1831) in Loudon's Magazine of Natural History, Vol. IV. p. 343, dated 16th March, 1831, says: '...I know of only two instances, within a few years, of its being killed in this country, once near Canterbury.'
Jenyns (1835: 96) says: 'Has been killed in the neighbourhood of Canterbury.' Yarrell (1845) 2nd ed. Vol. I. p. 168, says: 'In a communication to the Magazine of Natural History 4: 341, on the British species of Shrikes, by Mr. J. D. Hoy, who is devoted to the study of birds and their habits, that gentleman mentions one instance of the Woodchat being killed near Canterbury, that came to his knowledge.'
O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 349, says: 'One in the British Museum, a young male, formerly in Leach's collection, and labelled "Kent" (Yarrell's Brit. Birds, Vol. I. p. 216). This bird is mentioned in G. R. Gray's Catalogue of British Birds (1863), and is probably the bird which was "killed in the neighbourhood of Canterbury" (Jenyns' Manual Brit. Vert., p. 96). It is not enumerated, however, among the specimens now in the museum in Vol. VIII. of the Catalogue of Birds. The author of the Manual, in reply to my enquiries, has written to say that at this distance of time it is impossible to remember his authority for the locality, his book having been published in 1835.'
Accepted locally (Ticehurst 1909: 120-121) and by Harrison (1953 (2): 229) who says: 'An immature male, was killed near Canterbury some time prior to 1835 (Jenyns', Manual of Brit. Vertebrates, p. 96).'
Comment This record being imprecisely dated could pre-date the first for Britain, and is therefore unacceptable. Yarrell (1845) also refers to a immature male in the British Museum which belonged in the museum of Dr. Leach and is labelled as having been killed in Kent - perhaps this one.
0). Pre 1833 Yorkshire No locality, obtained, undated.
(Selby, 1833; Yarrell, 1843; Allis, 1844).
[Chislett, 1952; Mather, 1986].
History Selby (1833 (1): 153) says: 'At the time of the publication of the First Series of the Illustrations, and the accompanying volume of letter-press, I had not been able to find any well authenticated instance of the capture of this species in Britain, and accordingly refrained from giving either a figure or description of the bird, although it had been considered as British, in all our ornithological works and compilations on Natural History since the time of Willoughby, who certainly refers to this species under the title of "another sort of Butcher Bird" but without stating from whence the described specimen was obtained. I have, however, now ascertained that it has occasionally been met with in England. Mr. Leadbetter, the animal preserver (so well known to scientific ornithologists for his valuable collection of rare birds), assures me that he once had a fresh specimen brought to him, that had been killed in Yorkshire.'
Yarrell (1843 (1): 161) says: 'A few years ago Mr. Leadbetter [sic] received a specimen which had been killed in Yorkshire.' Thomas Allis (1844) under 'Report on the Birds of Yorkshire' prepared for the British Association meeting at York (unpublished, but held at the Yorkshire Museum, York), says: 'Lanius rufus. - Woodchat Shrike - I find only one Yorkshire specimen recorded, which was in the possession of Mr. Leadbitter [sic].'
Comment Leadbeater of London. Lacks adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1833 Caernarfonshire Capel Curig, two, females, shot, 17th and 22nd May.
("A.T." Rennie's Field Naturalist 2: 55).
[Lovegrove, Williams & Williams, 1994].
History "A.T." (1834) in Rennie's Field Naturalist, Vol. II. p. 55, dated 22nd May, 1833, says: 'On the 17th of May, 1833, I shot a female Woodchat, Bewick, (Lanius rufus, Linn.) it was in company with a Red-backed Shrike (Lanius colurius), and appeared to have paired with it, as after I had shot the Woodchat, the flusher kept flying round the place where the bird fell, and appeared evidently distressed. I tried to shoot it, but he was too cunning, keeping at a very good distance from my gun.
After trying to get at him for some time, I was obliged to give up the chase. As some naturalists state that the Lanius rufus is a distinct species, and others that it is only a variety of the Red-backed Shrike, I think it right to forward this statement to your valuable magazine. Not seeing any other Woodchat about, makes me think that it must have paired with the flusher.
On dissecting the bird, I found her full of eggs; her gizzard was filled with beetles' wings. Red-backed Shrikes abound about here, on the sides of the mountains, near the Capel Curig lakes. On the 19th instant, I shot four of them; they all proved to be male birds; their gizzards were filled with the same kind of beetles' wings as the Woodchat. As you state that you will receive hints from mere beginners, I trust you will consider this as one.
Since writing this, I have killed another Woodchat, in company with a Red-backed Shrike. Although I shot at both at the same time, I only killed the Woodchat, which proved to be another female. After I had shot it, the flusher kept flying from rock to rock round the place, giving a shrill whistle. I have also shot another flusher, which was a male again. It seems odd I cannot shoot a female, unless the Woodchat is it. Both the Woodchats corresponded exactly with the figure in Bewick.'
Nationally, the first acceptable record for Wales was in 1923 (Lovegrove, Williams & Williams 1994).
Comment Early Naturalists' had a rule that any anonymous publications were not worthy of consideration as a valid record. Also, this is a very strange record and probably a misidentification has taken place.
0). Pre 1839 Devon Mutley, shot, undated.
(Bellamy, 1839; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 351).
[D'Urban & Mathew, 1892].
History Bellamy (1839: 200) says: 'Lanius rutilus. (Bewick p. 377.). Woodchat. Shot at Mutley by Pincombe, of Devonport.'
O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 351, says: 'Devon - One was shot at Mutley, by Pincombe, of Devonport (Bellamy, Nat. Hist. S. Devon, 1839, p. 200).'
D'Urban & Mathew (1892: 50) say: 'The evidence relating to the record instances in Devonshire is not satisfactory, and it has only been said to have been obtained in the south-western part of the county.... "Shot at Mutley by Pincombe of Devonport" (J.C.B. Nat. Hist. S. Devon, p. 200).'
Comment Pincombe has been discredited in a statement by the Plympton naturalist J. Brooking Rowe who maintained that "no reliance is to be placed on anything Pincombe says, and that the specimen obtained here is to be received with caution". Not acceptable.
0). 1840s Hertfordshire Sandon, shot, undated.
(J. P. Nunn, Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society and Field Club 9: 164; Sage, 1959).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-166].
History Joseph P. Nunn (1898) in the Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society and Field Club, Vol. IX. p. 164, says: 'Before leaving the Forties I may say that a Woodchat Shrike (Lanius pomeranus) was shot at Sandon, and came into the possession of the late Mr. John Norman, but I am unable to give any more particulars.'
Sage (1959) says: 'There is the possibility that this is the same bird stated by Tuck (1856) to have been shot near Baldock in the spring of 1856. The bird was preserved by W. Norman, the Royston taxidermist.' However, Gladwin & Sage (1986) are now saying that the record occurred between c.1847-56 and that it was either shot near Baldock in the spring of 1856 or was possibly that shot at Sandon about 1845.'
Comment Too much confusion. Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). 1841 Kent Sachet's Hill, near Margate, shot, 6th May.
(Eds., Annals & Magazine Natural History 7: 523; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
History In an Editorial (1841) in the Annals & Magazine Natural History, Vol. VII. p. 523, says: 'Mr. Mummery has communicated the following notices of birds lately taken in the Isle of Thanet: - "May 6th at Sacketts [sic] Hill, about a mile from Margate,...I shot a beautiful specimen of the Lanius rufus, or Woodchat Shrike.'
Accepted locally (Ticehurst 1909: 121) and by Harrison (1953 (2): 229) who says: 'The second [for Kent] was shot by Stephen Mummery on May 6th, 1841, at Sachet's Hill, near Margate.'
Comment Although accepted by Kent Orn. Soc. on their web site (March 2013), Mummery was known to be unreliable (Ticehurst 1909). Not acceptable.
0). 1841 Cambridgeshire Huntingdon area, Huntingdonshire, two, shot, August.
(Peake, 1926).
[J. S. Clark, Cambridgeshire Bird Report 2004: 143].
History J. S. Clark (2004) in the Cambridgeshire Bird Report, p. 143, lists a record for 1841 in the Huntingdon area of two shot in August. Previously he stated that this record listed by Peake (1926) had not been authenticated. They were set up by Wright of Kimbolton for display in the Wellstead collection, but that no longer exists.
0). 1849 Isles of Scilly No Localities, several immatures, shot, September.
(E. H. Rodd, Transactions of the Penzance Natural History Society 1850: 404; E. H. Rodd, Zoologist 1870: 2201; Harting, 1880: 25, 201, 308; J. Clark & F. R. Rodd, Zoologist 1906: 248; Penhallurick, 1978).
[Harting, 1880].
History E. H. Rodd (1850) in the Transactions of the Penzance Natural History Society, p. 404, dated May, 1850, says: 'In the autumn of 1849 several examples of the young of the year were captured on the Scilly Isles, apparently driven there by a strong east wind which intercepted their migratorial movement southwards: this may be regarded as an important fact, as offering good grounds for believing that they were bred in the British Isles - a fact new to science, the species itself being, until very recently, not included in the British Fauna.'
Harting, Editor (1880: 25) in Rodd's Birds of Cornwall, says: 'I have an adult specimen in my collection, which was caught in a boat, off Scilly, in September 1849, and during the same autumn several birds of the year of this species were captured on the Scilly Islands, apparently driven there by a strong east wind which intercepted their migratory movement southward.'
Further, p. 210, he adds: '...and on this occasion several individuals, but all in immature plumage, were captured on the Islands, leaving no doubt that they were bred in this country.'
Harting, p. 308, under 'Appendix' corrects the above statement by saying, 'for September 1849, and during the same autumn' read 'September 1840, and during the same month in 1850.' However, p. 299, under 'List of the Birds Observed on the Scilly Islands', it says "Woodchat, twice, in September".'
J. Clark & F. R. Rodd (1906) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. X. p. 248, under 'The Birds of Scilly', say: 'In the autumn of 1849 Pechell shot several in immature plumage.'
Accepted locally (Flood, Hudson & Thomas 2007).
Comment As this record was just a casual observation, and obviously not acceptable to Rodd or Harting by not being in the List, it is safer to reject this record. It is not proven that they weren't immature Red-backed Shrikes, which would be the more likely species. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1851 Kent No locality, undated, now at Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter.
(Morris, 1856-62; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[KAN].
History Morris (1856 (1): 187, reissue) says: 'The following are the only specimens of the Woodchat that appear to have been recorded as having occurred in England:...in Kent, two, one of them near Canterbury.'
Ticehurst (1909: 121) says: 'A third bird, said by Morris to have been obtained in Kent prior to 1851, is probably the male which was formerly in Chaffey's collection and is now in the Exeter Museum, and forms part of the late Mr. W. Bower Scott's bequest.'
Harrison (1953 (2): 229) says: 'The third [for Kent] was believed by Ticehurst to be the bird in the Exeter Museum from the Chaffey collection, and according to Morris, was obtained in Kent some time prior to 1851'
Comment Although accepted by Kent Orn. Soc. on their web site (March 2013), it lacks adequate details of even a specific date and locality. Rejection recommended.
0). Pre 1852 Devon Kingsbridge, immature, killed, undated.
(C. Prideaux, Zoologist 1852: 3474).
[D'Urban & Mathew, 1892].
History Charles Prideaux of Kingsbridge (1852) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. X. p. 3474, dated 24th April, 1852, says: 'I append a list of a few very rare birds which have lately occurred for the most part in this neighbourhood....The following are also among my birds: - Woodchat Shrike, adult, killed, in Somersetshire, and a young one at Kingsbridge.'
D'Urban & Mathew (1892: 50) say: 'The evidence relating to the record instances in Devonshire is not satisfactory, and it has only been said to have been obtained in the south-western part of the county....A young bird is said to have been killed at Kingsbridge about the year 1852 (Zool., 1852, p. 3474). This is reported by Mr. Charles Prideaux, who states that he had in his possession an adult of this species "killed in Somersetshire", and a young one obtained at Kingsbridge. Mr. Prideaux has been dead for many years, and a part of his collection is deposited in the Town Hall at Kingsbridge. A small Shrike, from which the feathers have been quite damaged by moths, may represent one of the above-mentioned specimens. However, Mr. Henry Nicholls does not remember the occurrence of a Woodchat in his neighbourhood.'
0). Pre 1852 Somerset No locality, shot, undated.
(C. Prideaux, Zoologist 1852: 3474; M. A. Mathew, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 39: 111).
[Somerset Ornithological Society, 1988; Ballance, 2006].
History Charles Prideaux of Kingsbridge (1852) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. X. p. 3474, dated 24th April 1852, says: '...The following are also amongst my birds: - Woodchat Shrike, adult, killed in Somersetshire.'
M. A. Mathew (1893) in the Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society, Vol. XXXIX. p. 111, says: 'In The Zoologist for 1852, Mr. C. Prideaux, of Kingsbridge, states that he possessed an adult Woodchat Shrike "from Somersetshire".'
Not accepted locally (Ballance 2006).
0). 1859 Nottinghamshire Buck Gates, Thoresby Park, male, shot, May.
(Felkin, 1866; Sterland & Whitaker, 1879; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 348; Whitaker, 1907).
[KAN].
History Felkin (1866: 47) says: 'That rare bird, the Woodchat, was shot in Birkland Forest, May, 1859, by Mr. H. Wells, of Cockglode, Ollerton.'
Sterland & Whitaker (1879: 12) says: 'This rare visitor has once occurred in the county, one, a male, was shot in May, 1859, in Sherwood Forest, near the Buck Gates, the western entrance to Thoresby Park, by H. Wells.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 348, in a review of the species, who says: 'A male, shot in May, 1859, in Sherwood Forest, near the western entrance to Thoresby Park, by Mr. H. Wells (Sterland and Whitaker's Birds of Notts., p. 12).'
Comment Mr. H. Wells would appear to be unreliable; he was also involved with the Two-Barred Crossbills and Parrot Crossbills in Notts. Not acceptable.
0). c. 1860 Avon/Somerset Hale Well, Winscombe or Cheddar Woods, undated.
(Compton, 1882; Somerset Ornithological Society, 1988; Ballance, 2006).
[KAN].
History Recorded by Somerset Ornithological Society (1988) and by Ballance (2006) with no extra detail but recorded In Compton (1882, 2nd ed.) of Winscombe Sketches of Country Life and Scenery Amongst the Mendip Hills.
Comment Lacks a specific date for a scientific record. Not known to have been seen by a competent authority.
0). c. 1860 Yorkshire Scarborough, two, immatures, undated.
(Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 347; Nelson, 1907).
[Chislett, 1952; Mather, 1986].
History Clarke & Roebuck (1881: 28) say: 'Scarborough, two young birds obtained by Mr. A. S. Bell, 1860 or 1861 (Clarke, Birds of Yorks., p. 61).'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 347, in a review of the species, says: 'Two young birds obtained at Scarborough by Mr. A. S. Bell, 1860-61 (Eagle Clarke, Birds of Yorks., p. 61).
Nelson (1907 (1): 144-145) says: 'According to the late A. Roberts of Scarborough, Mr. Alwin S. Bell obtained two young birds in the Castle Holmes, Scarborough, in the year 1860 or 1861, but he (Mr. Bell) only succeeded in preserving one of them, owing to their being so very fat.'
Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Two in Yorkshire in autumn would be unusual.
0). 1866 Devon Near Plymouth, female, caught alive, October.
(J. Gatcombe, Zoologist 1867: 557; J. Gatcombe, Zoologist 1873: 3717-18; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 351; D'Urban & Mathew, 1892).
[D'Urban, 1906; Moore 1969; Tyler, 2010].
History J. Gatcombe of Plymouth (1867) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. II. p. 557, dated 16th November, 1866, says: 'Within the past two months the following exceedingly rare birds have been obtained in the neighbourhood of Plymouth, all of which I have myself examined: Female Woodchat Shrike, captured with bird-lime, and kept alive for some days on raw liver: the bird was in severe moult, and the old plumage much worn. I feel much pleasure in being the first to record the occurrence of the above mentioned bird in the vicinity of Plymouth.'
J. Gatcombe of Plymouth (1873) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. VIII. pp. 3717-18, says 'July 1873. 21st. A Red-backed Shrike was caught with bird-lime and brought to Mr. Rogers, of Plymouth, who deals in live birds; and some years since he had a Woodchat Shrike brought to him, caught by a birdcatcher, but in that instance the shrike dashed down at a "call-bird", and was captured in the net.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 351, in a review of the species, adds: 'It is now in the collection of Mr. J. H. Gurney.'
D'Urban & Mathew (1892: 50) say: 'The evidence relating to the record instances in Devonshire is not satisfactory, and it has only been said to have been obtained in the south-western part of the county....A female Woodchat was captured by means of bird-lime at Plymouth in the autumn of 1866. This specimen Mr. Gatcombe stated to be the only one he ever saw that had been killed in Devonshire. He detected it at a birdstuffer's, named Rogers, at Plymouth, and it was said to have been taken by a bird-catcher (J.G. in litt. and Zool., 1866, p. 577 and 1873, p. 3717). This bird is now in the collection of Mr. J. H. Gurney.'
W. S. M. D'Urban (1906 (1): 303) in the Victoria County History of Devon, says: 'A female is said to have been captured by means of birdlime in the autumn of 1866 at Plymouth, and was detected by the late Mr. J. Gatcombe in a bird-stuffer's shop.'
Comment Moore (1969) rejects this record although it had been accepted by all the early authors. Gatcombe was considered one of the better ornithologists of the day and Gurney would have checked the provenance of the specimen, as he did with other specimens, and I see no reason to doubt this record, but I bow to D'Urban & Mathew's view who didn't really give a satisfactory reason. A female in October would be the only possible cause for rejection. Tyler (2010) states the first for Devon as occurring in 1892.
0). 1869 Leicestershire & Rutland Near Duddington, Rutland, seen, spring.
(Haines, 1907).
[Haines, 1907; Fray et al., 2009].
History Haines (1907: 41) recording the record in square brackets, says: 'Was seen near Duddington, which is close to the Rutland border, in the spring of 1869.'
0). 1869 Northamptonshire Gore Piece, Duddington, seen, spring.
(O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 348; Lilford, 1895).
[KAN].
History Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 348, in a review of the species, who says: 'One seen in Gore Piece, near Duddington, in the spring of 1869 (Lord Lilford's Notes on Birds of Northamptonshire, p. 45).'
Lord Lilford (1895 (1): 78) says: 'The only notice I have of it as a visitor to Northamptonshire is in a letter from Mr. A. G. Elliot, of Stamford, who says: 'Woodchat, Lanius rufus: I saw one in Gore Piece close to Duddington in the spring of 1869.' Mr. Elliot is well acquainted with our British birds, and is not, I think, likely to have made a mistake about such a distinctly marked and conspicuous bird as the Woodchat.'
Comment Elliot was a dealer cum birdstuffer in Stamford who saw a nesting pair of Bee-eaters in Rutland in 1868 and in 1883 had the good fortune to preserve another supposed Woodchat Shrike from near Stamford. Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.
). 1870 Gloucestershire Campden, seen, 17th May.
(E. F. Peterson, Field 28th May 1870: 457).
[Eds., Field 28th May 1870: 457].
History E. F. Peterson (1870) in The Field of 28th May, Vol. XXXV. p. 457, says: 'On the 17th of May, when in company with the Rev. C. Begley, I observed a bird about the size of the Pied Wagtail (Motacilla yarrelli) flitting along the hedge in the direction of Dover's Hill, near this town, Campden. It was a compact, full-bodied bird, apparently bold, with an undulating flight. The back and tail were black, the outer feathers of the latter white, head of a dark brown or red, a black band on the cheek, wings black, tips of the secondaries white, lower parts also white. Was not this the Woodchat Shrike, Lanius rufus of Temminck? As I have never seen the bird in a natural state in England, I should like to learn if I am justified in supposing the above description to answer to that of the Woodchat Shrike.'
[We are unacquainted with British specimens of the Woodchat, but have seen Continental skins in which the scapulars are quite white, forming a conspicuous spot; this striking character is not mentioned in our correspondent's description, and we think could not have escaped notice. The description will not quite agree with the Woodchat in other respects; and we cannot therefore express any decided opinion concerning the species of a bird which was only seen, and not obtained. - Eds.]
Comment Not specifically identified. Not acceptable.
0). 1870 Lancashire & North Merseyside Walton-le-Dale, shot, undated.
(R. Davenport, Bury Natural History Society Report 1872: 41; Mitchell, 1885; Saunders, 1892; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 347).
[White, McCarthy & Jones, 2008].
History R. Davenport (1872) in the Bury Natural History Society Report, p. 41, says: 'L. rutilus : Woodchat Shrike. One shot at Walton-le-dale, 1870; for the information of which I am indebted to R. Entwistle, of Bolton.'
Howard Saunders (1892: 53, 2nd ed.) in the revised edition of Mitchell's Birds of Lancashire, says: 'Mr. F. Nicholson states (Manchester City News 1875, on the authority of Mr. R. Entwistle of Bolton, who stuffed the bird) that one was shot at Walton-le-Dale in 1870.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 347, in a review of the species. However, it was not accepted locally through lack of detail (Oakes 1953; White, McCarthy & Jones 2008).
Comment Lacks supporting details. Not acceptable.
0). 1870 Sussex Slaugham, near Crawley, pair, seen, undated.
(O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 350).
[Walpole-Bond, 1938].
History O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 350, says: 'Mr. F. Henniker, of Carcolston Hall, Bingham, Notts., writes me word: - "I am quite certain that I saw a pair of Woodchats in the parish of Slaugham (near Crawley), Sussex, in the year 1870, and I think if you knew anyone living in the vale between the Forest Range of Sussex, and the South Downs, you would be almost sure to hear of one or more pairs.'
Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 324-325) says: 'Of these, the first forms part of a letter from Mr. F. Henniker to Mr. O. V. Aplin, and the extract reads as follows: "I am quite certain that I saw a pair of Woodchats in the parish of Slaugham (near Crawley), Sussex, in the year 1870, and I think if you knew anyone living in the vale between the Forest Range of Sussex and the South Downs, you would be almost sure to hear of one or more pairs". Now to my mind these "pairs", taken in conjunction with the way in which they are mentioned, rather intimate breeding, and, indeed, annual breeding.
Nevertheless, because of its general baldness, the "record" cannot possibly be allowed to stand. Indeed, knowing nothing of Mr. Henniker's ornithological capabilities, it is quite permissible to suggest that the birds were not Woodchats.'
Comment Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). c. 1872 Essex Highwoods, Colchester, seen, undated.
(Christy, 1890; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 348; Glegg, 1929; Wood, 2007).
[Hudson & Pyman, 1968; Cox, 1984].
History Christy (1890: 106) says: 'Mr. Ambrose tells me that seventeen or eighteen years ago he saw an undoubted specimen one Sunday afternoon in the Colchester High-woods, but he had no gun at the time.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 348, in a review of the species.
Not accepted locally (Hudson & Pyman 1968: 93; Cox 1984: 247) but later acceptable (Wood 2007).
Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Not acceptable.
0). c. 1873 Oxfordshire Wyfold Court, near Henley, obtained, undated.
(A. P. Morres, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 18: 189).
[KAN].
History A. P. Morres (1879) in the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, Vol. XVIII. p. 189, says: 'Mr. Harbour, the naturalist at Reading, told me of one that was killed about six years ago at Wyfold Court, near Henley, and which passed through his hands for preservation.'
Comment Third-hand report. No precise date.
0). Pre 1875 Gloucestershire Dowdeswell Wood, killed, undated.
(Swaine, 1982).
[Swaine, 1982].
History Swaine (1982) says: 'Mellersh (1902) refers to three having been obtained near Cheltenham since 1852, and in his MS. is noted at Dowdeswell Wood before 1875. The first conclusive record was in May, 1905'
0). Pre 1879 Yorkshire No locality, two, obtained, undated.
(Nelson, 1907).
[KAN].
History Nelson (1907 (1): 145) says: 'The late J. Varley, of Almondbury, near Huddersfield, reported in 1879 that when he was a bird-nester he saw two Woodchats brought in to be preserved by a birdstuffer.'
Comment I am surprised at Nelson recording information like this which is worthless as a scientific record. We are not certain where they were killed or when, and they are completely lacking in any adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1880 Dorset Christchurch, Hampshire, seen, May.
(Kelsall & Munn, 1905).
[Cohen, 1963; Cohen & Taverner ,1972].
History Kelsall & Munn (1905: 51) say: 'It has occurred at Christchurch in May, 1880 (Hart).'
Comment This record mentioned by Hart was not included in Cohen (1963) and Cohen & Taverner (1972) for Hampshire (as that was where Christchurch was at the time) and lacks the required details.
0). 1882 Greater London Near Hampstead, Middlesex, male, seen, spring.
(Glegg, 1929, 1935; Self, 2014).
[Glegg, 1929, 1935].
History Glegg (1929: 18) again (1935: 60) placing the record in square brackets, says: 'J. E. Whiting claims to have seen a male between Spaniards Row and the Vale of Health, Hampstead, in the spring of 1882.'
0). 1883 Northamptonshire Burghley Top, near Stamford, female, picked up dead, 9th January.
(A. G. Elliott, Field 13th Jan., 1883: 65; Lord Lilford, Zoologist 1883: 426; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 348; Lilford, 1895).
[KAN].
History A. Elliott of Stamford (1880) in The Field of 13th Jan., Vol. LXI. p. 65, says: 'A female Woodchat Shrike (Lanius rufus) was picked up dead in Stamford Field, on Jan. 8, and appears to have lain on the fallows for some time. It died of starvation.'
Lord Lilford of Lilford Hall, Oundle (1883) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. VII. p. 426, dated 15th September, 1883, says: 'In The Field of Jan. 13th last there appeared a notice, dated Jan. 16th, 1883, of the occurrence of a Woodchat, Lanius rufus, near Stamford, communicated to that paper by Mr. A. G. Elliott, of that town, who, in answer to my inquiries, wrote as follows: - "The Woodchat noted in The Field was picked up dead on the 9th inst; it is a female, and in fair condition; the plumage is slightly soiled". It appears to have been on the fallow-land some time, and had been dead at least two days before I received it; one side of the head was slightly decomposed; it was in very poor condition, and showed all the appearance of a bird that is picked up in a long frost.
The exact locality, I believe, would be in Wothorpe parish, but it is in the occupation of a Stamford farmer, and within one hundred yards of Burghley Top, or deer-park, so that in reality the bird was found in Northamptonshire. The Lanius rufus I hope to place in my collection of British small birds. I have had several applications to purchase, also several gentleman to see the bird: it will be there for show....I may mention that I am personally acquainted with Mr. Elliott, and have no doubt whatever as to his perfect good faith and considerable acquaintance with British Birds.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 348, in a review of the species, who adds: 'Mr. A. G. Elliott preserved it for his collection.'
Lord Lilford (1895 (1): 79) says: '...The exact locality, I believe, would be in Wothorpe parish, but it is the occupation of a Stamford farmer and within 100 yards of Burghley Top, or deer-park, so that in reality the bird was found in Northamptonshire. This Lanius rufus I hope to place in my collection of British small birds. I have had several applications to purchase, also several gentlemen to see, the bird; it will be there for show. I was unable to go to Stamford at the time, and had no one to send upon whose identification of birds I could depend, so I will merely add that the date of this occurrence renders it doubly remarkable.'
Comment Elliot was a dealer cum birdstuffer in Stamford who saw a nesting pair of Bee-eaters in Rutland in 1868 and in 1869 saw a Woodchat Shrike in early spring. Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1886-89 Sussex Race Hill, Brighton, seen, undated.
(Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[KAN].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 323) says: 'Writing to me in 1909, Mr. A. F. Griffith remarked that "many years previously" he had seen a Woodchat Shrike on Race Hill, above the east end of Brighton. Subsequently he said that in all likelihood between 1886 and 1889 would meet the approximate year-date, but that he could not even guess at the month, which, however, was probably May or June. In those days, it seems, he never "diaried" rare birds unless they were obtained. Which is unfortunate.'
Comment Griffith being in his thirties at the time should have published the event at the time, not try to recall it twenty years later.
0). Pre 1888 Dorset Bloxworth, killed, undated.
(Mansel-Pleydell, 1888; Morrison, 1997).
[E. R. Bankes, Field 13th May 1893: 678; F. L. Blathwayt, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History Society and Antiquarian Field Club 55: 175].
History Mansel-Pleydell (1888: 17, 2nd ed.) says: 'One was killed at Bloxworth (Rev. O. P. Cambridge).'
Eustace R. Bankes (1893) in The Field of 13th May, Vol. LXXXI. p. 678, says: 'In my note under this heading, in The Field of April 29, reference is made to two instances of its occurrence in Dorset, mentioned by Mr. Mansel-Pleydell, in his Birds of Dorsetshire, one of which is stated, on the authority of the Rev. O. P. Cambridge, to have been killed at Bloxworth.
I am informed, however, by Mr. Cambridge that this is a mistake, as no specimen of this bird has ever, to his knowledge, been noticed or shot at Bloxworth.'
[As the Woodchat is a rare visitor to the British Islands, it is desirable that the mistake should be corrected. - Ed.]
Not admitted by F. L. Blathwayt (1934) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LV. p. 175, under 'A Revised List of the Birds of Dorset'.
Comment The Rev. O. Pickard-Cambridge died in 1917. Lacks adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1888 Greater London/Surrey Ham, undated.
(Garner 1888: 125; Bucknill, 1900; Wheatley, 2007).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History Bucknill (1900) says: 'Apart from this accepted record [Meyer's prior to 1842], the record for Surrey is poor....In a paper on the 'Birds of Kingston-on-Thames', by Mr. F. V. Theobald, published in The Garner, Vol. XXXII. p. 125 (1888) it is stated to have been "seen once at Ham".'
Comment Lacks adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1888 Kent Folkestone, adult, caught, undated, now at Canterbury Museum.
(O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 349-350; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 349-350].
History O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. pp. 349-350, in a review of the species, says: 'Mr. W. Oxenden Hammond of St Alban's Court, Wingham, writes: - "As to the Woodchat, about three years ago I heard from a birdcatcher at Dover that he had just caught one. I went at once to see it, and learn about it. The bird was in beautiful plumage, all the feathers, tail, and wings, perfectly clean. The owner told me that his men had taken it in the warren near Folkestone. That when they saw the bird it entered a dense clump of bramble, going to the bottom, and that they enclosed it in the bramble, and so caught it. I look upon it with a certain amount of suspicion". This bird is in Mr. Hammond's collection.'
Ticehurst (1909: 121) adds: 'It is now in the Canterbury Museum.'
Comment Uncertainty over its history. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1890 Essex Near Mark's Tey, pair, seen, undated.
(Christy, 1890; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 348; Wood, 2007).
[Hudson & Pyman, 1968; Cox, 1984].
History Christy (1890: 106) says: 'Mr. Pettitt informs me that, some years ago, on a farm near Mark's Tey, held by his uncle, Mr. Bickmore, the late Dr. E. G. Varenne saw a pair of birds which he pronounced to be male and female of this species. Dr. Varenne is now dead, but as he was a good naturalist, the record is worthy of some credence.'
Admitted by O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 348, in a review of the species.
Not accepted locally (Hudson & Pyman 1968: 93) and (Cox 1984: 247) but now acceptable (Wood 2007).
Comment Third-hand report of a sight record of an undated pair. Lacks a specific date and a pair would be most unusual. Not acceptable.
0). 1890 Kent Near Sittingbourne, seen, 24th February.
(Fielding, Rochester Naturalist 1891; Fielding, 1893; Ticehurst, 1909; Gillham & Homes, 1950; Harrison, 1953).
[Balston, Shepherd & Bartlett, 1907].
History Balston, Shepherd & Bartlett (1907: 137) say: 'The Rev. C. H. Fielding, in Malling and its Valley, 1893, states that it was also seen in 1890 at Sittingbourne in Kent, without giving any data.'
Ticehurst (1909: 122) says: 'The Rev. C. H. Fielding records another (Memories of Malling, p. 257), without details, that was seen near Sittingbourne in 1890.'
Gillham & Homes (1950: 102) say: 'Ticehurst also quotes a note from Fielding's Memories of Malling of one seen near Sittingbourne in 1890. The original source of this record, however, is an article on 'Kentish Birds' in the Rochester Naturalist, where Fielding (1891) quotes a report by Mr. Green of a Woodchat on the 24th February of the year in question.'
Comment This is a strange date and way out of the known migration periods for reaching Britain. The record also lacks any plumage details. Maybe Mr. Green (South-east England) is the dealer whom Witherby wouldn't give any credence to. Not acceptable.
0). 1890 Worcestershire Between Powick and Bransford, Teme Valley, seen, June.
(O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 349).
[KAN].
History O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 349, says: 'Mr. Parkinson, in a letter to me adds:- "In June, 1890, in the Teme Valley, between Powick and Bransford, I saw an unfamiliar shrike drop down suddenly and silently over a tall hedge into a dense hazel coppice. I know the Red-backed Shrike species very well. It was quite different in flight and extremely shy: about the size of the Red-backed species, very white on the under parts, and pronounced red patch on the back of the head; a little white at the base of the dark bill. I never found it again; but an examination of the ground beneath the hedge revealed a young Linnet with the skull broken in. Without having had the bird in my hand, I feel sure it was a male Woodchat, chiefly from the peculiar manner it dropped down into the thicket, and the general appearance, which was not that of the Red-backed species.'
Comment Not identified specifically. Not acceptable.
0). 1892 Sussex Fairlight, adult male, shot, early May.
(T. Parkin, Zoologist 1892: 229-230; O. V. Aplin, Zoologist 1892: 350; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Thomas Parkin of Fairseat, High Wickham, Hastings (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. pp. 229-230, says: 'I have to record the capture in this county of that extremely rare bird the Woodchat Shrike, Lanius auriculatus. The bird was shot at Fairlight, near Hastings, during the first week of May. Mr. Borrer, in his Birds of Sussex, records but one example, and the species is noticed by Mr. Knox, in his Ornithological Rambles in Sussex. I have seen the bird, which is in the hands of Mr. T. Sorrell, taxidermist, of Old Humphrey's Avenue, Hastings, and it is an adult male in full plumage.'
O. V. Aplin (1892) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVI. p. 350, in a review of the species, adds: 'I am indebted to Mr. G. W. Bradshaw of Hastings for a beautifully executed photograph of this specimen taken after it was set up.'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 323).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1892 Sussex Fairlight, adult male, 29th July.
(Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 323-324) says: 'This bird was acquire for the Booth Museum, Brighton, from the Borrer collection, in 1901. The first published reference of it was in the 3rd edition of the Catalogue (1901) and in there it was said to have been killed on 29th July 1893. However, in all succeeding editions, the year is given as 1892, and Mr. A. F. Griffith has assured me this is correct. It was mounted by G. Bristow.'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1893 Worcestershire Weatheroak Hill, near Alvechurch, pair, 14th May.
(F. Coburn, Zoologist 1893: 458; Harrison et al., 1982; Harrison & Harrison, 2005).
[KAN].
History F. Coburn of Holloway Road, Birmingham (1893) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XVII. p. 458, undated, says: 'On the 14th May last I saw a Woodchat, on a holly bush at Weatheroak Hill, Alvechurch, Worcestershire. It was at first remarkably tame, allowing me to scan it carefully, and flew to the top of a tall ash tree, where it perched on a dead twig. It looked down at me inquisitively, showing clearly its beautiful chestnut neck. On being again disturbed, it flew away, uttering a loud metallic note like "clank, clank, clank", and I then remarked that it was accompanied by a mate. I searched the district many times afterwards without again seeing either of the pair, but they were reported from King's Norton and King's Heath. From the descriptions given, there is no doubt that they were the same pair.'
Comment Surely the tri-syllabic call is indicative of Red-backed Shrike! Not acceptable.
0). 1893 Gloucestershire Badgeworth, undated.
(Swaine, 1982).
[Swaine, 1982].
History Swaine (1982) says: 'Mellersh (1902) refers to three having been obtained near Cheltenham since 1852, and in his MS. is noted at Badgeworth in 1893. The first conclusive record was in May, 1905.'
0). 1893 Gloucestershire Shurdington, undated.
(Swaine, 1982).
[Swaine, 1982].
History Swaine (1982) says: 'Mellersh (1902) refers to three having been obtained near Cheltenham since 1852, and in his MS. is noted at Shurdington in 1893. The first conclusive record was in May, 1905.'
0). c. 1894 Dorset Corfe Castle, seen, April or May.
(N. M. Richardson, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History Society and Antiquarian Field Club 27: 260).
[F. L. Blathwayt, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History Society and Antiquarian Field Club 55: 175].
History Nelson M. Richardson, Editor (1906) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History Society and Antiquarian Field Club, Vol. XXVII. p. 260, says: 'Rare birds in 1905. Woodchat. - This rare visitor to Britain having been very seldom observed in Dorset, I should like - on the principle of "Better late than never" - to place on record the fact that about the year 1894, either in April or May, I watched for some minutes at only a few yards distance a fine specimen at Corfe Castle a little further the same stream, beside which the late Rev. Owen L. Mansel saw one on April 21, 1893, as recorded by myself at the time in the Dorset County Chronicle and in Proc. Dors. N.H. and A.F.C., XV. 196.
Unfortunately, I have searched in vain for a note of the day, so can only give it approximately (E.R.B.).' However, it is not now admitted by F. L. Blathwayt (1934) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LV. p. 175, under 'A Revised List of the Birds of Dorset'.
Comment E. R. Banks of Corfe Castle.
0). 1896 Yorkshire Easington, two, seen, 8th September.
(J. Cordeaux, Naturalist 23: 15; Nelson, 1907).
[Chislett, 1952; Mather, 1986].
History John Cordeaux of Great Cotes (1897) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXIII. p. 15, says: 'Woodchat Shrike. Sep. 8th. Mr. H. B. Hewetson, jun., saw a pair on a hedge top at Easington. He knows these birds very well, as he used to see them every day in Morocco.'
Accepted locally (Nelson 1907 (1): 145).
Comment Strange how Nelson admits this sight record by Hewetson of Leeds, but rejects his sight record of the Black-eared Wheatear. Both species would have been difficult to identify in the field at this particular time. Fortunately, Chislett (1952) and Mather (1986) had no faith in this record remarking two together being suspicious.
0). 1898 Sussex St Leonards-on-Sea, seen, 29th April, shot, 1st May.
(G. W. Bradshaw, Zoologist 1898: 267; Booth, 1901; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History G. W. Bradshaw of Reading (1898) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. II. p. 267, says: 'I beg to record the occurrence of a male Woodchat Shrike (Lanius pomeranus) on the salts near St Leonards-on-Sea, Sussex, on May 1st. It had been seen on the previous day, and in the same place, close to a brick-field. I believe this is the third time it has been recorded for Sussex. Mr. Borrer mentions one in his Birds of Sussex, and another was recorded by Mr. Parkin in The Zoologist (1892, p. 229), shot at Fairlight Hill, about four miles from the spot where the present one was got. It has been identified by Mr. Bristow, taxidermist, of St Leonards.'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 324).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1898 Wiltshire Wishford, seen, 31st May.
(E. F. A. Hext, Field 20th Aug., 1898: 365).
[E. F. A. Hext, Field 20th Aug., 1898: 365; G. B. Hony, British Birds 7: 282; Wiltshire Ornithological Society, 2007].
History E. F. A. Hext of Redcliffe, Bristol (1898) in The Field of 20th Aug., Vol. XCII. p. 65, under 'Supposed occurrence of the Woodchat in Wilts.', says: 'It may be worth recording that on May 31, at Wishford, in South Wilts., I saw a specimen of the Woodchat Shrike. It was hovering above some long grass in a meadow close to the roadside, and the light of the setting sun just shone on its brilliant plumage, so that I was able to note the colours and identify it.'
[It is more likely to have been the Red-backed Shrike, which is a regular summer visitor. - Ed.]
G. Bathurst Hony (1914) in British Birds, Vol. VII. p. 282, under 'Additional Species', says: 'Since the appearance of the Rev. A. C. Smith's Birds of Wiltshire in 1887 many new county records have naturally occurred. I now propose to give the more interesting of those I have collected, some of which have been published before, but many of which are now published for the first time. Perhaps the presentation of these in a collected form may cause other records to be brought to light. Smith records the occurrence of 235 species, but he was too wont - to use his own words - to "give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt"....There are no less than four records of this bird having been seen in the county....One was seen at Wishford on May 31st, 1898 (Field, Aug. 24th; the editor doubted this record).'
Comment Not acceptable.
0). 1901 Sussex Rye, obtained, 29th June.
(Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 324) says: 'On June 20th one was obtained at Rye (G. Bristow in litt.).'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1902 Sussex Rye, seen, June.
(Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 324) says: 'Nicoll in his "Private Notes" observed one at Rye, presumably June, 1902.'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1903 Lincolnshire Near Stamford, pair, seen, summer.
(H. S. Davenport, Field 15th Aug., 1903: 327).
[KAN].
History H. S. Davenport (1903) in The Field of 15th Aug., Vol. CII. p. 327, says: 'I have grounds for believing that a pair of Woodchats have recently nested in the vicinity of Stamford. In a letter received from a friend a few days ago I read with some surprise that "two shrikes other than the well-known butcher-birds have been about our grounds all the summer".
I wrote at once for further particulars, at the same time enclosing a coloured sketch of the Woodchat. His rejoinder was to the effect that my drawing faithfully portrayed the bird she saw, which were not at all shy, and which on more than one occasion allowed him to observe them for two or three minutes at close range. In view of the fact that the Woodchat has without doubt nested in England, and that some thirty or forty instances of its casual occurrence have been recorded, there is, of course, nothing very improbable in the conjecture that the species has bred near Stamford during the present summer, though I regret that my evidence, circumstantial as it is, can hardly be deemed conclusive. A "peeking" kind of note, so described, is what was invariably uttered.'
Comment I wonder if this friend was A. G. Elliot who claims two other records of Woodchat for the area around Stamford.
0). 1904 Sussex Hollington, adult female, obtained, 28th June.
(Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 324) says: 'On June 28th, 1904, a female in wretched condition, and bearing old, half-healed shot-wounds, was obtained at Hollington (N. F. Ticehurst in litt.).'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1907 Kent Newchurch, Romney Marsh, shot, undated.
(Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[KAN].
History Ticehurst (1909: 122) says: 'Mr. W. Horton, of Hythe, has a specimen which I have seen, and which he informs me he himself shot at Newchurch in Romney Marsh.'
0). 1907 Kent Hadlow, near Tonbridge, shot, 4th July.
(J. B. Nichols, British Birds 1: 185; Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History J. B. Nichols (1907) in British Birds, Vol. I. p. 185, says: 'I have been much interested in Mr. H. Saunders' and Messrs. Witherby and Ticehurst's papers in British Birds on "Additions since 1899" to the British Bird List. I should like to supplement them with the following records of rare birds in my own collection. I have also received a male of this species which was shot at Hadlow, near Tonbridge, Kent, on July 4th, 1907.'
Ticehurst (1909: 121) says: '...This may or may not be the bird which was shot on July 4th near Hadlow, and which I saw two days later, shortly after it was mounted, in Mr. Bristow's shop. It was an adult male and the plumage was a good deal worn. It is now in the collection of Mr. J. B. Nichols.'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1907 Sussex Camber, male, shot, 15th September.
(J. A. Clark, Zoologist 1908: 269; Eds., British Birds 2: 139; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History J. A. Clark of Crouch End (1908) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XII. p. 269, says: 'I also wish to record a male specimen of the Woodchat Shrike (Lanius pomeranus). It was shot at Camber, near Rye, by Mr. Thomas Sorrell, of Hastings, Sept. 15th, 1907.'
In an Editorial (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 139, they say: 'Mr. J. A. Clark records that a male Lanius pomeranus was shot near Rye on September 15th, 1907 (Zool., 1908, p. 269).'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 324).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1908 Cornwall Near Sennen, male, seen, 12th May.
(G. H. Coles, Field 16th May 1908: 831; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 24: 174; G. H. Harvey, British Birds 19: 232).
[H. F. Witherby, British Birds 2: 66; Mullens, Swann & Jourdain, 1919].
History Geoffrey H. Coles of Sennen (1908) in The Field of 16th May, Vol. CXI. p. 831, says: 'On the evening of May 13 I saw a Woodchat on the downs near Sennen. I got within about 40 ft. of it, and watched it for half an hour or more through strong binoculars. It was a male bird, in brilliant plumage, and the chestnut colour on the back of the head and neck was particularly bright. I see that in Lord Lilford's beautifully illustrated work on British birds, as well as in other books, the Woodchat is mentioned as being a rare visitor.'
[This shrike is a rare summer visitor to England. In an article on its status in Great Britain (Zoologist, 1892, pp. 345-352). Mr. O. V. Aplin has shown that even including doubtful occurrences, not more than five and thirty or forty examples had been met with up to that time in this country, and those chiefly in the eastern and southern counties. - Ed.]
H. F. Witherby (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 66, says: 'Mr. G. H. Coles records (Field, 1908, p. 831) that he watched within forty feet with strong binoculars a Woodchat Shrike (L. pomeranus) on the downs near Sennen (Land's End) on May 13th last. The only description he gives of the bird is: "It was a male bird in brilliant plumage, and the chestnut colour of the back of the head and neck was particularly bright". It is very possible that the bird was a Woodchat, but it is really impossible to accept such records as authentic unless better descriptions are given. The Woodchat has so many distinguishing characteristics in the field that there is really no excuse in this case.'
G. H. Harvey (1926) in British Birds, Vol. XIX. p. 232, says: 'The only recent occurrence in Cornwall appears to have been on May 12th, 1908, (B. B., III. p. 271), and the only other records for the county are those given by Rodd for Scilly (B. of Cornwall, 1880, pp. 191 and 201).'
Mullens, Swann & Jourdain (1919; 50) record it as a 'Supposed' Woodchat...'
0). 1909 Sussex River Ouse, pair, nested, summer.
(F. Cartwright, Field 2nd Apr., 1910).
[Walpole-Bond, 1938].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (1): 325-326) says: 'In the other notices nesting is decisively declared to have taken place. We first get to grips with the event in The Field for April 2nd, 1910, in an article entitled "By the Sussex Ouse.' In the course of this its author, Mr. F. Cartwright, observes: "A remarkable feature of this tiny corner of the world has been the visit of the Woodchat Shrike, which is a rare comer. Three nests have been found in dense hawthorn bushes at the edge of the marsh...The birds would suffer one to approach quite close, merely uttering a guttural ach as they hopped from twig-to twig, while the intruder gazed on their five handsome eggs. The nest is almost as large as a Blackbird's, though not quite so deep,...The Woodchat Shrike is a handsome fellow, with a powerful bill and long tail, shining black poll, and red nape, the major part of its plumage of a velvety slate colour. Last year a Red-backed Shrike nested in the same quarter, but it is many years since its rare congener visited the place, and the writer believes he is the only observer who has seen the Woodchat here for many a long year. The eggs of the Woodchat are easily distinguished from those of the Red-backed Shrike, the olive markings on a greenish-white ground contrasting with those of pale brown spots on a creamy-white ground in the case of the more common bird".
Naturally I made all haste in writing to Cartwright for further particulars. The salient points in his reply were: (1) That the birds, one pair each time, had nested, always in much the same area, in 1887, 1908 and 1909. (Here, be it noted, is a discrepancy from what was written in The Field. For there, you will mind, he said - and I happen to know that he was enlarging on a single pair only and that, incidentally, the one of 1909 that it was "many years" since the species had paid the place a visit.) (2) That in 1909 the birds brought off two broods, in addition to having been deprived of a sitting, but that, despite this, nothing was seen of them, old or young, after the later middle of July.' (Surely "August" was intended ? In any case his birds would hardly have had their first clutch before about May 20th, and, this being so, could not possibly have reared two families and lost a laying besides by the date mentioned. Incidentally, is the Woodchat ever double-brooded anywhere ?) (3) That the nest in which the second brood was reared was in an alder. (Here is another discrepancy from his printed material, in which he expressly states that all three nests of 1909 - for he was referring to these - were in hawthorns.) (4) That he experienced great difficulty in getting close to the birds because of their shyness (yet another divarication from the text of his Field article.) (5) That to him "the essential difference between the Red-backed and Grey Shrike (Woodchat) "seemed" to be the dull ashen tone of the plumage on the latter's back".
In all the foregoing the hand of the careless amateur is depicted in practically every line, and his last remark rudely dispels any lingering belief I might have had in the correctness of his diagnosis. For no one who knew adult Woodchats at all and Cartwright, confessedly knew his birds very well indeed - could possibly lay stress on their being grey. Actually the only grey present is represented by two patches, one on the back, the other on the long, upper tail-coverts, and in the field it is barely noticeable. No, the adult Woodchat is virtually black and white (all white below); flying, indeed it looks black and white only. In solid fact, however, besides the grey aforementioned, there is chestnut on hind-head, nape and upper mantle, and I am bound to admit that Cartwright does speak of his specimens' napes in connection with this colouring. That, however, does not bias my unfavourable opinion. I may just add that the sexes are practically alike in plumage, only that the black portions in the male are practically alike in plumage, only that the black portions in the male are in the female largely replaced by brown and that the grey on him is on her very considerably chastened. A sentence or so on the juveniles and I will conclude. The "red" phase (for there is a greyish one as both sexes being similar in colour, is like the young of the Red-backed Shrike, except that it has deep creamy-white bases to the otherwise brown primaries, which in the case of the latter bird are brown all over.'
Comment Probably misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1911 Sussex Winchelsea, adult male, obtained, 24th July.
(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 5: 111; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 32: 281; E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 2; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1911) in British Birds, Vol. V. p. 111, says: 'On July 24th, 1911, an example of the Woodchat Shrike (Lanius pomeranus) was obtained at Winchelsea, and examined by me on July 25th, while in the flesh. It was an adult male in fine condition.'
W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1913) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXXII. p. 281, on the unexpected occurrences for 1911, says: 'Male shot, Winchelsea (Sussex), July 24th.'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 324).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1918 Kent Fairfield, male, June.
(Harrison, 1953).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Harrison (1953 (2): 230) says: 'A male in Maidstone Museum in their general collection was obtained at Fairfield, in the Romney Marsh, in June 1918.'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1920 Sussex Pett, adult male, shot, 3rd June.
(W. R. Butterfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 159; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History W. Ruskin Butterfield (1921) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 159, says: 'I examined in the flesh a fine adult male shot at Pett on June 3rd.'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 324).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1924 Isles of Scilly Annet, seen, May.
(H. M. Wallis, British Birds 18: 73; Penhallurick, 1978).
[Flood, Hudson & Thomas, 2007].
History H. M. Wallis (1924) in British Birds, Vol. XVIII. p. 73, says: 'The following notes are supplemental to those published in Vol. XVII. pp. 55 and 91, and are the result of a visit to the islands from May 24th to June 2nd, 1924....On May 25th a bird was reported to me by two observers on Annet, which from its size and coloration - black, white and chestnut head - suggested a Woodchat, but it did not stop.'
Penhallurick (1978: 214) says: 'Others were confirmed or were very probable, on Scilly in 1924.'
Flood, Hudson & Thomas (2007) make no mention of this record.
Comment Third-hand report. Details are not adequate enough. Not acceptable.
0). 1925 Sussex Pett, male, shot, 30th May.
(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 4: 26; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History N. F. Ticehurst (1928) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 26, says: 'A male, shot at Pett, May 30th, 1925 (G.B.).'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 324).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1927 Berkshire Sunningdale, female, 6th August.
("C.S." Field 3rd Nov., 1927: 701).
[B. W. Tucker, Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire 1927: 24; Radford, 1966; Swash, 1996].
History "C.S." (1927) in The Field of 3rd Nov., Vol. CXLVIII. p. 701, says: 'It may interest you to know that on August 6th I saw a female Woodchat Shrike on a large common near Sunningdale, Berks. The bird was fairly tame and I had a good view of it through binoculars.'
B. W. Tucker (1927) in the Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, p. 24, placing the record in square brackets, says: 'A female reported seen on a large common near Sunningdale on August 6th. (C.S. - Field, Nov. 3, 1927, p. 701). The bird is said to have been fairly tame and to have allowed a good view through binoculars, but no further particulars are given. We hope to obtain confirmatory details, but owing to the recorder's name and address not having been preserved by The Field have been unable to secure these at the time of going to press.'
Radford (1966) says: 'The first for Berkshire occurred in 1958 at Churn', while Swash (1996) states the first for Berkshire as 1989.
Comment Anonymous articles were unacceptable to naturalists. Not acceptable.
0). 1939 Devon Halsinger Down, near Ilfracombe, 12th March.
(F. C. Butters, E. W. Hendy, R. W. Howell & H. G. Hurrell, Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report 1940: 26).
[Moore, 1969].
History F. C. Butters, E. W. Hendy, R. W. Howell & H. G. Hurrell (1940) in the Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report, Vol. XIII. p. 26, says: 'Halsinger Down, near Ilfracombe, March 12th, 1939. One within easy view with binoculars for several minutes; noted red patch at back of neck. (A. S. Cutcliffe of Ilfracombe).'
Moore (1969) says: 'One was reported to have been seen on the unlikely date of 12 March, but the record is not fully substantiated and lacks conviction.'
0). 1946 Isles of Scilly St Helen's, male, seen, 12th May.
(B. H. Ryves, D. Valentine & H. M. Quick, Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1946: 39; Eds., British Birds 40: 379; Penhallurick, 1978).
[Flood, Hudson & Thomas, 2007].
History B. H. Ryves, D. Valentine & H. M. Quick (1948) in the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, Vol. XVI. pp. 39-40, say: 'A male of this species was identified with certainty and another bird was seen which it was thought might have been the female. The birds were observed on the western slopes of St. Helen's on May 12th. The male was constantly carrying pieces of grass into a very dense bramble bush and it was thought that the pair might have been nesting there. The bush was not examined at close quarters for fear of disturbing them. When Dr. Blair visited the site in June he failed to find the birds there. Major Dorrien Smith (in litt. 7.viii.46) says: "I have never identified it here but the records show that one was caught in a boat near Scilly Rock and several birds were seen in September, 1849".'
In an Editorial (1947) in British Birds, Vol. XL. p. 379, in a Review of the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, for 1945, they say: 'Of rare birds the most notable are: a male Woodchat at St. Helen's, Scilly, on May 12th.'
Penhallurick (1978: 214) says: 'Others were confirmed or were very probable, on Scilly in 1946.'
Not accepted locally (Flood, Hudson & Thomas 2007).
0). 1947 Sussex Pett Level, seen, 22nd June.
(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 7: 97).
[des Forges & Harber, 1963].
History N. F. Ticehurst (1948) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VII. p. 97, says: 'One, Pett Level, June 22nd (R.C.).'
0). 1953 Kent Between Sandling and Boxted Abbey, 4th July.
(E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1953: 32-33; Eds., British Birds 49: 362).
[Eds., British Birds 49: 364].
History E. H. Gillham (1953) in the Kent Bird Report, Vol. II. pp. 32-33, say: 'One apparently in worn breeding plumage between Sandling and Boxley Abbey on July 4 (E.G.P.). Seen on telegraph wires at 30-40 yards without field glasses. Broad black band very prominent through eyes; breast and underparts white (perhaps tinged pink); under tail dark with white tips; upper parts appeared brown with conspicuous white rump; white on wings not noted down at time but it was afterwards remembered that there was some other white on it besides the conspicuous rump.'
0). 1956 Essex Doddinghurst, 6th May.
(G. A. Pyman, Essex Bird Report 1956: 37).
[Hudson & Pyman, 1968; Cox, 1984].
History G. A. Pyman (1956) in the Essex Bird Report, p. 37, says: 'Doddinghurst: a male disturbed from a whitethorn hedge on May 6th (J.E.F.). Red crown and pied plumage with large, dazzling white patch on scapulars were among the features noted.'
Hudson & Pyman (1968) say: 'One recorded from Doddinghurst on 6th May 1956 was considered not to be fully substantiated after viewing all the available information.'
