Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross
Thalassarche chlororhynchos (Gmelin, JF, 1789)
Photo © By JJ Harrison (https://www.jjharrison.com.au/) - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16589531
STATUS
Atlantic Ocean. Monotypic.
OVERVIEW
Species not admitted nationally during the period covered (BOU 1971).
NOT PROVEN
0). 1836 Lincolnshire River Trent, Stockwith, near Gainsborough, shot, 25th November.
(Analyst 6: 160; Anon., Wood's Naturalist 2: 104, 294; J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1876: 4883-84; W. R. P. Bourne, Ibis 109: 148).
[Editor, Derbyshire Times 1879; W. R. P. Bourne, British Birds 60: 378-379; BOU, 1971; Lorand & Atkin, 1989].
History Anon. (1837) in Wood's edition of The Naturalist, Vol. II. p. 104, quoting from the Analyst, No. XIX. April 1837, says: 'On November, 1836, a beautiful specimen of the Yellow-nosed Albatross (Diomedea chlororhynchus, Lath.) was observed sailing above the river Trent, at Stockwith, near Gainsborough, and was shot nearly opposite the Chesterfield canal basin. Thus, according to the rule generally agreed on by naturalists, this bird may now be included in the British fauna. There are four species of Albatross; the Diomedea exulans, or Common Albatross (and not the Yellow-nosed species, as erroneously supposed by the newspapers) being the largest.'
J. H. Gurney, jun. (1876) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. XI. pp. 4883-84, in the April, 1876, issue, says: 'The following is the passage about the albatross to which I referred (s.s. 2563): - "The Yellow-nosed Albatross a British Bird.- On November [25th], 1836, a beautiful specimen of the Yellow-nosed Albatross (Diomedea chlororhynchos, Lath.) was observed sailing above the River Trent at Stockwith, near Gainsborough, and was shot nearly opposite the Chesterfield canal basin". - Analyst, April, 1837 (Vol. VI. p. 160). The above will be found copied into Wood's Naturalist (Vol. II. p. 104), and commented on at p. 294. For a sight of it in that magazine I am indebted to Prof. Newton.
Unfortunately my copy of the Analyst does not go beyond 1836, but I am informed by that gentleman that the notice in the main, is correctly copied. Now a point at once strikes me, which I should have seen before if I had been able to refer to the notice when I first wrote to you - Chesterfield is the locality where the second albatross was shot, which was received with so much ridicule, and which turned out to be a stuffed one which had been killed years before, and been rejected, as was supposed, from some local museum, and which was made to do duty a second time. It is hardly likely that this could have been the same which there is reason to believe was really shot in 1836, and yet there must be some connection. Another point of similarity is that they appear to have both been first recorded in provincial papers and copied afterwards into journals of Natural History. That the occurrence of November, 1836, really was an albatross, corroborative proof is given by the Editor of The Ibis for 1868 (Prof. Newton), who in an editorial note (at p. 294), says that two specimens of Diomedea chlororhynchos "seems undoubtedly to have been killed near Kongsberg, in Norway, in April, 1837", - five months before the capture at Chesterfield. The coincidence of date is very remarkable. I submit these remarks to your readers, and I hope that something further will turn up in the matter, about which we cannot be said to have too much light at present.'
W. R. P. Bourne (1967) in The Ibis, Vol. CIX. p. 148, says: 'Unfortunately no further information can be traced concerning the specimen, unless it was the albatross later alleged to have been shot at Chesterfield on 2 November 1870 which was later reported to be a discarded museum specimen (Field 1870: 26 Nov., 4 and 17 Dec.; Zoologist 1871: 2527-63).'
Lorand & Atkin (1989) say: 'Without a specimen or further details it is unacceptable for Lincolnshire.'
Comment In a review of all seabirds by W. R. P. Bourne (Ibis 109: 141-167) the BOU (1971) under 'Introduction' p. xiv, adopted his recommendations and this record was not admitted. Not acceptable.
