Laughing Gull

Leucophaeus atricilla (Linnaeus, 1758) (1, 0)

Photo © Mike Youdale

STATUS

Nearctic and Neotropic. Monotypic.

OVERVIEW

BOU (1971) published two records for the period, however, the individual occurring in Essex during 1957 has since been found not proven in a review of certain records 1950-57

---

RECORD

1). 1923 Sussex The Crumbles, seen, 2nd to 9th July.

(G. des Forges, British Birds 61: 213-214; BOURC (1971) Ibis 113: 143).

History G. des Forges (1968) in British Birds, Vol. LXI. pp. 213-214, says: 'On the morning of 2nd July 1923 Robert Morris paid one of his frequent visits to the Crumbles, the expanse of shingle on the eastern side of Eastbourne, Sussex, and later wrote in his diary: "...I observed a Gull to have settled down at the side of one of pools opposite the Drain road, and was instantly struck by its appearance. It was a Black-Headed Gull, but I could see at once it was not Larus ridibundus, it was too large; had a conspicuously black hood; a very much darker mantle; and much more black on the primaries. I succeeded in approaching quite close to this bird, and afterwards put it up to see it on the wing. The head was deep black, extending much further than the mask of L. ridibundus, a little streak of white above and below the eye; the mantle was, I consider, very dark, almost as much so as in some of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls [L. fuscus]; and the primaries were black, without any white to be seen on them, certainly when the wings were closed. The bill was red, darker towards the base; and as to the legs and feet, they looked to be almost black, if not quite black they had the appearance of being so. On the wing it differed altogether from the Black-Headed Gull, and I know a Gull in such plumage has never until now been seen by me. The dark bluish-grey mantle seemed to blend away into perfectly black primaries, and there was a white alar bar as pronounced and conspicuous as may be seen in a Black-backed Gull...This bird was certainly in adult plumage, the tail, breast, and underparts perfectly white".

The same evening Morris returned and, walking across the shingle towards Langney Point, he noted: "...several Herring Gulls [L. argentatus] flew over The Crumbles and dropped down at the holes, and they were followed by the very bird I was looking for, and which was instantly recognised by me, the dark mantle alone being sufficient to enable me to do that. I returned at once, and though the Herring Gulls had gone my bird was there alright, wading in the shallows at the edge of a pool. I think it may be said that some additional knowledge was gained by me, inasmuch as on one occasion when the bird rose for a moment the toes, at least, showed a deep red in colour. That did not surprise me, as I could never believe that a Black-Headed Gull of any form could have truly black legs and feet, however much they may have appeared such".

Morris saw the bird again on 3rd July when he recorded that the only species of which he could think was the Laughing Gull Larus atricilla. On 5th July he added some further details: "...I made the observation that the upper portion of the hood was not an absolute black, but a deep slate-black, though beyond that fact I added nothing further to my knowledge. I concluded the toes and webs to be a very deep red, though they, like the feet, usually appeared black....I was enabled to note the difference in the apparent colour of the feet for whereas the feet of the Black-Headed Gulls showed the red distinctly I could not discern any red in those of the Laughing Gull - they had the appearance of being black. I was likewise enabled to get a better view of the mantle and wings, showing the extent of the white bar. I failed to see any white in the primaries".

Morris saw the bird again on 6th, 7th and, finally, 9th July and he made a water-colour sketch of it both standing and flying. What do we now know of Robert Morris and his ornithological capacity?

A note about him appeared on page 22 of The Sussex Bird Report for 1951 over the initials of the late D. D. Harber. Between 1880 and 1947 he kept an almost daily diary of the weather and the birds which he saw. Mostly he wrote about the Eastbourne and Uckfield districts. He was not in touch with others interested in birds; hence his failure to get someone else to see this gull, although he may have preferred that it should not become a museum specimen as would very likely have happened if news of the occurrence of so strange a bird had got about. Morris was palpably honest in what he wrote in his diary, even if his diagnoses were sometimes at fault, and he was always ready to admit his mistakes in identification himself. Sometimes he corrected these in pencil afterwards, but he never altered his accounts. He watched this gull with binoculars and a 'spy-glass'.

The record was submitted in September 1923 to H. F. Witherby. There is a draft of what Morris probably sent to Witherby, which is a very bald account when compared with the entries in the diary. He also preserved Witherby's reply to the effect that there is 'no Gull exactly as you describe, that is to say, with a black head and entirely black primaries and deep blue-grey mantle'. It was to the absence of white tips on the outer five or six primaries that Witherby was referring. In Morris's bird the tips were black.

However, H. G. Alexander examined a large flock of Laughing Gulls in full plumage in New Jersey in 1964, with this point in mind, after the record had come in front of the B.O.U. British Records Committee, and reported: 'Most had the white primary tips, but several showed no white at all and it was variable.'

As a result, the B.O.U. Records Committee has now accepted Morris's observation, so that it becomes the first record of the species in Britain and Ireland, and the one in Kent in 1966 (Brit. Birds, 60: 157-159) the second.

It only remains to record what happened between the rejection of the record in 1923 and its acceptance in 1967. After Morris died, his diaries were loaned to me by R. Gilbert, a nephew of his, and D. D. Harber read through the entire series. He was struck by the entries quoted above and in 1962 formally submitted all the papers to the B.O.U. Records Committee. He was convinced that the record was sound and it is now pleasant to be able to record that Morris was finally vindicated and that Harber's energies brought this about.'

Locally, it was not recorded by Walpole-Bond (1938 (2): 267-268).

Admitted nationally in the Fifth Records Committee Report as the first record for Britain (BOURC (1971) Ibis 113: 143).

NOT PROVEN

0). 1774 Sussex Winchelsea, five, one shot, August.

(Montagu, 1802; Fleming, 1828; Jenyns, 1835; Yarrell, 1845; Newman, 1866).

[Yarrell, 1882-84; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Montagu (1802) says: 'This species is larger than the Black-headed Gull; length eighteen inches. It differs from that bird only in the legs, which are black; the bill is however stronger, and the head larger....In the month of August, 1774, we saw five of them together feeding in a pool in the shingley flats near Winchelsea; two only were black on the head, the others were mottled all over with brown. One of them was shot; but although the remaining four continued to resort to the same place for some time, the old ones were too shy to be procured. We also saw two other near Hastings in Sussex.

They may be easily known from the Black-headed Gull, even when flying; the flight is different; the bird appears much larger, and the tail shorter in proportion.'

Fleming (1828: 142) says: 'Five birds of this species were observed by Montagu in August 1774, in a pool upon the shingly flats, near Winchelsea; and two others near Hastings, in Sussex.'

Jenyns (1835: 274) says: 'Montagu records having seen five individuals together feeding in a pool upon the Shingly Flats near Winchelsea, in Sussex and two others near Hastings. One was shot.'

Howard Saunders (1882-84 (3): 607, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'From this it is clear that, to whatever species it may have belonged, the bird obtained was a very young one in mottled-brown plumage; but it was subsequently assumed by the late Mr. Gould, and by other writers, that this was the identical specimen now in the British collection at the Natural History Museum. This is certainly an error, for although the specimen in the British section is undoubtedly an American Laughing Gull, it is not a young bird of the year, but a nearly adult specimen, with pure white tail, unmottled slate-grey mantle, and black freshly-moulted primaries; the only remaining sign of immaturity being a few brownish and very old feathers about the head. Nor is there any evidence that the bird shot at Winchelsea ever formed part of the Montagu collection as presented to the British Museum.

Leach's Systematic Catalogue (1816), which contains a record of every species and every specimen presented by Montagu or any other donor, makes no mention of any Laughing Gull from Winchelsea, and the three specimens from the Montagu collection which bear that trivial name are correctly recorded as examples of L. ridibundus, from Lincolnshire and Carmarthenshire.

It is impossible to say when or how this specimen of the American bird found its way into the British section, but it certainly shows no signs of having been mounted for upwards of a century, and its fresh appearance is in strong contrast to that of many of the genuine specimens of other birds from the Montague collection. Mr. Gould appears to have been the first to assume that this was Montagu's bird (B. of Eur., pl. 426); and the late Mr. G. R. Gray (List Brit. Birds, p. 172) went so far as to enter it as "a Winchelsea"; but even he did not venture to state that it had ever belonged to Montagu. Judging from Montagu's own description, it seems almost established that the immature bird shot at Winchelsea was not the American Laughing Gull at all; and it is quite clear that it cannot be identical with the nearly adult specimen now representing it in our Natural History Museum.'

The record was placed in square brackets (Walpole-Bond 1938 (3): 267-268).

Comment Misidentified. Not accepted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1850-51 Dorset Lodmoor, Weymouth, shot, winter.

(W. Thompson, Zoologist 1851: 3055; Harting, 1872; Mansel-Pleydell, 1873).

[Yarrell, 1882-84; Not in BOU, 1971].

History William Thompson of Weymouth (1851) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IX. p. 3055, dated 5th Feb., 1851, says: 'A specimen of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla), of Yarrell and Pennant, was shot here last winter and sold for one shilling; I heard of it by chance. A gunner here was telling me how of his gunning feats, and said, last winter he killed nine gulls at a shot. They were feeding in Lodmoor Marsh, and he approached them under cover of a hedge; when on showing himself, they flew up, and he killed nine. He stated eight were alike, but the ninth had a bill and legs the colour of red sealing-wax, and a beautiful pink breast and belly. A gentleman met him and gave a shilling for the bird, and would have given half-a-crown had it been shot clean.'

Mansel-Pleydell (1873: 54) says: 'Colonel Montagu saw five feeding in a pool near Winchelsea, also two near Hastings. Yarrell, in his second edition, says that, as far as he knows, no other British instances have been recorded. Mr. Thompson, however, states that a specimen of the Laughing Gull was shot at Lodmoor in the winter of 1849.'

Howard Saunders (1882-84 (3): 607-608, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Other reported occurrences have never been authenticated, and are unworthy of serious consideration.'

Comment Misidentified. Third-hand report. Not accepted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1867 Dorset Lodmoor, Weymouth, shot, 20th May.

(Mansel-Pleydell, 1873).

[Yarrell, 1882-84; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Mansel-Pleydell (1873: 54) says: 'Colonel Montagu saw five feeding in a pool near Winchelsea, also two near Hastings. Yarrell, in his second edition, says that, as far as he knows, no other British instances have been recorded. Mr. Thompson, however, states that a specimen of the Laughing Gull was shot at Lodmoor in the winter of 1849; and another was brought to him, shot there 20th May, 1867.'

Howard Saunders (1882-84 (3): 607-608, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Other reported occurrences have never been authenticated, and are unworthy of serious consideration.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1876 Yorkshire Near Filey, adult male, shot, mid-March.

(J. G. Tuck, Zoologist 1876: 4960; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Julian G. Tuck (1876) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. XI, p. 4960, dated 7th April, 1876, says: '…Mr. Brown showed me what he and I both believe to be adult male Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla), in full breeding dress. It was shot near Filey (about three miles inland) during the very rough weather which occurred about the middle of March. It exactly corresponds with the figure of a Laughing Gull in Mr. Morris's British Birds, having a head of a dull blue-black - just the colour of the back of Larus marinus. The bill and tarsi had been painted; the latter struck me as being very long. Only one similar specimen had ever passed through Mr. Brown's hands, and he knows the familiar brown-headed gull in every stage of plumage.' It was accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881: 82).

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). Pre 1877 Yorkshire Riccall Common, seen, undated.

(S. L. Mosley, Naturalist 1877: 58).

[BOU, 1971].

History S. L. Mosley of Huddersfield (1877) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. III. p. 58, says: 'Is Mr. W. H. Cheeseman quite certain that the gull reported by him from Riccall Common is the Laughing Gull? Might it not be the Black-headed Gull (L. ridibundus), which I believe is called Laughing Gull, or laugher, in some districts.'

Comment Probably misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). c. 1880 Cambridgeshire Near Newmarket, shot, undated.

(The Times; F. Tearle, Field 5th Mar., 1881: 313; Ed., Field 12th Mar., 1881: 356; Eds., Hardwicke's Science Gossip 1881: 90).

[F. Tearle, Field 26th Mar., 1881: 433; "T.S." Hardwicke's Science Gossip 1881: 114; Yarrell, 1882-84; Not in BOU, 1971].

History F. Tearle of Gazeley Vicarage, Newmarket (1881) in The Field of 5th Mar., Vol. LVII. p. 313, says: 'Will you allow me, through the medium of your columns, to make known the occurrence in this neighbourhood of one of the rarest feathered visitants of these islands? The bird is the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) of Yarrell and other British ornithologists. It was shot near Newmarket on Jan. 25, and fortunately fell into the hands of Mr. W. Howlett, an enterprising and intelligent naturalist of that town. The most noticeable feature about the bird is the beautiful and delicate rosy hue which tinges the surface of the whole under-plumage from throat to tail. In some respects it bears a close resemblance to the Kittiwake (Larus rissa), or perhaps still more to the Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus); but the presence of a perfect hind toe sufficiently distinguishes it from the former, while the colour of the legs, feet and bill, and the markings of the primary and secondary quill feathers (not to mention the rosy tint above referred to) equally remove it from identity with the latter. It has been carefully preserved by Mr. Howlett, and will be a valuable addition to whatever collection of British birds may be fortunate to secure it.'

[The Masked Gull was at one time supposed to be specifically distinct from the Black-headed Gull, and was separately described and figured by Yarrell in his British Birds. He seems to have had some hesitation, however, in doing so, for he remarks: "From an inspection of this bird (a specimen procured near Sandsfield) we are satisfied that this species may be very easily overlooked, and that many ornithologists would consider it merely a small specimen of the Black-headed Gull. We have deemed it advisable, therefore, to give its weight and measurements". It has since been ascertained, from closer observation of the bird in various stages of plumage, that it is merely the Black-headed Gull in a particular state of moult, when the so-called black head has been only partially acquired. - Ed.]

In an Editorial (1881) in The Field of 12th Mar., Vol. LVII. p. 356, he says: 'Under this heading there appeared last week a communication from the Rev. F. Tearle to the effect that a specimen of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) had been obtained recently in the neighbourhood of Newmarket. To this was inadvertently appended an editorial note which was intended as a reply to another correspondent who had written to inquire whether the Masked Gull was considered a good species. In pointing this out, it may be well to observe, for the benefit of those who may not be acquainted with either of the birds named, that, while the Masked Gull (Larus capistratus) is now generally regarded as a particular phase of plumage of the Black-headed Gull, the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) is a distinct and valid species. The latter is a native of eastern coast of North America, and, was first noticed as an accidental straggler to this country, by Col. Montagu, who in Aug. 1774, procured one out of a little party of five, which he fell in with on the coast near Winchelsea.

This specimen is now in the British Museum with the rest of Col. Montagu's collection. Two others were reported by the same naturalist as seen at Hastings, and since then one other specimen has been recorded a shaving been procured at Lodmoor, near Weymouth, in the winter of 1850.

The example now reported by Mr. Tearle, therefore, assuming that the species has been correctly identified, will make the fourth instance, so far as can be ascertained, of the occurrence of this species in Great Britain. As Mr. Tearle has not given any measurements nor pointed out any marked distinctive characters (the roseate hue of the breast to which he alludes being assumed by other species), it may be observed that Larus atricilla resembles a large Larus ridibundus, and measures 17 in. in length, with a wing of 12¾ in., as compared with a length of 16 in. and a wing of 12 in. in the common Black-headed Gull - from which, if we are not mistaken, it may be further distinguished by its dark primaries. The specific term atricilla is a misnomer when the bird is adult, for the tail is then white, not black, or barred with black as it is in the immature stage.'

F. Tearle (1881) in The Field of 26th Mar., Vol. LVII. p. 433, says: 'You kindly inserted my notice of the occurrence in this neighbourhood of what I believed to be a specimen of the American Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla). Further investigation in the matter, above all a correspondence with some of the leading ornithologists of the day, have convinced me that my opinion was hasty and premature. The bird is unquestionably not the American species; but the British Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus). The extreme beauty of its plumage, and the somewhat inaccurate descriptions of modern writers, led to the mistake.'

[We are obliged to Mr. Tearle for his correction; but regret that the correspondence referred to did not take place before, instead of after, the announcement. - Ed.]

"T.S." (1881) in Hardwicke's Science Gossip, Vol. XVII. p. 114, says: 'The bird recently killed in the neighbourhood of Newmarket and recorded as the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) proves to be the common Black-headed Gull (L. ridibundus); see Field for 26th of March.'

Howard Saunders (1882-84 (3): 607-608, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'Other reported occurrences have never been authenticated, and are unworthy of serious consideration; one announced in The Times a couple of years ago as shot near Newmarket, proved to be merely a handsome specimen of L. ridibundus....The bird is therefore excluded from the present Edition.'

In an Editorial (1890) in Hardwicke's Science Gossip, Vol. XVII. p. 90, it says: 'A specimen of this somewhat rare bird recently made its appearance in the neighbourhood of Newmarket, and of course got shot.'

Comment T.S. is probably Thomas Southwell from Norfolk. Not accepted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1882 Somerset Curry Rivel, seen, undated.

(Anon., Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 1882).

[C. Smith, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 1883: 34; BOU, 1971].

History C. Smith (1883) in the Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society, Vol. XXIX. p. 34, says: 'Another dark-hooded gull, the Laughing Gull, Larus atricilla, has occurred certainly once, if not oftener, in the British Isles, and was recorded in the Taunton and Somerset Gazette, in the Archaeological and Natural History Notes and Queries for February, 1882, as having occurred at Curry Rivel. But this record must certainly be set down as a case of mistaken identity, as on further inquiry it turned out not to be Larus atricilla.'

Comment Misidentified. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1957 Essex Abberton Reservoir, adult, 20th December.

(R. V. A. Marshall, British Birds 61: 415-416; Cox, 1984).

[D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers, British Birds 99: 463; Wood, 2007].

History R. V. A. Marshall (1968) in British Birds, Vol. LXI. pp. 415-416, says: 'Two records of the Laughing Gull Larus atricilla, one in Kent in 1966 and the other in Sussex in 1923, have been published in recent months (Brit. Birds, 60: 15 7-159; 61: 213-214). As a result of these, the Rarities Committee has reconsidered an identification of mine in Essex in 1957 and has now accepted it as the second British record of this American gull (making the one in Kent in 1966 the third).

At 12.30 on 20th December 1957, while driving round Abberton Reservoir, Essex, I saw a group of about 150 Common Gulls L. canus standing on the mud some 180 yards from me. With them was another gull of similar size, which immediately attracted my attention by the dark colour of its mantle, the prominent white spots on the ends of its wings and the capped appearance of its head. Approaching in my car to the nearest point, I was able to watch it at approximately 80 yards for 20 minutes or so. The day was dull and overcast, so that colours were difficult to see, but the grey and white of the gulls showed up well.

I noted the following description: Size as Common Gull or a fraction smaller. Head heavily grizzled with grey-black, particularly over and behind the eye; this formed an ill-defined bar and at a distance gave a capped appearance. Wings and back dark slate-grey (about two-thirds as dark as those of a Lesser Black-backed Gull L. fuscus); wing-tips black with prominent white spots caused by white tips to the secondaries and tertials. Neck, tail and under-parts white with a very faint dusky clouding on the breast. Bill not visible; legs apparently of the same tone as those of the Common Gulls, but owing to the light no colour detected. During the whole of the time that I watched it on the ground, the gull kept its bill tucked in its scapulars. Eventually, however, all the birds were alarmed by a Great Black-backed Gull L. marinus overhead and, as they took flight in a flurry of wings, I thought that I glimpsed a yellow-orange colour, but I could not be sure.

The appearance of the strange gull in flight was most distinctive: the slate-grey wings deepened gradually to wholly black outer primaries, while at the rear edges the white tips to the secondaries and tertials formed a prominent white bar; the under-sides were white with a dark grey 'shadow' towards each tip and the wings as a whole were also thinner and more pointed than those of the Common Gulls. The whole flock flew straight off towards the sea and, although I visited the place on several subsequent occasions, I failed to see any more of this unusual gull.

Later, I studied skins of Laughing Gulls at the British Museum (Natural History) and was able to match the wings of my bird perfectly. (I noted that, depending on the state of the plumage, there are sometimes small white tips on the primaries also). I could not find an exact counterpart of the head colour, some having more grizzling and some less, but those with less grizzling showed the same dark bar over the eye as I had observed, and the more pointed shape of the wings than those of Common Gulls likewise agreed with my impressions.'

[There was also a Laughing Gull - the fourth British record - on St. Agnes, Isles of Scilly, in 1967 (Brit. Birds, 61: 344). - Eds.]

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