Golden-crowned Kinglet

Regulus satrapa Lichtenstein, MHK, 1823

Photo © Unknown

STATUS

Canada and North America. Polytypic.

OVERVIEW

Species not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

---

NOT PROVEN

0). 1897 Greater Manchester Wharmton Clough, Oldham, Lancashire, shot, 19th October.

(F. J. Stubbs, Lancashire & Cheshire Fauna Committee Report 1922: 13-15).

[W. B. Alexander & R. S. R. Fitter, British Birds 48: 11; Not in BOU, 1971].

History F. J. Stubbs (1922) in the Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Committee 8th Report, pp. 13-15, says: 'On October 10th, 1897, as recorded in an old ornithological note book, I shot a male Goldcrest in Wharmton Clough near Oldham. This bird, as I remember, was duly stuffed; and, some time later, between the spring of 1898 and 1902, it was placed with an owl under a glass shade. Here it remained, in my parents' house, until September 1921. Then happening to examine the bird with a riper eye than I possessed in 1897, I saw at once that the bird was certainly no Goldcrest, and as certainly a Firecrest. I carried the specimen home with me for closer examination, and was led to think it neither the Goldcrest (Regulus regulus) nor the much rarer Firecrest (R. ignacapillus), but the North American "Goldcrested Kinglet" (Regulus satrapa), a species hitherto unrecorded for Europe. Briefly described, R. satrapa resembles the Firecrest, but lacks the bright golden olive on the sides of the neck, and lacks also all traces of yellow or buff on the white line on the forehead above the beak.

A close examination of the specimen showed that it had been stuffed in the regulation way used by me as a clumsy novice in 1897. The tow body was wrapped with yarn from a "cop", sure proof that the taxidermist had been in touch with a cotton-spinning district. Before 1902 I had not handled prepared skins, and had never stuffed a bird "from the skin". Enquiries of my parents and interested bird contemporaries of 1897, and a full survey of my own books, and the records of the Oldham Museum, give no grounds for suspecting that any substitution has taken place. From 1902 onwards, with access to a better library (including the Cat. Birds British Museum), my practice was to examine minutely every bird, British or Foreign, coming to my hands. During these years the badly-stuffed "Goldcrest" was always in sight, but escaped attention because it was a poor specimen. And it had, also, been already "Named"; although, as I now find, the literature available by me in 1897 would certainly have led to its recognition as Goldcrest and not as Firecrest. None of the books, and none then at the Oldham Library, mentioned R. satrapa. The specimen escaped destruction simply because it was safe in the negligible "domestic ornament" of a shade; and also because there was the sentimental interest attaching to the smallest European bird, shot near home, and stuffed by myself. I never shot another Goldcrest, but stuffed several. The only preserved Goldcrests acquired after 1903 by the Oldham Museum were all in existence up to 1909. There is no doubt whatever that my own bird was in its shade before 1904, and almost certainly before 1902. While fully alive to the possibility of exchange, I have up to now failed altogether to find or remember anything altering my opinion that this Regulus satrapa is the very bird I shot in Lancashire in 1897.

Assuming that the history of the specimen is beyond doubt, it must be said that our present knowledge of bird movements (slight as this may be) prevents us from believing that so frail a bird could cross the Atlantic unaided: and, of course, the Goldcrest as no imported cage-bird is quite out of the question.

Mr. Coward, on the assumption that no part exchange of specimens has taken place, and assuming also that no Goldcrest can cross the Atlantic, suggests a western journey via Alaska and Siberia. To me, speaking without any deep knowledge, the date seems too early for an autumnal migrant travelling so far. Mr. Coward, and with reason, goes so far as to doubt if my bird is really satrapa; and, after examining with him the "Dresser Collection" and other groups in the Manchester Museum, I am inclined to recognise this as a possible loophole in a very unsatisfactory position. In one thing we agree - that no species should be added to the British list, and far less to the European list, unless every possible avenue of error has been closed. The long period of twenty-four years during which my specimen has remained unexamined might allow anything to happen, although an exchange is beyond our memories and also beyond our imaginations.

There is, however, the other aspect. Theoretically no White's Thrush could visit England; but we know this bird to be almost a regular visitor to Europe. Also by theory, no American Regulus can visit England. Ignorant as we are of the methods of locomotion employed by long-distance migrants, no one can say that such a journey is absolutely impossible. My Intention was to accept the easy solution that the bird of 1897 has been lost, and that, in some manner unknown, a very unlikely (for Oldham) American skin has been stuffed and substituted without the knowledge of either myself or my parents who have had the glass shade and its contents always before their eyes.

This solution seems rather too easy to be wise. I am strongly of opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to place Regulus satrapa on the European list; and yet I feel that some published note may lead to a closer scrutiny of the members of this genus observed in Britain; and, conceivably, such attention may prove that we do indeed receive authentic visitors from across the Atlantic. This embarrassing little specimen I have handed over to the Oldham Museum.'

[Note: Mr. Stubbs submitted the above specimen to me and I passed it on to Mr. H. F. Witherby, who after comparing it with the series of R. satrapa in the British Museum confirms its apparent identity with that species. At the same time we know that we have not yet a perfect knowledge of geographical variation and it is possible that, though yet undiscovered, an Asiatic Firecrest may exist which closely corresponds with the American bird. It is well, as Mr. Stubbs suggests, that all Firecrests should be critically examined; the problem may some day be elucidated. T. A. Coward.]

W. B. Alexander & R. S. R. Fitter (1955) in British Birds, Vol. XLVIII. p. 11, say: 'A record that was not published till 1922 (Stubbs, 1922) and is not mentioned in The Handbook. The bird was identified as R. satrapa by the late H. F. Witherby, but because it was believed that it could not have crossed the Atlantic, it was considered more likely to belong to a hitherto undiscovered Asiatic race of Firecrest (R. ignicapillus).'