Ferruginous Duck (2/2)
Aythya nyroca (Güldenstädt, 1770) (172, 68)
Photo © By Nikolaj Petkov - Free Images from Bulgaria, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19442165
NOT PROVEN
0). 1771 Lincolnshire No locality, male, obtained, undated.
(Pennant, 1776; Montagu, 1802).
[Selby, 1833].
History Pennant (1776 (2): 601) says: 'The description of this species was sent to us by Mr. Bolton. The weight was twenty ounces: the bill is long and flatted, rounded a little at the base, serrated along the edges of each mandible, and furnished with a nail at the end of the upper. The colour a pale blue. The head, neck, and whole upper part of the bird is of an agreeable reddish brown; the throat, breast and belly of the same colour, but paler; the legs of a pale blue; but the webs of the feet black. This species, he informed us, was killed in Lincolnshire.'
Montagu (1802) after copying the description from Pennant, says: 'Mr. Pennant informs us this bird was killed in Lincolnshire. It is the only specimen on record in England. No mention is made respecting the difference of sexes, or whether that above described was male or female.'
Selby (1833 (2): 352) says: 'As it still appears doubtful to what species the Ferruginous Duck of Pennant's British Zoology should be referred, I have quoted the synonym in the present instance, with a query as to its correctness. Montagu, in the Supplement to his Ornithological Dictionary, conceived Pennant's bird to be the female of the one he described under the title of the Ferruginous Duck, but which, according to his description, seems to have been a young male of the Nyroca.
Afterwards, in his Appendix to the Supplement, upon an examination of the proper female of the Nyroca, he changed his opinion, being unable to reconcile it with the short account in Pennant; and the subject of which, he there suggests, may possibly be the Nyroca in its young state, though he seems more inclined (from the figure in Pennant's work) to suppose it to be actually a female Wigeon in the autumnal plumage.'
Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1804-05 Norfolk Great Yarmouth, obtained, undated.
(Sowerby, 1806).
[Dye, Fiszer & Allard, 2009].
History Sowerby (1806: 43) under Olive-tufted Duck, says: 'Gen. Char.: Beak with lamellar teeth, convex, obtuse. Tongue ciliated, obtuse. Spec. Char.: Blackish olivaceous. Head, throat, breast, and flanks chestnut. Belly whitish. Rump black. Vent snowy.
This bird, by Dr. Latham, has been thought a variety of the Tufted Duck, Anas fuligala; but he appears not to have seen it. The bill seems partly to warrant his opinion; but if any thing is to be depended on in the plumage, we must consider it a different species. It was sent from Yarmouth by our friend D. Turner, Esq.'
Dye, Fiszer & Allard (2009) state that one was illustrated in May 1805 by Sowerby from a specimen sent from Yarmouth, however, they go on to say that the first fully authenticated record was of two birds in 1824 from the same place.
0). Pre 1805 Essex Hare Street, male, shot, undated.
(Bewick, 1797-1805).
[KAN].
History Bewick (1805 (2): 337-338) says: 'A coloured drawing (On comparing Mr. Cornforth's drawing with a stuffed specimen from the Ravensworth Museum, it was found to be tolerably accurate), from which the above figure was engraven, was presented to this work by the late Rev. William Cornforth, of Long Stanton Rectory, near Cambridge.
He esteemed it a very rare bird, not having seen it before, nor its description in any work on ornithology. It was shot on a pond near the little village of Hare-street, Essex.
It measures in length sixteen inches and a half. The bill from the tip to the brow is one inch and three-quarters long, deep at the base, flattish at the point, and of a dark lead colour, with the nail black; the irides white; the head, upper part of the neck, and breast, are of a brilliant dark reddish chestnut; the sides, and the feathers which cover the thighs, are also of that colour, but of a duller cast, and the belly the same, but much mottled and broken with white; the tail, rump, and upper tail coverts black; the under pure white, which forms a strong contrast with the black, which drops down before the vent feathers towards the thighs; the upper plumage is dusky brown; a collar of the same colour surrounds the middle of the neck, and passing behind, becomes uniform with the colour of the shoulders and the back; the secondary quills are black at the tips, and white at the base, and form the speculum or oblique bar across the closed wing; the quills are short, reaching only to the rump, near the root of the tail; the legs are dusky.'
Comment This record appears to have been overlooked by the Essex County Records Committee. Although it has a locality it is undated and would appear not to have been published in the literature of the day. Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1813 County unknown No locality, male, shot, undated.
(Montagu, 1813).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History Montagu (1813) under 'Ferruginous Duck', says: 'Till lately we never had met with any species of Duck which could be referred to the Ferruginous originally described by Mr. Pennant, and which was without doubt a female.
A specimen which we suspect is the male, shot in the north of England (we believe in the Humber), is now before us; a description of which cannot fail to be interesting to the Ornithologist.
Length about nineteen inches; bill rather long, and deep at the base, flattish at the point, and of a dark lead-colour, with the nail black. Head and neck small, of a dark ferruginous; the lower part of the neck behind, back, scapulars, coverts of the wings, and upper coverts of the tail dusky brown, with a slight tinge of ferruginous; on the chin is a small spot of dirty white; the lower part of the neck before, and the whole breast chestnut; beneath which the body is white to the thighs, which, with the part between them as far as the vent, are brown, minutely speckled, becoming black about the vent; behind that, including the under tail-coverts, white; the feathers on the sides under the wings, extending to the thighs, are bright ferruginous; the primary quills are whitish at their base, dusky at the tips and on the outer webs, becoming less so as they approach the secondaries, which are wholly white except the points, and form a white speculum on the wing when closed; the tertials, and the coverts immediately impending the secondaries, are dusky, bronzed with green; the other darker parts of the plumage partake more or less of metallic lustre in some points of view, especially the scapulars; the under scapulars are white; the tail is a trifle cuneiform, consisting of fourteen dusky brown feathers slightly tinged with ferruginous; feet rather large, which with the webs and legs are lead-colour; the middle toe rather longer than the outer one; claws black. The eyes appeared to have been yellow; but the sex could not be ascertained; the brightness of the plumage, however, should indicate the gender to be masculine.
We really suspect this to be the Ferruginous Duck of the British Zoology and copied from that work by all succeeding writers. It is most certainly the Olive-tufted Duck of the British Miscellany; and we think there can be no doubt that it is the Nyroca of Gmelin.
It must be confessed many of the Duck tribe are still in great obscurity, as it is well known that some species differ so essentially in their plumage at different ages and seasons, that naturalists have been, and will continue to be, at variance with each other, and occasionally with themselves.
Thus the Nyroca was originally considered by Doctor Latham as one of the varieties of the Fuligula, but in the latter works of that author it is given as a distinct species.'
Comment Is this the 1771 Lincolnshire record? Lacks a precise date and locality for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1824 Norfolk Near Great Yarmouth, two killed, undated.
(R. Sheppard & W. Whitear, Transactions of the Linnean Society 15: 58; Babington, 1884-86; Southwell, 1890; Ticehurst, 1932; Taylor, Seago, Allard & Dorling, 1999).
[Dye, Fiszer & Allard, 2009].
History R. Sheppard & W. Whitear (1826) in the Transactions of the Linnean Society, Vol. XV. p. 58, say: 'Mr. Wigg has had two specimens of the Castaneous Duck, both killed at different times in the neighbourhood of Yarmouth. One of them was preserved by Mr. Youell; the flavour of the other was said to have been excellent.'
Babington (1884-86: 186) adds: '...one in Mr. Wigg's possession; preserved by Youell, and figured in Hunt's British Ornithology, II. (see p. 341).'
Accepted locally for Suffolk (Ticehurst 1932: 288) but Piotrowski (2003: 15) states that birds at 'Yarmouth' or 'near Yarmouth' are not included for Suffolk unless absolutely clear on location.
Comment See the general notes about the Castanaceous Duck, which was supposed to be the female of this species. It was Mr. Wigg who ate the Red-breasted Goose, which was lost to science. Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1825 Norfolk No locality, obtained, undated.
(R. Sheppard & W. Whitear, Transactions of the Linnean Society 15: 58).
[KAN].
History R. Sheppard & W. Whitear (1826) in the Transactions of the Linnean Society, Vol. XV. p. 58, say: 'We have also been informed that the Rev. George Glover had a bird of this species, which was shot in Norfolk a few years since.'
Comment Second-hand report. Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). 1826 Norfolk Rockland Broad, female, killed, 25th November.
(Southwell, 1890).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History Southwell, Editor (1890 (3): 209) in Stevenson's Birds of Norfolk, says: 'This female killed at Rockland, on November 25th, 1826 was recorded in Mr. Lombe's notes.'
Comment Yarrell's History of British Birds had an accurate description of both sexes that wasn't published until 1843 and Montagu (1802, 1813) was in a mess over this species. This record therefore is suspect. Not known to have been seen by a competent authority for a first record for Britain. Not acceptable.
0). 1828 Norfolk Near Great Yarmouth, adult male, obtained, 20th May.
("T.W.S." Loudon's Magazine of Natural History 1: 290).
History "T.W.S." (1828) in Loudon's Magazine of Natural History, Vol. I. p. 290, dated 20 June 1828, says: 'Anas nyroca (Castanaceous Duck), an old male bird, taken May 20.'
Comment Anonymous records were unacceptable to ornithologists. Not acceptable.
0) Pre 1843 Upper Forth Firth of Forth, obtained, winter.
(Turnbull, 1863; Saunders, 1899; Bolam, 1912; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
[I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 70-71].
History Turnbull (1863, 1st ed.) says: 'Sir William Jardine has seen it in Edinburgh market, among other wild duck.' Saunders (1899, 2nd ed.) says: 'In Scotland this duck has been obtained once (perhaps twice) in the Firth of Forth in winter.'
Bolam (1912) says: 'Sir William Jardine, writing in The Naturalists' Library, prior to 1843, says, that he once found a fresh bird of this species in the Edinburgh market.'
Comment Perhaps Jardine's specimen and Saunders are the same. Lacks adequate details. Not admitted in a review of the species (I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 70-71). Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1848 Gower Penclawdd Canal, near Swansea, Glamorgan, shot, undated.
(Dillwyn, 1848; D. S. W. Nicholl, Zoologist 1889: 170-171; Cardiff Naturalists' Society, Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society 1925: 66; G. C. S. Ingram & H. Morrey Salmon, British Birds 33: 278-279).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History D. S. W. Nicholl of Cowbridge (1889) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIII. pp. 170-171, says: 'The Ferruginous Duck is recorded by Mr. Dillwyn in his Fauna and Flora of Swansea.'
Cardiff Naturalists' Society (1925) in the Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society, Vol. LVIII. p. 66, say: 'Dillwyn records one shot by Mr. Moggridge on the Penclawdd Canal (Fauna and Flora of Swansea 1848).'
G. C. S. Ingram & H. Morrey Salmon (1939-40) in British Birds, Vol. XXXIII. pp. 278-279, say: '...There is only one previous record of this species in Glamorgan, one shot near Swansea, prior to 1848.'
Accepted locally (Taylor 2008: 13).
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1848 Orkney No locality, female, killed, undated.
(Baikie & Heddle, 1848).
[Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891; Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984; I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71].
History Baikie & Heddle (1848: 80) say: 'It has been observed in Orkney, though very rarely. We have been unable to collect any particulars concerning its visits.'
Comment Not admitted in a review of Scottish records (I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71).
0). 1848 Suffolk Coastal locality, obtained, April.
(F. W. Johnson, Zoologist 1848: 2230).
[Ticehurst, 1932].
History F. W. Johnson of Ipswich (1848) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VI. p. 2230, dated 18th August, 1848, says: 'A fine specimen of this rare species was sent to me from Leadenhall Market early in April, which I am assured by the dealer who supplied it, was killed on the Suffolk coast.'
Ticehurst (1932: 289) says: 'One, said to be from the Suffolk coast, April 1848.'
Comment Ticehurst's wording says it all. Lacks adequate details. Not acceptable.
0). 1849-50 Kent Near Dover, shot, winter.
(Morris, 1863-67).
[Ticehurst, 1909].
History Morris (1863-67 (7): 65, reissue) says: 'Mr. Chaffey, of Dodington, Kent, has informed me that one was killed off the coast near Dover, in the winter of 1849-50.'
Ticehurst (1909: 364) says: 'The first record is the one given by Morris, on Chaffey's authority, of a bird shot off the coast near Dover in the winter of 1849-50. If the bird had been in Chaffey's collection he would probably have told Morris so, as he did in other instances, so that this bird may be the one that is now in the Dover Museum labelled 'From Mr. Burgess' collection, purchased in 1860.' But here, again, the absence of proper history and labels renders the specimen of little value.'
0). c. 1850 Cumbria No locality, female, shot, undated.
(Yarrell, 1871-85).
[Hutcheson, 1986].
History Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 419, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'In Cumberland the only instance appears to be that of a female, purchased in Carlisle market about the year 1850, as the Editor is informed by the Rev. H. A. Macpherson.' Not accepted locally (Hutcheson 1986).
0). Pre 1852 Lothian No locality, undated.
(MacGillivray, 1852; Turnbull, 1863; Saunders, 1899).
[Baxter & Rintoul, 1953; I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71].
History MacGillivray (1852 (4): 114) says: 'Sir William Jardine recollects having seen a fresh specimen in the Edinburgh market.'
Turnbull (1863: 15) says: 'Sir William Jardine has seen it in Edinburgh market, among other wild ducks.'
Baxter and Rintoul (1953) failed to trace the second 'possible' Firth of Forth record referred to by Saunders (1899, 2nd ed.) and perpetuated by Witherby et al. (1940-52), but it was speculated that it was possibly this bird.
Comment Market specimens are always doubtful especially as to the location they came from. Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not admitted in a review of Scottish records (I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71).
0). 1853 Cheshire & Wirral Newton-cum-Larton, Wirral, shot, November.
(Byerley, 1856; Hardy, 1941).
[Coward & Oldham, 1900; Coward, 1910].
History Coward & Oldham (1900: 168) recording the record in square brackets, say: 'Two examples of this rare Duck are reported by Byerley to have been obtained in Cheshire: one killed on the Mersey at Weston in January 1854, and the other at Newton-cum-Larton in November 1853. It is impossible to verify these records, as unfortunately neither of the birds appears to have been preserved.'
Hardy (1941) says: 'Byerley in the Fauna of Liverpool notes "one shot at Newton-cum-Larton, Wirral, November, 1853" (Proclamations of the Literary and Philosophical Society ).'
Comment Saunders (1899, 2nd ed.) didn't mention Cheshire as one of the accepted counties, and Hedley Bell (1962) quoting Coward (1910) rejected it for lack of a specimen or verification. Hardy and Byerley were both unreliable in their records, so caution is exercised. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1854 North-east Scotland Loch of Strathbeg, undated.
(T. Edward, Morris & Bree's Naturalist 4: 242; W. Horn, Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow 1880: 255; H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 8: 370).
[Sim, 1903; I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71].
History T. Edward (1854) in Morris & Bree's edition of The Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 242, says: 'The Pintail, (Anas acuta), the Ferruginous Duck (A. ferruginea) the Harlequin Garrot (A. histrionica) and the gaudy Shoveler (A. clypeata) have all occurred.'
W. Horn (1880) in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow, Vol. IV. p. 255, says 'Ferruginous Duck. Fuligula nyroca. Occasionally met with at Strathbeg.'
H. M. Drummond Hay (1885-86) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 367, under 'Report of the East of Scotland Union', says: 'Occasional on Loch of Strathbeg (Mr. Horn, Proc. Nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow, 1880, p. 255.'
Sim (1903: 150) placing the record in square brackets, says: 'With his usual ambiguity, Edward says this species has "occurred" at the Loch of Strathbeg (Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 242).'
Comment Not admitted in a review of Scottish records (I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71).
0). 1854 Cheshire & Wirral Weston Point, Weaver Estuary, shot, January.
(Byerley, 1856; Mitchell, 1885; Saunders, 1892; Saunders, 1899; Hardy, 1941).
[Coward & Oldham, 1900].
History Howard Saunders (1892: 175, 2nd ed.) in the revised edition of Mitchell's Birds of Lancashire, says: 'Byerley (Fauna of Liverpool, 1856) states that a specimen of this rare duck was killed at Weston, which is on the Cheshire side of the Mersey, near Runcorn, in January 1854.'
Saunders (1899, 2nd ed.) admitted one for Lancashire. Coward & Oldham (1900: 168) placing the record in square brackets, say: 'Two examples of this rare Duck are reported by Byerley to have been obtained in Cheshire: one killed on the Mersey at Weston in January 1854, and the other at Newton-cum-Larton in November 1853. It is impossible to verify these records, as unfortunately neither of the birds appears to have been preserved.'
0). 1854 Orkney No locality, female, killed, undated.
(Groundwater, 1974).
[Buckley & Harvie-Brown, 1891; Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds, 1984; I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71].
History Buckley & Harvie-Brown (1891: 176) recording the record in square brackets, say: 'one of the authors, the late Mr. Robert Heddle, had a note of one killed in 1854 – a female.'
Booth, Cuthbert & Reynolds (1984) say: '...that although recorded down the years by Orkney writers, it had not been accepted generally.'
Comment Not admitted in a review of Scottish records (I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71). Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1857 Cornwall Falmouth, shot, undated.
(W. P. Cocks, Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society Report 1857: 77; Penhallurick, 1969; S. M. Christophers, Birds in Cornwall 1984: 28).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History W. P. Cocks (1857) in the Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society Report, p. 77, says: 'This bird was purchased by a clergyman in the neighbourhood, from Mrs. Dunning, game-dealer, High-street: locality doubtful.'
Penhallurick (1969) quoting from the Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society says: 'One purchased at Mrs. Dunning's game shop in Falmouth was presumably shot somewhere locally.'
Accepted as the first for Cornwall (S. M. Christophers, Birds in Cornwall 1984: 28).
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record, also details regarding its source. Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.
0). 1857 Angus & Dundee Tay Estuary, two, shot, early in the year.
(Saunders, 1899; Baxter & Rintoul, 1953).
[I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 70-71].
History Saunders (1899, 2nd ed.) wrote that 'two were killed on the Tay early in 1857 (W. Evans).' This is the only information available – nonetheless it still gets a mention in Witherby et al. (1940-52).
Comment Not admitted in a review of Scottish records (I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 70-71). Not acceptable.
0). 1857 Moray & Nairn Moray Firth, shot, undated.
(Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1896).
[Cook, 1992].
History Harvie-Brown & Buckley (1896 (2): 112) say: 'In Small's 'List of Birds sent for Preservation' we find included, under Morayshire, a specimen procured previous to the 10th February 1857 (this being the date of its reaching his hands). Mr. Small informs us it was bought by the late Mr. Dassouville, out of Muirhead's - the poulterer's- shop in Queen Street, Edinburgh, as having come from the punt-shooters in the Moray Firth, and was noted in the Royal Physical Society's Transactions.' Not accepted locally as the record cannot be corroborated (Cook 1992: 62).
0). 1860 Greater London St James's Park Canal, London, seen, January; presumed same, December.
(H. Hussey, Zoologist 1860: 6922; H. Hussey, Zoologist 1864: 9050).
[Harting, 1866].
History Henry Hussey of Hyde Park Square (1860) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XVIII. p. 6922, dated 25th February, 1860, says: 'Having for several years paid particular attention to the aquatic birds in the different London waters, I have often seen there wild-fowl (as they are commonly called), of some four or five species, with perfect wings. As no wild bird, with its powers of flight unimpaired, would be likely to stay for half an hour after it was turned out in any of these waters, I have always supposed that these birds must be London bred, that is, hatched in the Zoological Gardens (or perhaps in the Regent's or St James's Park), and that they merely stayed in town for the season until their migrating time came.
Some of your correspondents perhaps can enlighten me on the subject.
I have notes of the following birds with perfect wings, when and where seen: St James's Park Canal, 1860. January. A Ferruginous (or White-eyed) Duck.'
Henry Hussey of Hyde Park Square (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9050, says: 'St James Park Canal: a Ferruginous Duck.' However, Harting (1866: 236) says: 'So far as I am aware, the Ferruginous Duck, has only once occurred in Middlesex, if we except the birds seen by Mr. Hussey, which it is not certain were not escaped and semi-domesticated specimens.'
Comment The December sighting is deemed to be a returning individual. Probable escape. Not acceptable.
0). 1861 Greater London St James's Park Canal, seen, February and April; presumed same, Round Pond, Kensington Gardens, male, seen, October; returning individual.
(H. Hussey, Zoologist 1864: 9050).
[Harting, 1866].
History Henry Hussey of Hyde Park Square (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9050, says: 'One in February and a male in April.' However, Harting (1866: 236) says: 'So far as I am aware, the Ferruginous Duck, has only once occurred in Middlesex, if we except the birds seen by Mr. Hussey, which it is not certain were not escaped and semi-domesticated specimens.'
Comment Treated as one and the same and also a returning individual of the previous year. Probable escape. Not acceptable.
0). 1861 Greater London Round Pond, Kensington Gardens, female, seen, April; presumed same, seen, October.
(H. Hussey, Zoologist 1864: 9050).
[Harting, 1866].
History Henry Hussey of Hyde Park Square (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9050, says: 'Round Pond, Kensington Gardens, a female Ferruginous Duck.' However, Harting (1866: 236) says: 'So far as I am aware, the Ferruginous Duck, has only once occurred in Middlesex, if we except the birds seen by Mr. Hussey, which it is not certain were not escaped and semi-domesticated specimens.'
Comment Probable escape. Not acceptable.
0). 1862 Greater London St James's Park Canal, male, seen, October and November, when joined by another; both returning individuals.
(H. Hussey, Zoologist 1864: 9051).
[Harting, 1866].
History Henry Hussey of Hyde Park Square (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9051, says: 'St James's Park Canal, male Ferruginous Duck in October and two there in November.' However, Harting (1866: 236) says: 'So far as I am aware, the Ferruginous Duck, has only once occurred in Middlesex, if we except the birds seen by Mr. Hussey, which it is not certain were not escaped and semi-domesticated specimens.'
Comment Probable escape. Not acceptable.
0). 1863 Greater London St James's Park Canal, seen, May; returning individual.
(H. Hussey, Zoologist 1864: 9051).
[Harting, 1866].
History Henry Hussey of Hyde Park Square (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9051, says: 'St James's Park Canal, Ferruginous Duck in May.' However, Harting (1866: 236) says: 'So far as I am aware, the Ferruginous Duck, has only once occurred in Middlesex, if we except the birds seen by Mr. Hussey, which it is not certain were not escaped and semi-domesticated specimens.'
Comment Probable escape. Not acceptable.
0). 1863-64 Suffolk Near Aldeburgh, female, shot, winter.
(N. F. Hele, Field 16th Jan., 1864: 52).
[N. F. Hele, Field 30th Jan., 1864: 86].
History Fenwick Hele of Aldeburgh (1864) in The Field of 16th Jan., Vol. XXIII. p. 52, says: 'Many wildfowl have been killed on our rivers and shores during the past cold weather, but there has been an entire absence of rarities worth reporting, with the exception of a female duck (the photograph of which I enclose), which was shot by Capt. Ferrand.
I can find no description answering to it in "Morris", &c. The "punters" about here tell me it is rare, and called by them "pochard", in contradistinction to the dunbird, which they call the "pochard" pronouncing the ch soft. I can only think it is an immature female of the Ferruginous Duck.
The gizzard contained only a few small gravel stones. I believe their usual food consists of crabs and small shell-fish.
The back of the bird throughout is dusky brown, and the white marks shown in the photograph are merely the cotton used for keeping the specimen together whilst drying.'
[We think the bird a Pochard; but the photograph is not sufficiently clear to be of much assistance in forming a conclusion. - Ed.]
Fenwick Hele of Aldeburgh (1864) in The Field of 30th Jan., Vol. XXIII. p. 86, says: 'The duck - the photograph of which I sent you a fortnight ago - turns out to be an immature female Eider Duck (Somateria mollissima). They are very uncommon in this locality, and the male has never been seen here.'
0). Pre 1866 Nottinghamshire River Trent, near Newark, shot, winter.
(Felkin, 1866: Whitaker, 1907).
[KAN].
History Felkin (1866: 55) says: 'My only record of this duck is from Mr. Foottit, who obtained one specimen in winter, below Newark.' Accepted locally (Whitaker 1907: 202).
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). 1867 Norfolk No locality, shot, undated.
(Southwell 1890).
[Southwell, 1890].
History Southwell, Editor (1890) in Stevenson's Birds of Norfolk, Vol. III. p. 210, says: 'Mr. J. H. Gurney on the 18th December 1867, saw this specimen for sale in Leadenhall Market, and said to be from Norfolk.'
Comment Lacks adequate supporting details. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1884 Cambridgeshire No locality, obtained, undated.
(Jenyns MS.; Yarrell, 1871-85; Marr & Shipley, 1904).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History Howard Saunders (1884-85 (4): 418-410, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's History of British Birds, says: 'It has also been obtained in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.' A. H. Evans (1904) under 'The Birds of Cambridgeshire' in Marr & Shipley's Handbook to the Natural History of Cambridgeshire, pp. 94-95, says: 'Has occurred once in the county. (See Yarrell's British Birds, IV. ed. IV. p. 418 and Jenyns' (Fauna Cantabridgiensis MS. in the University Museum of Zoology).'
Comment Lacks a precise date and location for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1887 Wiltshire Lake House, River Avon, Woodford Valley, caught, undated.
(Smith, 1887; Wiltshire Ornithological Society, 2007).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 162-163].
History Smith (1887: 488-489) says: '...and for information as to the third, I am indebted to the Rev. E. Duke, of Lake House, who kindly wrote me word that a specimen had been captured on the river there.'
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.
0). 1889 Kent Whitstable, shot, 20th February.
(Ticehurst, 1909; Harrison, 1953).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History Ticehurst (1909: 364) says: 'There is another bird, however, whose history appears to be quite satisfactory. It was shot off Whitstable on the 20th February, 1889, by Peter Kemp, the wildfowler, and is stuffed and in his possession. For a knowledge of this specimen I am indebted to Mr. H. W. Finlinson.'
Harrison (1953 (1): 164) says: 'A fully accepted occurrence refers to one shot by Peter Kemp, the wildfowler, on February 20th, 1889, off Whitstable.'
Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) say: 'Because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.'
Comment Not accepted locally by Kent Ornithological Society. Not acceptable.
0). 1889-90 Montgomeryshire Churchstoke, female, shot, winter.
(Forrest, 1907; Holt & Williams, 2009).
[KAN].
History Forrest (1907: 286) says: 'The Rev. W. R. Jones informs me that he shot a female example of this species on a pond near Churchstoke in the winter of 1889-90. It was cooked for the table but proved unpalatable.'
Accepted locally (Holt & Williams 2009: 16).
Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.
0). Pre 1891 Hampshire Ovington, obtained, undated.
(Kelsall & Munn, 1905).
[J. A. Eyre & R. B. Wynn, Hampshire Bird Report 2000: 36].
History Kelsall & Munn (1905: 239) say: 'Mr. Chalkley, the well-known naturalist of Winchester, informed Mr. Sutton Davies in 1891 that he knew of a specimen obtained at Ovington not long before.'
No records prior to 1950 accepted locally (J. A. Eyre & R. B. Wynn, Hampshire Bird Report 2000: 36).
0). 1892 Hampshire Hurstbourne, shot, December.
(Kelsall & Munn, 1905).
[J. A. Eyre & R. B. Wynn, Hampshire Bird Report 2000: 36].
History Kelsall & Munn (1905: 239) say: 'Lord Portsmouth, writing to Kelsall in February, 1893, says that during the previous December he shot in the osier-beds at Hurstbourne 'what appears to be the Ferruginous Duck', and adds that it was being preserved. This species is omitted from Mr. Meade-Waldo's list.'
No records prior to 1950 accepted locally (J. A. Eyre & R. B. Wynn, Hampshire Bird Report 2000: 36).
0). 1894 Norfolk Near Great Yarmouth, immature male, shot, 9th October.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1895: 101; Patterson, 1904; Patterson, 1905; Ticehurst, 1932).
[KAN].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Norwich (1895) in The Zoologist, 3rd series, Vol. XIX. p. 101, says: 'October 9th. A young male White-eyed Duck, Fuligula nyroca, was shot at Yarmouth (G. Smith).'
Patterson (1904: 49) says: 'A Ferruginous Duck (Fuligula nyroca) hung amongst other ducks on Durrant's stall in Yarmouth market-place on October 1894. It was passed and re-passed during the day by several 'bird-men', and was then accidentally recognised by a local skin-dealer, who was 'feeling' the fowl in a casual, cook-like manner.'
Patterson (1905: 181) adds no further details.
Accepted locally for Suffolk (Ticehurst 1932: 289) but Piotrowski (2003: 15) states that birds at 'Yarmouth' or 'near Yarmouth' are not included for Suffolk unless absolutely clear on location.
Comment George Smith was a dealer in birds and found to be untrustworthy. Not acceptable.
0). 1898 Highland Kyleakin, Skye, Skye & Lochalsh, adult male, shot, May, now at Wick Museum.
(D. Pennie & J. M. Gunn, Scottish Naturalist 63: 196-197).
[A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 65-66; I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 70-71].
History I. D. Pennie & J. M. Gunn (1951) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIII. pp. 196-197, say: 'The Carnegie Museum, Wick, contains a good collection of birds, among which are several specimens of more than a passing interest. We have recently had the opportunity of handling the whole collection, which it appears has not been critically examined for many years, if at all, and we feel that attention should be drawn to some of the specimens for which full data are available....The 'Mackay Collection', which was presented to the museum in 1916, consists mainly of ducks collected in the north and west of Scotland by Eric Sinclair Mackay, who carried on business as a barrel manufacturer in Wick, and later as manager of a curing station in Lochboisdale, South Uist, and as a fishcurer in Shetland until 1886.
In the Carnegie Library, Wick, is a bound manuscript volume of Mackay's notes entitled 'Notes on Caithness Bird Life', which were originally published as a series of articles in the John o' Groat Journal. We have verified from his notes the correctness of the labels f the following specimens in his collection, and there is no reason to doubt that they are all genuine Scottish-taken birds. Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca. Adult male, shot at Kyleakin, Skye, in May, 1898.'
Comment On the evidence available, the Mackay ducks would seem to be suspect: not acceptable (A. G. Knox, British Birds 94: 65-66).
0). Pre 1900 Surrey Bramley, shot, undated.
(Bucknill, 1900; Wheatley, 2007).
[H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 57].
History Bucknill (1900: 239) says: 'There is a specimen in the Charterhouse collection which is stated to have been killed at Bramley and sent to Mr. Stafford by a poulterer of Guildford. No date is unfortunately given. I have been unable to discover any further particulars concerning this record.'
H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 57, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', who say: 'One in the Charterhouse collection is stated to have been shot at Bramley (J. A. Bucknill, B. of Surrey, p. 239).'
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. One is "stated to have been shot" places no faith in the record. Not acceptable.
0). 1903 Sussex Langney Point, three, shot, 15th August.
(Arnold, 1936; Walpole-Bond, 1938; des Forges & Harber, 1963; James, 1996).
[James, 1996].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 24) says: 'In 1903, on August 15th, on the Crumbles (near Eastbourne), were shot three Ferruginous Ducks, of which Arnold (B. Eastbourne, p. 61) at a later date inspected a couple. August, be it remarked, is a quite extraordinary time for this species to visit these Islands.'
des Forges & Harber (1963: 38) say: 'Three were shot on the Crumbles on August 15th, 1903 (Birds of Eastbourne, p. 61).' James (1996) states that it was "an unusual date".
Comment Although admitted by earlier Sussex authors, James (1996) was of the opinion that of the early records only the 1947 record had the best credentials for being a wild bird occurring in Sussex from the four records prior to 1962. Not acceptable.
0). 1904 Norfolk No localities, several, obtained, undated.
(J. H. Gurney, jnr., Zoologist 1905: 85).
[A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 104: 163].
History J. H. Gurney, jnr. (1905) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. IX. p. 85, under 'Ornithological Notes from Norfolk, 1904', says: 'Nyroca Duck: several examples.'
Comment No further information even though he stated I will now start adding the dates to the rarities. It was that regular to Norfolk that it was not considered rare. Because of lack of detail they must be found unacceptable.
0). 1907 Norfolk Hickling Broad, five, seen, 27th December.
(J. H. Gurney, jun., Zoologist 1908: 135; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 57).
[KAN].
History J. H. Gurney, jun., of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1908) in The Zoologist, 4th series, Vol. XII. p. 135, says: 'December 27th. A flock of five White-eyed Pochards reported to Mr. Bird to be on Hickling Broad. Mr. Bird does not say if any of the Pochards were shot, so that their identity is hardly established.'
Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1908) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 57, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', who say: 'A flock of five was "reported" on Hickling on December 27th, 1907 (id., t. c. 1908, p. 135).'
Comment Not known to have been seen by a competent authority. Not acceptable.
0). 1908 Sussex Warnham Mill Pond, Horsham, three, seen, 20th March.
(J. Walpole-Bond, British Birds 2: 377; Walpole-Bond, 1938; des Forges & Harber, 1963).
[James, 1996].
History J. Walpole-Bond (1909) in British Birds, Vol. II. p. 377, says: 'For nearly the whole afternoon of March 20th, 1908, I watched three Ferruginous Ducks on a certain mill-pond in the north of Sussex.'
Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 25-26) says: 'Next, early in the afternoon of March 20th, 1908, I had the good fortune to fall in with three Ferruginous Ducks on Warnham Mill Pond, near Horsham. This was not my first field-acquaintance with the species in Britain, since on April 19th, 1903, Mr. A. Gwynne-Vaughan and I had 'interviewed' a similar number of these birds on the Wye at Builth Wells, Breconshire. Some account of the Sussex trio may not be unacceptable.
On approaching the pond, which is, roughly, a third of a mile long by about two hundred yards broad, three smallish ducks (the drake of this species is only circa sixteen inches in length, the female shorter still) were at once detected consorting with Coots fairly close to the bank and perhaps half-way up the stretch. That range, of course, precluded their identification with the naked eye. But glasses - a blessing on the man who first invented them - showed that they were Ferruginous Ducks (a male and two females), recognized at a glance by their dark upper-plumage, snowy speculums, chestnut heads and necks and conspicuously pale irides - the females' plumage, however, being the less bright in coloration.
By walking the bank circumspectly, I was enabled to win to within about seventy paces of them. Then they rose and flew up the pond at a fairly low elevation for, say, a hundred and fifty yards, turned about, and at a somewhat lower altitude drove back to, and settled, within measurable distance of their starting-point. In actual fact they were now in the middle of about the broadest part of the reach. At this stage I sat down to watch them. Constantly they dived very skilfully. Between times, although on occasions they swam very fast, they mainly amused themselves by progressing in leisurely fashion. In either case their movements were delightfully easy. They lay low in the water, with necks held quite erect. Periodically, one, in the act of scratching itself, would turn almost completely over, thus revealing its rufous-chestnut stomacher and white belly; another, rising nearly on end, would flap its wings vigorously, thus exhibiting the white bar on each one to perfection.
They showed no animosity towards the Coots, nor the Coots towards them, but they would have nothing to say to some Mallards, then, the only other species of Duck on the lake. On the whole, too, they kept aloof from the Coots. With the Moorhens they hardly came into contact, for these prefer the margin of a big sheet of water to its middle. It is perhaps worthy of remark that the drake evinced shocking favouritism for one of the ducks; the other female, in fact, was always more or less cold-shouldered by the happy couple. All the same, she had but to wheel round, and her friends, even if far in front, followed suit on the instant as though on connecting wires.
When I took to boat, their behaviour was rather different. Thus, every time I rowed after them, they preferred - unless I spurted - to seek safety by swimming. Even when forced to fly - my craft when about sixty yards from them was the signal for departure - they never journeyed more than, approximately, fifty yards (always at a low or fairly low elevation) and then never thought of setting. Instead, back they would 'bucket', and not only back, but right over the boat within easy gunshot, though they would never pitch nearby.
On the contrary, they always alighted well over a hundred yards away. When so doing they almost invariably turned very nearly at right angles to their previously quite direct line of flight; and they never arched their wings over as much as most sorts of Ducks do just before settling. They landed featly enough, often without the faintest splashing. On the other hand, they rose somewhat clumsily, spattering the water with their feet freely. Once fairly away, though, their flight was delightfully clean. Rapid, too. In the main it was 'straightforward', that is, performed by even pulsations of the wings. Now and then, however, coasting was witnessed; now and then aeronautics of a twisting, diving or gyrating nature was the order of their going. Even when close to me, little whirring of pinions, save a faint 'swish', was audible.
On flight, the body looks thick and oval, the legs are held straight out under the tail, the neck seems fairly stout and the head chubby. Indeed, in any circumstances the head is knobby-looking. As to coloration when this bird is flying, its appearance is dusky-looking above, with a very pronounced white bar on each wing; below, pale, except for the upper-breast, which seems - as in fact it is - of a warm rufous. Of course, though, at really long range, without glasses, this part looks just dark like the upper portions of the plumage. Tame, were they not? And this may the more be marvelled at, seeing how they had been 'risen' on a good round dozen occasions. In very truth (excluding, of course, cases of females with broods and perhaps Teal at any time) I cannot call to mind any other species of British Anas which ever behaves, when really feral, as do Ferruginous Ducks, for the case above cited provides no solitary exception.'
Accepted locally (des Forges & Harber 1963: 38). However, James (1996) says: 'Walpole-Bond (1938) gives a lengthy, but unconvincing, account of three together at Warnham Mill Pond on 20th March 1908.'
Comment Although admitted by earlier Sussex writers, James (1996) was of the opinion that only the 1947 record had the best credentials for being a wild bird occurring in Sussex from the four records prior to 1962. Not acceptable.
0). 1912 Sussex Crowhurst, six, seen, pair obtained, 2nd January, female now at Repton School, Derbyshire.
(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 5: 247; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 32: 181; E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 43; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Watson, 2010).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1912) in British Birds, Vol. V. p. 247, says: 'On January 2nd six Ferruginous Ducks (Fuligula nyroca) were observed on the flooded marshes at Crowhurst. The same evening two were obtained, a male and female, both of which I saw in the flesh. Owing to the recent heavy rains, the whole of the marshes in Sussex are at the present time under water, and afford good feeding-grounds for duck. Most of the common species have been taken in some numbers, also a few geese.'
W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1913) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXXII. p. 181, on the unexpected occurrences for 1912, says: 'Six seen (pair shot), Crowhurst (Sussex), January 2nd.'
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (3): 27).
Watson (2010) in detailing the J. L. Auden collection in the Birmingham Museum lists a female specimen obtained at Crowhurst, Sussex, on 2nd January 1912, that has been retained by Repton School.
Comment Ford-Lindsay was mixed up in the "Hastings Rarities fraud" (E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384). Not acceptable.
0). 1912 Devon Kingsbridge Estuary, female, shot, 27th January.
(E. A. S. Elliot, British Birds 5: 280; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 32: 181; Moore, 1969).
History E. A. S. Elliot (1912) in British Birds, Vol. V. p. 280, says: 'On January 27th, 1912, a duck was noticed at high-water, swimming off Tacket Wood, on the Kingsbridge Estuary, close to the town. A neighbouring sportsman took his gun and shot the bird from the quay-side and gave it to a bargee, who retrieved it in his boat, for his Sunday dinner.
Fortunately I heard of a strange 'Wigeon' being killed, and following up the clue given, was able to save the bird from an ignominious fate. It proved to be a female Ferruginous Duck (Fuligula nyroca) with typical pale primrose irides. This is the second uncommon visitor of late years I have saved from the cooking-pot on a Sunday morning, the one before being a Pink-footed Goose.'
W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1913) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXXII. p. 181, on the unexpected occurrences for 1912, says: 'Female shot, Kingsbridge (S. Devon), January 27th.'
Comment Primrose irides is what Tufted Duck's have! Sent to Recorder. Still acceptable (email reply).
0). 1912 Greater London St James's Park, pair, undated.
(London Natural History Society, 1964).
[London Natural History Society, 1964].
History London Natural History Society (1964) says: 'A pinioned pair, which did not breed, were introduced into St James's Park in 1912.'
0). 1913 Kent Romney Marsh, male, seen, 21st May.
(H. G. Alexander, British Birds 7: 85-86; W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 34: 182; E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 99; Harrison, 1953).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History H. G. Alexander (1913) in British Birds, Vol. VII. pp. 85-86, says: 'On May 21st, 1913, Miss Turner and I had a good opportunity of watching a Ferruginous Duck (Nyroca nyroca) on a 'fleet' in Romney Marsh. It was a drake, not quite in full breeding plumage. It appears from The Birds of Kent that there are only one or two previous records for Kent.'
W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, Editor (1914) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XXXIV. p. 182, on the unexpected occurrences for 1913, says: 'One seen, Romney Marsh (Kent), May 21st.'
Harrison (1953) says: 'In British Birds 7: 85, 86, it is stated that Miss E. L. Turner and Mr. H. G. Alexander saw this immature male on a fleet in the Romney Marsh.'
Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) says: 'Because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.'
Comment Not admitted by the Kent Ornithological Society. Not acceptable.
0). 1914 Sussex Pett Level, female, shot, 24th April.
(W. H. Mullens, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 172; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 27) says: 'On April 24th, 1914, an example - afterwards presented to the Hastings museum - 'died' on Pett Level (H.E.S.N., II. p. 172).'
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1918 Angus & Dundee Near Arbroath, Angus, seen, undated.
(Crighton, 1976).
[I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71].
History Crighton (1976) says: 'D. G. Hunter, by reputation a very reliable observer, claimed to have seen this species near Arbroath in 1918.'
Comment Not admitted in a review by I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor (Scottish Birds 23: 71). Not acceptable.
0). 1923 Flintshire Gyrn Castle, 11th to at least 15th October.
(F. A. Bates, British Birds 17: 167-168).
[Flint et al., 1968].
History F. A. Bates (1923) in British Birds, Vol. XVII. pp. 167-168, under 'Probable Ferruginous Duck in Flintshire', says: 'A duck that has been on the pond at Gyrn Castle, Flintshire, since about October 11th, 1923, has puzzled me for some time. It is fairly tame and frequent examination through glasses at 30 to 50 yards' range and comparison with bird book descriptions proves it to be without doubt a Ferruginous Duck (Nyroca nyroca). I believe it to be an adult female.
I watched it this morning (October 15th) preening itself, which enabled me to see its white under-parts, which do not show when swimming, its dark bluish legs and feet, the white secondary feathers and an occasional white flash about its eyes as it turned its head. Swimming on the water its eyes look black and show no noticeable white. Its head and neck are dark chestnut and I cannot see any white under the chin which is referred to in some descriptions.
It seems to feed on insects and tops of weeds on the surface. I have only seen it dive once and then it was alarmed. The pond and wood round it has been a sanctuary for many years and is the home of many wild Mallard which all flight at dusk to the Dee Estuary, returning at dawn. I notice too to-day another visitor not often on the pond - a female Shoveler.'
[The female Ferruginous Duck has brown irides. - Eds.]
Locally, Flint et al. (1968) make no mention of the species, presumed unacceptable.
0). 1923 Avon Barrow Gurney Reservoir, Somerset, seen, 26th November.
(S. Lewis, British Birds 17: 188-189; F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1929: 34).
[S. Lewis, British Birds 17: 188-189].
History Stanley Lewis (1924) in British Birds, Vol. XVII. pp. 188-189, under 'Probable Ferruginous Duck in Somerset', says: 'On November 26th, 1923, on No. 2 reservoir, Barrow Gurney, Somerset, I had a Duck under observation for two hours which was quite new to me; I tried to associate it with the various species I knew but it was different. It was an intensely cold day, but the sun shone strongly when I reached the reservoirs.
I was first attracted by a silvery glitter across the water which I took to be the breast of a Great Crested Grebe, but fixing the glasses on it I saw it was a Duck. It was alone, although there were Goldeneye, Mallard, Tufted Duck and Pochard on the same water. It dived continually and very often raised itself well out of the water and flapped its wings in the sun, and facing me, showing as it did so, beautifully Grebe-like silvery under-parts and fairly conspicuous wing-bars; these wing-bars were also conspicuous as the bird swam with folded wings, contrasting with the dark upper-parts. I noticed distinctly the white eye of the bird but not a white spot on its chin, partly perhaps because of its quick actions. I was at the reservoirs again the next morning but could not find the bird.
On getting home I consulted the Prac. Handbook on the Ferruginous Duck (Nycoca nyroca), for I had already fixed it as such in my mind, although I had never seen one of this species alive. The description therein, in my opinion verifies the observation.'
F. L. Blathwayt (1929) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XVI. p. 34, says: 'Probable drake of this species watched by S.L. at Barrow, Nov. 26th, 1923.'
Comment Not admitted in a listing of previous occurrences in the Avon Bird Report (2000: 45). Not acceptable.
0). 1924 Angus & Dundee Near Arbroath, Angus, seen, undated.
(Crighton, 1976).
[I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor, Scottish Birds 23: 71].
History Crighton (1976) says: 'D. G. Hunter, by reputation a very reliable observer, claimed to have seen this species near Arbroath in 1924.'
Comment Not admitted in a review by I. J. Andrews & K. A. Naylor (Scottish Birds 23: 71). Not acceptable.
0). 1925 Kent Romney Marsh, male, shot, 10th January.
(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 4: 31; Harrison, 1953).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History N. F. Ticehurst (1928) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 31, says: 'A male, shot in Romney Marsh, January 10th, 1925 (G.B.).'
Accepted locally (Harrison 1953), but Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) say: 'Because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.'
Comment Not accepted locally (Kent Ornithological Society).
0). 1926 Sussex Amberley, seen, 24th March.
(Walpole-Bond, 1938; des Forges & Harber, 1963).
[James, 1996].
History Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 27) says: 'Dr. C. H. Bryant and I fell in with a bird of this species in Amberley Wildbrook on March 24th, 1926. It was not too friendly.'
Accepted locally (des Forges & Harber 1963: 38). However, James (1996) states that Walpole-Bond (1938) describes one seen briefly at Amberley on 24th March 1926 as being "not too friendly".
Comment Although admitted by earlier Sussex writers, James (1996) was of the opinion that only the 1947 record had the best credentials for being a wild bird occurring in Sussex from the four records prior to 1962. Not acceptable.
0). Late 1920s Isle of Man Garwick Bay, male, 13th September.
(Madoc, 1934).
[KAN].
History Madoc (1934) says: 'In Hungary I saw a great deal of it on the Valencze-see, where I not only watched many birds but saw its nesting habits and nests. But it must be remembered that it does not look quite the same in winter, although the first time I saw it here was on 13th September in Garwick Bay about midday, when it had not changed into winter plumage.
It was swimming across the bay...so that I was enabled to get very close up to it. The colour of the head and neck, the bright chestnut on the breast, the white under-parts, the blue to light-grey bill, were all very plain. Then at last it rose and I got the wing bar as well.'
Cullen & Jennings (1986) say: 'A drake seen by H. W. Madoc in Garwick Bay during the late 1920s. He knew the species well from Lake Valence near Budapest, Hungary.'
Comment Lacks a precise date for a scientific record. Not acceptable.
0). 1930 Greater London St James's Park, three, undated.
(London Natural History Society, 1964).
[London Natural History Society, 1964].
History London Natural History Society (1964) says: 'Three birds were presented in 1930 [presumably to St James's Park].'
Comment Resident introduced specimens.
0). 1932 Berkshire/Surrey Virginia Water, seen, 22nd December.
(Eds., British Birds 26: 279; G. Carmichael Low, British Birds 26: 284; Parr, 1972; Wheatley, 2007).
[KAN].
History In an Editorial (1933) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. p. 279, they say: 'Mr. J. B. Watson writes that on December 22nd, 1932, at Virginia Water, he watched for a long time a duck which was on the water near to, but not among, a gathering of Common Pochards. It was very shy and was swimming about fast and diving repeatedly, remaining for a long time under water. Through his telescope Mr. Watson saw clearly the very light iris, the warm brown colour of the head and neck and other characters. In flight it uttered a short, harsh note, and the white wing-bar was very pronounced, and Mr. Watson was able to identify it as a Ferruginous Duck (Nyroca n. nyroca).
In view of Dr. Carmichael Low's letter on another page concerning the rearing and allowing to grow up full-winged in St. James's Park of both Gadwall and Ferruginous Duck, it seems possible that this may account for the presence of the above recorded birds.
It is most unfortunate that aviculturists so frequently allow unpinioned birds their liberty that most rare 'waterfowl' must be under suspicion of being escapes.'
G. Carmichael Low (1933) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. p. 284, in a Letter, says: 'On the following day [16th January 1933] Mr. Holte Macpherson and myself called on Hinton, the keeper in St. James's Park...He also told us that a pair of pinioned Ferruginous Duck or White-eyed Pochard had brought up three young ones there last summer and they were similarly allowed to grow up full-winged.'
Comment Due to the breeding in St James's Park of this species in 1932 it would be wise to reject this record on the grounds of being an escape from there.
0). 1932 Greater London St James's Park, two, bred rearing three young, undated.
(G. Carmichael Low, British Birds 26: 284; London Natural History Society, 1964).
[KAN].
History G. Carmichael Low (1933) in British Birds, Vol. XXVI. p. 284, in a Letter, says 'On the following day [16th January 1933] Mr. Holte Macpherson and myself called on Hinton, the keeper in St. James's Park...He also told us that a pair of pinioned Ferruginous Duck or White-eyed Pochard had brought up three young ones there last summer and they were similarly allowed to grow up full-winged.'
London Natural History Society (1964) says 'In 1932 a pair reared young which were not pinioned and eventually disappeared [presumably at St James's Park].'
0). 1934 Kent Near Dungeness, seen, 5th April.
(R. Whitlock, South-Eastern Bird Report 1934: 62; N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 5: 141; Harrison, 1953).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History R. Whitlock (1934) in the South-Eastern Bird Report, Vol. I. p. 62, says: 'One was seen near Dungeness on April 5th. It was watched by three observers for quite an hour, and the notes were carefully compared with skins. The white bar on the wing was very conspicuous in flight, and the chestnut head was much darker than that of the Pochard (H.J.C.S.). This record is confirmed by H.R.A.'
Harrison (1953) says: 'One was seen on 5th April 1934, near Dungeness, by Mr. H. J. C. Seymour and Mr. H. R. Allen as recorded in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 5: 141.'
Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) say: 'Because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.'
Comment Not accepted locally (Kent Ornithological Society).
0). 1934 Dorset Abbotsbury, seen, 30th August.
(F. L. Blathwayt, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 56: 88).
[F. L. Blathwayt, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society 56: 88].
History F. L. Blathwayt (1935) in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. LVI. p. 88, in the Annual Report for 1934, placing the record in square brackets, says: 'One recorded as seen at Abbotsbury, August 30th, but there seems the possibility of an error of identification.'
0). 1937 Greater London/Kent Near Dartford, shot, mid-September.
(R. Whitlock, South-Eastern Bird Report 1937: 45; Harrison, 1953).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History R. Whitlock (1937) in the South-Eastern Bird Report, Vol. IV. p. 45, says: 'One was shot near Dartford in mid-September (J. M. Harrison).'
Harrison (1953) says: 'One was reported to him as shot near Dartford in mid-September 1937 as recorded in the South Eastern Bird Report 1937: 45.'
Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) says: 'Because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.'
Comment Not accepted locally (Kent Ornithological Society).
0). 1938 Greater London/Surrey St James's Park, pair, reared seven young, 28th June; presumed same, Barn Elms Reservoirs, pair, seen, 17th July.
(R. C. Homes, London Bird Report 1938: 15; London Natural History Society, 1964).
[Wheatley, 2007].
History R. C. Homes (1938) in the London Bird Report, p. 15, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'Barn Elms Res., a pair seen by G.C.L. on 17th July had probably some from St James's Park, where the same observer saw a brood of seven young on 28th June.'
London Natural History Society (1964) says: 'A brood of seven young was reared in 1938, and a pair at Barn Elms, seen by Dr. Carmichael Low on 17th July, probably came from St James's Park.'
Comment Not accepted locally (Wheatley 2007).
0). 1943 Devon Pinkworthy Pond, Exmoor, seen, 9th October.
(F. C. Butters et al., Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report 1943: 14).
[Moore, 1969].
History F. C. Butters et al. (1943) in the Devon Bird-Watching and Preservation Society Report, Vol. XVI. p. 14, adds a description as follows: 'Underparts light; broad white angular wing-bar in flight; back chestnut colour. Impossible to obtain near view. Returned to pond after being flushed (G.M.C-H. = Mrs. G. M. Chadwyck-Healey) The angular wing-bar makes identification clear - E. W. Hendy.' Not accepted locally (Moore 1969).
0). 1944 Berkshire Wraysbury Gravel-pits, immature, 7th December.
(B. W. Tucker, Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire 1944: 27-28; Radford, 1966).
[Swash, 1996].
History B. W. Tucker (1944) in the Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire pp. 27-28, says: '...On Dec. 7 another of this species was seen by P.G. at Ham. The characters were again seen well, but it was clearly an immature bird, duller in colouring and with the under tail-coverts not pure white. It was noticeably tame and may therefore well have been a stray.
Unfortunately, as the species is not uncommonly kept in captivity, all birds seen nowadays are under suspicion of being escapes, but the behaviour of the bird seen in October was not inconsistent with its being a wild one.'
Accepted locally (Radford 1966), but not later (Swash 1996).
). 1945 Somerset Durleigh Reservoir, female, 15th September.
(F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1947: 16).
[Ballance, 2006].
History F. L. Blathwayt (1947) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XXXIV. p. 16, says: '...a duck was also seen on Sept. 15 that year by A. N. Marriage & P.J.H.'
Comment Ballance (2006) says: 'Doubts were expressed in Palmer & Ballance (1968) about the identification of females before 1954, but were never resolved.' Not acceptable.
0). 1946 Oxfordshire Culham Marsh, pair, seen, 31st March.
(K. Price, Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire 1946: 22-23; Eds., British Birds 41: 283; Radford, 1966).
[Brucker, Gosler & Heryet, 1992].
History K. Price (1946) in the Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, pp. 22-23, says: 'Pair seen on the River Thames, Culham, Mar. 31. Male had chestnut head and sides, white under-parts and white under-wing. The white patch on the wing could be seen when they were folded. The white eye was also noticeable. The birds did not fly when approached, but swam quickly away, maintaining a considerable distance between themselves and the observer (I.K.).'
In an Editorial (1948) in British Birds, Vol. LVI. p. 282, in a Review of the Report of the Oxford Ornithological Society on the Birds of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, for 1946, they say: 'Uncommon visitors include...a pair of Ferruginous Duck on the Thames in March.'
Comment The site is in Oxfordshire, but Brucker, Gosler & Heryet (1992) don't mention it, nor is it mentioned in the latest Birds of Berkshire or Birds of Buckinghamshire.
0). 1947 Shropshire Bomere, near Bayston Hill, seen, late summer.
(Smith et al., 2019).
[KAN].
History Smith et al. (2019) say: 'One was seen on a pond at Bomere, near Bayston Hill in the late summer of 1937 by an observer who was sure of her identification, having seen the species regulary in India from where she had recently returned (Caradoc and Seven Valley Field Club 1947-50). However, they go on to say the year may well have been 1947 as that was when colonial and military staff returned to the UK; the reference to 1937 probably being a typographical error.'
Comment A very vague record with the year in doubt and no supporting details of identification. Not acceptable.
0). 1949 Clyde Loch Bowie, Dumbarton, three, seen, 9th January at least.
(E. R. Brock, Scottish Naturalist 61: 124).
[Eds., Scottish Naturalist 63: 200].
History Elizabeth R. Brock (1949) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXI. p. 124, says: 'Three Ferruginous Ducks, Aythya nyroca, have spent several weeks this winter on Loch Bowie, a fresh-water loch of seven acres area, with abundant vegetation, near Dumbarton. The brown head, dark back, and prominent white wing patch were seen, the latter very conspicuous when the birds rose on the water to flap.
While under observation, the ducks dived almost continuously, and on 9th January 1949 they showed very plainly their white under tail coverts, but a few days later they slipped under the water, giving only a very fleeting glimpse of white under the tail. This duck is not mentioned in Birds of the Firth of Clyde by J. M. McWiIliam.'
[This duck is a very rare visitor to Scotland. There is no previous record for Clyde. Unfortunately records are open to the same suspicions as those expressed by us under American Wigeon. - Editors.]
The Editors (1951) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. LXIII. p. 200, say: 'It seems certain that a mistake was made in the identification of three Ferruginous Ducks on Loch Bowie, in the winter of 1948-49, and that the record should therefore be withdrawn.'
Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.
0). 1950 Somerset Durleigh Reservoir, female, 4th January.
(E. G. Richards, British Birds 43: 340; F. L. Blathwayt, Report on Somerset Birds 1950: 15; Palmer & Ballance, 1968).
[Palmer & Ballance, 1968; Ballance, 2006].
History E. G. Richards (1950) in British Birds, Vol. XLIII. p. 340, says: 'In view of the fact that of the many Ferruginous Ducks reported from various parts of the country some are genuine wild birds, it may be worth recording that on January and 4th, 1950, I saw birds of this species at Durleigh Reservoir, Somerset....I returned to the reservoir on January 4th and on this occasion had a good view, in bright sunlight, of a female. It had a dark eye, rich chestnut head and darker back and flanks. The undertail coverts were pure white. Occasionally it raised itself out of the water and flapped its wings, thus revealing a white wing-bar and white belly.'
F. L. Blathwayt (1950) in the Report on Somerset Birds, Vol. XXXVII. p. 15, quotes from British Birds.
Comment Ballance (2006) says: 'Doubts were expressed in Palmer & Ballance (1968) about the identification of females before 1954, but were never resolved.' Not acceptable.
0). 1950 Kent Stodmarsh, seven, 2nd February.
(Harrison, 1953).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) says: 'Because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.'
Comment Not accepted locally (Kent Ornithological Society).
0). 1950 Leicestershire & Rutland Swithland Reservoir, female, 6th December.
(R. E. Pochin, A. Bonner & R. A. O. Hickling, Report on the Wild Birds of Leicestershire and Rutland 1950: 31)
[Fray et al., 2009].
History R. E. Pochin, A. Bonner & R. A. O. Hickling (1950) in the Report on the Wild Birds of Leicestershire and Rutland, p. 31, say: 'Swithland Reservoir: December 6th, a female (H.H.).' However, Fray et al. (2009) state that after two reviews all those records between 3rd December 1949 and 2nd April 1951 have been rejected due to lack of documentation...and the individuals found at Stanford Reservoir in March in both 1950 and 1951.
0). 1951 Greater London/Kent Dartford and Stone Marshes, two, males: one, 27th January to 7th February, two, males, 4th March.
(G. E. Manser & N. J. P. Wadley, London Bird Report 1951: 20; Eds., British Birds 44: 354; Harrison, 1953; London Natural History Society, 1964).
[Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1984].
History G. E. Manser & N. J. P. Wadley, London Bird Report, Vol. XVI. p. 20, say: 'Kent. Dartford and Stone Marshes: a male first observed on 23rd January, was seen on various dates until 7th February; two drakes, in company with Tufted Duck, allowed close approach, 4th March (J. F. Burton, Mrs. W. I. Brewer, K. H. Palmer et al.). Full field notes have been received.'
In an Editorial (1951) in British Birds, Vol. XLIV. p. 354, they say: 'We have received the following records: - Kent. Stone Marshes, near Dartford, a drake almost certainly on January 23rd, 1951, definitely identified on January 27th, last seen February 7th (Kenneth H. Palmer et al.).' However, the London Natural History Society (1964) state there were two males in the early part of 1951 on the Dartford and Stone Marshes.
Taylor, Davenport & Flegg (1984, 2nd ed.) in the Birds of Kent states that because of the identification problems caused by Aythya hybrids, the five records in Harrison (1953) can no longer be assigned to this species.
Comment Not accepted locally (Kent Ornithological Society).
0). 1951 Leicestershire & Rutland Swithland Reservoir, male, 2nd April.
(R. E. Pochin, A. Bonner & R. A. O. Hickling, Report on the Wild Birds of Leicestershire and Rutland 1951:17).
[Fray et al., 2009].
History R. E. Pochin, A. Bonner & R. A. O. Hickling (1951) in the Report on the Wild Birds of Leicestershire and Rutland, p. 17, say: 'Swithland Reservoir, one male, April 2nd (H.H.).' However, Fray et al. (2009) state that after two reviews all those records between 3rd December 1949 and 2nd April 1951 have been rejected due to lack of documentation...and the individuals found at Stanford Reservoir in March in both 1950 and 1951.
0). 1952 Sussex Pett Pools, 22nd September.
(G. des Forges & D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1952: 16).
[des Forger & Harber, 1963].
History G. des Forges & D. D. Harber (1952) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 16, say: 'One on Pett Level pools on 22nd September (J. Ashbee). "Birds identified by white wing-bar seen in flight and when bird raised wings while on water, chestnut brown head and neck, umber back, very light eye and in the case of this bird the white spot on the chin was observed. Birds viewed through x 25 telescope on water and through glasses in flight".'
Comment Not accepted locally (des Forger & Harber 1963).
0). 1952 Nottinghamshire Wollaton Park, three, 16th October.
(A. Dobbs, Birds of Nottinghamshire Report 1950-54: 20).
[J. Hopper et al., Nottinghamshire Bird Report 1992: 97].
History A. Dobbs (1954) in the Birds of Nottinghamshire Report, p. 20, says: '1952. Three, October 16th, Wollaton Park (A.D.).'
J. Hopper et al. (1992) in the Nottinghamshire Bird Report, p. 97, states that there was no mention of the bill pattern or head shape in the plumage details given and three birds was considered a somewhat excessive number. With problems of hybrids and other Aythya variations, it was felt that to gain acceptance a fuller description was required.
0). 1952 Sussex Rye Harbour, two, 29th December.
(G. des Forges & D. D. Harber, Sussex Bird Report 1952).
[des Forger & Harber, 1963].
History G. des Forges & D. D. Harber (1952) in the Sussex Bird Report, p. 16, say: 'Two at Rye Harbour on 29th December (J. Ashbee). "Birds identified by white wing-bar seen in flight and when bird raised wings while on water, chestnut brown head and neck, umber back, very light eye. Birds viewed through x 25 telescope on water and through glasses in flight".'
Comment Not accepted locally (des Forger & Harber 1963).
0). 1954 Somerset Durleigh Reservoir, pair, 30th May.
(G. H. E. Young, Report on Somerset Birds 1954: 11; Palmer & Ballance, 1968).
[P. A. D. Hollom, British Birds 49: 333-334].
History G. H. E. Young (1954) in the Report on Somerset Birds, p. 11, says: 'Two, evidently male and female, Durleigh Res., on exceptional date of May 30; birds identified (with aid of 30x telescope) in excellent light, by E.G.R., who records that the drake was first seen standing in shallow water at 75 yards range, and that details noted were: bill dark; eye distinctly white; head rich chestnut brown; breast, mantle and flanks a rather darker shade; belly white; and most conspicuous of all, the pure white under-tail coverts.
On taking flight, it was joined by the second bird, of similar colouring, both being subsequently seen on the water in close company with a drake Tufted Duck, when the following additional observations were made: "The Ferruginous Ducks had the upper wing chestnut brown, and the wing was broader and purer white than that of the Tufted Duck. Both the Ferruginous had extensive white under the tail and one had a white eye, the other bird a dark one".
E.G.R. stresses the fact that the white under-tail coverts were "far more extensive in area than in the case of any white-vented Tufted Duck" he has yet seen.'
P. A. D. Hollom (1956) in British Birds, Vol. XLIX. pp. 333-334, in a review of the Bird Report, says: 'Two Ferruginous Ducks at Durleigh Reservoir on the unusual date of 30th May.'
Comment Not accepted locally (Somerset Ornithological Society).
0). 1956 Sussex Pett Level, three, 11th October.
(N. F. Ticehurst, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 8: 221).
[Not in Sussex Bird Report; des Forges & Harber, 1963].
History N. F. Ticehurst (1957) in the Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 221, says: 'Three, Pett Level, Oct. 11th, purple-brown upperparts and breast, white under-parts, tail and wing-bar (R.D.E.).'
Comment Not accepted locally (des Forger & Harber 1963).
0). 1957 Yorkshire Harewood Park Lake, female, 10th June.
(R. Chislett, Naturalist 83: 46).
[R. Chislett, Naturalist 83: 46; Mather, 1986].
History R. Chislett (1958) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. LXXXIII. p. 46, says: 'A female at Harewood on June 10th was thought probably to be an 'escape'. (G.R.N., M.D.).'
Mather (1986) states that one seen at Harewood Lake on 10th June was thought by G. R. Naylor and M. Densley to have been an escape.
