Spotted Sandpiper

Actitis macularius (Linnaeus, 1766) (1, 2)

Photo © Kris Webb

STATUS

Nearctic. Monotypic.

OVERVIEW

The BOU (1971) stated that there were four acceptable records prior to 1924, two recorded in 1866 with another two in 1899. However, in a review of the species by the BOURC (2007) these were all found to be unacceptable, therefore leaving the 1924 individual to become the first acceptable record for Britain.

---

RECORD

1). 1924 Cornwall Loe Bar, Helston, adult, seen, 14th June.

(G. H. Harvey, British Birds 18: 167; B. H. Ryves & G. H. Harvey, Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report 1931: 51; Ryves, 1948; BOURC (2007), Ibis 149: 652).

History G. H. Harvey (1924) in British Birds, Vol. XVIII. p. 167, says: 'On June 14th, 1924, while walking across Loe Bar (the large bank of shingle which separates Loe Pool, near Helston, from the sea), I saw what I supposed was a Common Sandpiper running along the shore of the lake. When I glanced at it from behind, through field-glasses, I saw it had small black spots on the white around its legs. This arousing my attention I got ahead of the bird, and, crouching down at the edge of the water, waited for it to come round a sand-spit. When it did so I saw that the throat and breast were profusely spotted, especially the latter. The big spots on the breast were in marked contrast to the much smaller ones lower down the body. The other differences between the Spotted and Common Sandpipers are of little use in the field, unless birds of both species are present for comparison, but I did notice that the base of the bill in this bird was a bright flesh-colour, different from the bill of any Common Sandpiper I have ever seen. The bird flew in the peculiar and characteristic manner of the Common Sandpiper, but uttered no note on rising. I have no hesitation in recording so rare a bird, as its being in summer plumage rendered identification certain.'

G. H. Harvey of Penzance (1931) in the Cornwall Bird-Watching & Preservation Society Report, Vol. I. p. 51, under 'Distribution of Birds (West Penwith District)', says: 'I had the luck to see an adult bird in full summer plumage on Loe Bar, by the shore of the pool, on June 14th, 1924. In this plumage, it is unmistakeable - a Common Sandpiper with spotted underparts.'

Ryves (1948: 232) says: 'An adult in full summer plumage was seen by Mr. G. H. Harvey at Loe Bar on 14th June, 1924. He wrote "Unmistakeable in this plumage - a Common Sandpiper with spotted underparts.'

Admitted nationally after a review of the species as the first for Britain (BOURC (2007) Ibis 149: 652).

1950-57 RECORDS

2). 1956 Greater London/Hertfordshire Hilfield Park Reservoir, adult, 2nd September.

(P. Clement, London Bird Report 1980: 45; Gladwin & Sage, 1986; BBRC).

History P. Clement (1980) in the London Bird Report, Vol. XLV. p. 45, says: '1956 Additional Record: Herts. Hilfield Park Res., an adult in summer plumage on 2nd September (B.L.S.). At the time fully described and documented by the observer; but at that time the species was regarded as a race of Common Sandpiper and the original letter to British Birds was mislaid in circulation. However, the field notes have been re-submitted and formally accepted by BBRC.'

Accepted locally as the first record for Hertfordshire (Gladwin & Sage 1986).

3). 1957 Norfolk Cley-next-the-Sea, adult, 7th to 8th June.

(W. F. Bishop, British Birds 50: 490-491; Seago, 1977).

History W. F. Bishop (1957) in British Birds, Vol. L. pp. 490-491, says: 'On 7th June 1957, I was making my daily round of the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust marshes at Cley, Norfolk, of which I am the Warden, when I saw on the wing what appeared to be a Common Sandpiper (Tringa hypoleucos). A little later I again saw the bird, which had by then settled on the edge of a marshy pool, and I was immediately struck by the fact it had large round blackish spots on the breast and flanks; also that it had a conspicuous white eye-stripe. The legs were dull straw coloured and the proximal part of the bill was dull orange, while the distal portion was very dark brown. The wing pattern in flight did not appear to differ appreciably from that of a Common Sandpiper. The call was not unlike that of a Common Sandpiper, but from time to time the bird made a double note "peet-weet".

It was immediately obvious that it was a Spotted Sandpiper (T. h. macularia) in summer plumage. Subsequently I had it under observation for a considerable period at distances down to 10 yards or less. On 8th June it was seen by Mrs. R. F. Meiklejohn, R. A. Richardson (whose sketch is here reproduced), H. Hunt and A. H. Daukes and by many other observers. This appears to be the first record for Norfolk.'

[In the First Report of the present Taxonomic Sub-committee of the British Ornithologists' Union, published in January 1956 (Ibis, Vol. XCVIII. pp. 157-168), the Common and Spotted Sandpipers are regarded as conspecific, so that the latter now becomes Tringa hypoleucos macularia, the American race of a species that extends right across Europe, Asia and North America. - Eds.]

NOT PROVEN

0). 1743 Essex Albins, near Chipping Ongar, shot, May.

(Edwards, 1758-64; Harting, 1872; Seebohm, 1883-85).

[Selby, 1833; Gurney, 1876].

History Edwards (1760 (2): 139-142) under 'The Spotted Tringa', says: 'These Birds are figured of their natural sizes: they were drawn and etched on the copper-plate directly from the Birds themselves preserved dry.

The biggest Bird on the plate is the Tringa: its bill is straight, dusky towards the point, and flesh-coloured at its base: the mandible is channelled on each side: the nostrils are long: it hath a white line above the eye: the head, upper side of the neck, back, rump, and covert-feathers of the wings, are of a brownish colour, a little inclining to an olive green, having a small glossiness on the wings: the middle feathers of the tail, and the lesser quills next the back, are of same brownish colour: the head is spotted with small longish dusky spots down the shafts of its feathers: on the neck they increase to the back, where they are larger: the rump is without spots: the feathers on the shoulders and wings are marked with dusky spots transversely, whose form will be best understood by the figure: the greater quills are dusky, some of the shorter ones of them having white tips: the row of covert-feathers next above these are also dusky with white tips, which form two oblique lines of white across the wing: the ridge, and inner coverts of the wing, are likewise white, except a regular dusky line drawn transversely through them: the insides of the quills are ash-coloured with whitish bottoms, except three or four of the outer quills, which have no white: the middle feathers of the tail have a dusky bar crossing near their tips: the outer feathers gradually shorten, and are white with transverse dusky lines: from the throat to the tail, the under side is white, spotted on the throat with small dusky spots: on the breast they are larger, and are of a particular shape, as the figure expresses: on the thighs, belly, and coverts under the tail, these dusky spots are not so regular as on the breast: the legs are bare a little above the knees: the toes are flat at their bottoms: the outer and middle toe on each foot are connected at their bottoms by a membrane: the legs and feet are of a dusky flesh colour: the nails are black.

These Birds, with many others, were shot near Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, by my friend Mr. William Bartram, who sent them to London, for me to publish the figures and natural history of them.

The larger Bird, or Tringa, Mr. Bartram says, comes from the south to them in April. He opened the hen, and found in her pretty large eggs: but by accident he lost the hen: so that the Bird he sent me is the cock. They continue, he says, with them the greatest part of the summer. I believe this Bird is common both to Europe and America.

In the year 1743, one of them was sent to me by my late worthy friend Sir Robert Abdy, Bart, who shot it near his seat of Albins in Essex. This, on inspection, I found to be a hen: and it differed in no respect from the American Tringa, but in being without spots on its under side, except on the throat, where it had a few small longish dusky spots down the shafts of the feathers. By my remarks on the drawing of the hen Bird, I find that it was sent to me in the month of May, and I believe it to be a Bird of passage, and very rarely seen in England.'

Selby (1833 (2): 85) says: 'The authority upon which this bird ranks as a rare British visitant, seems to rest solely on the description given by Mr. Edwards of a bird that was shot in Essex, but which (as I have before remarked with regard to that figured and described by Bewick as Totanus macularius) appears to be nothing more than Totanus hypoleucos; and the specimens also from which my figures were taken, though supposed to have been killed in England, I am afraid cannot be satisfactorily substantiated as such.'

Gurney (1876: 255) says: 'The 277th plate of Edwards' Gleanings of Natural History, to start with the original offender, represents the Spotted Sandpiper from Pennsylvania. This distinguished naturalist and talented draughtsman fancied that was also found in England, and in the accompanying letterpress he mentions a specimen from Essex, which "differed in no respect from the American Tringa, but in being without spots on its under side, except on the throat, where it had a few small, longish, dusky spots down the shafts of the feathers" (VI, p. 141). Of course the wants of spots shows it to have been a Common Sandpiper, but I have still further proof. I have found a MS. note in the handwriting of Donovan, in a copy of Montagu's Dictionary (In the possession of Canon Tristram), saying that this bird, after standing in the Leverian Museum twenty years, passed to him. Therefore it is a fair surmise that Plate CLXXXIV. of his British Birds is its portrait, and no one would want to be told after looking at it that it represents the Common, not the Spotted Sandpiper.'

Seebohm (1885 (3): 123) says: 'It is extremely probable that the example recorded by Edwards (Gleanings in Nat. Hist., VI. p. 141) as having occurred in Essex in May 1743 was a Common Sandpiper, as it was obtained in spring.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1809 Northumberland Bellingham, shot, August.

(Bewick, 1809; Seebohm, 1883-85).

[BOU, 1971].

History Bewick (1809 (1): 108-109, 3rd ed.) says: 'This bird measures about eight inches in length. The bill is black at the tip, and fades into a reddish colour towards the base; a white streak is extended over each eye, and a brownish patch between them and the bill: the whole upper part of the plumage is of a glossy lightish brown, with green reflections: the head and neck are marked with longish small dark spots: on the back, scapulars, and wing coverts the spots are larger, and of a triangular shape: the rump is plain: the greater quills are dusky; secondaries tipped with white; as are also the greater and lesser coverts, which form two oblique white lines across the extended wings: the two middle feathers of the tail are greenish brown; the side ones white, crossed with dusky lines: the breast, belly, and vent are white, but in the female, spotted with brown: legs of a dirty flesh colour. The specimen from which the foregoing figure was drawn, was shot in the month of August, on the bleak moors above Bellingham, in Northumberland, and the author is indebted for it, and many other favours of the same kind, at different times, to Mr. John Wingate, of the Westgate, Newcastle.'

Seebohm (1885 (3): 123) says: '...but Bewick's Spotted Sandpiper, "shot in the month of August on the bleak moors above Bellingham, in Northumberland", is not only figured with the spots on the back more regular than is usually the case with the Common Sandpiper, but the secondaries are described as "tipped with white", whilst those of the Common Sandpiper are said to be marked with white on the middle of both webs, as well as tipped with white.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1831 Suffolk Ipswich, shot, summer.

(Ticehurst, 1932).

[Ticehurst, 1932; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Ticehurst (1932: 367) says: 'Without going into long details, I can say that I do not credit either of the supposed occurrences of the Spotted Sandpiper in Suffolk....The second [for Suffolk] in Boulton's collection, was said to have been shot by Hoy at Ipswich in the summer of 1831, and yet Hoy neither recorded it nor kept it in his collection.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1839 Norfolk Near Runton, adult, obtained, 26th September.

(Yarrell, 1845; Stevenson, 1870; Harting, 1872, 1901).

[Gurney, 1876; Harting, 1872; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Yarrell (1845 (2): 613-614, 2nd ed.) says: 'The Spotted Sandpiper has hitherto been included in our catalogues and histories of British Birds, on the authority of Edwards and Bewick; but believing with Mr. Selby, the Rev. Mr. Jenyns and others, that the birds from which Edwards and Bewick drew the representations, were only specimens of our Common Sandpiper, I had intended not to have included the Totanus macularius in the present work.

It will be recollected that Montagu states in his Supplement that he had never met with this species. Mentioning this intention to my friend Mr. Heysham during his recent visit to London, he immediately told me that on his route from home he had visited Norwich, and had seen in the collection of J. H. Gurney, Esq., the Banker of that city, a British killed specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper, an adult bird, which had been received in the flesh, and preserved for him by Mr. George Johnson of Norwich.

Mr. J. H. Gurney, with whom I have had the pleasure of being acquainted some years, no sooner knew my wishes on the subject, than he requested Mr. Johnson to send me notice of the place and time of the capture of the recently killed Totanus macularius, and the following is an extract from Mr. George Johnson's obliging communication. "The Bird in question came to me in the meat. It was shot between Runton and Sherringham [sic] on the north east coast of Norfolk, in company with a flock of the Common Sandpiper, five or six of which came into my hands with it. It was killed about the 26th of September, 1839; the birds were bought by a friend residing at Cromer, about four miles from Sherringham [sic], who sent them to me not being aware that any of them were scarce or at all valuable. Your friend Mr. Gurney saw the bird immediately after I had skinned it, and I am extremely happy to afford you any information of the first British specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper that has come to your notice".'

Stevenson (1870 (2): 234) adds: '...I had also the assurance, about three years back, off the late Mr. John Sayer, of this city, that it was a skin when placed in his hands to be stuffed. A statement which I am the more ready to believe from a recent and careful examination of the bird in question.'

Harting (1872: 139) in a footnote, says: 'The owner of this specimen, Mr. J. H. Gurney, informs me that he has now no doubt that he was imposed upon when he purchased it, and that it was set up from an American skin.'

Comment Imported. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1841 Caithness Wick, obtained, undated.

(Sinclair, 1841; Shearer & Osborne, 1861).

[Gurney, 1876; Harvie-Brown & Buckley, 1887].

History Gurney (1876: 260-261) says: 'The species is also in the statistical catalogue of Wick in Caithness, but Mr. W. Reid, who has examined the bird for me, writes that it is not a Spotted Sandpiper, and from his description I have no doubt that he is right in considering it to be a Spotted Redshank, a very different bird with which it has more than once been confounded. This is believed to be the individual alluded to by Shearer and Osborne in the Trans. of the Phys. Soc. of Edinburgh.'

Harvie-Brown & Buckley (1887: 222) placing the record in square brackets, say: 'A specimen recorded by Dr. Sinclair as being in his collection. Mr. Reid writes: "This is an error; it is not a Spotted Sandpiper". Mr. Reid had a skin of the Spotted Sandpiper sent him by Mr. J. H. Gurney for comparison. Mr. Gurney says: "The birds were very unlike", and thought Dr. Sinclair's specimen was a Redshank in peculiar plumage. Dr. Sinclair's bird passed into Mr. Reid's possession, having been given to him by Mrs. Sinclair.

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1843 Kent No locality, killed, undated.

(S. Mummery, Annals & Magazine of Natural History 14: 77).

[Ticehurst, 1909; Not in BOU, 1971].

History S. Mummery of Margate (1844) in the Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Vol. XIV. p. 77, in the July 1844 issue, says: 'I have also a good specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper, which was killed last year.'

Ticehurst (1909: 473-474) says: 'Several specimens of the Spotted Sandpiper have been claimed for Kent, but the older records are wanting in details and it is doubtful whether any of them ought to be accepted.

The earliest was thus recorded by Stephen Mummery, in 1844: ...This bird was apparently purchased from him by J. H. Gurney senior. In his Rambles of a Naturalist Mr. J. H. Gurney, junior, analysed the claims of certain birds to be accounted British. In reference to the present species he writes as follows: "In a footnote to his Handbook (p. 140) Mr. Harting informs his readers that he procured a Spotted Sandpiper of Mr. Burton, the well-known birdstuffer in Soho, which was said to have been shot with another on the coast of Kent. This other I purchased, and at the same time learnt from Mr. Burton that the name of the person who obtained them was Bromley, but from his conversation with me he appeared to be exceedingly doubtful of either of them being British. My father has a specimen obtained from Mr. Mummery, the curator of the Museum at Margate, who averred that it was killed in that part of Kent. I do not believe a word of it; not that I would insinuate that he could be guilty of intentionally deceiving, but a mistake is possible, and may have been, and no doubt was committed".

The bird purchased by Mr. Harting is no doubt the one now in the British Bird Gallery of the South Kensington Museum, labelled "Kentish Coast".'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Mummery has been found unreliable (Ticehurst 1909). Not acceptable.

0). 1844 Shetland No locality, two, seen, winter.

(T. Edmonston, Zoologist 1844: 462).

[Saxby, 1874; Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History T. Edmonston (1844) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. II. p. 462, under 'A Fauna of Shetland', says: 'I have twice observed it in winter.'

Gurney (1876: 256) says: 'A variety of spurious records found their way from time to time into print, for the most part based on a misapprehension of the correct coloration. The first has reference to Shetland (Zool., 1844, p. 462), but is explained away in the Birds of Shetland (p. 195).'

Comment No identification details for this sight record of a difficult species. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1845 Cleveland/Co. Durham/Yorkshire Teesmouth, shot, undated.

(J. Hogg, Zoologist 1845: 1173; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881).

[W. E. Clarke & W. D. Roebuck, Naturalist 1883-84: 172; BOU, 1971].

History J. Hogg (1845) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. III. p. 1173, says: 'In my collection, shot on the Tees. J.G.'

It was accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881: 77), but later, W. E. Clarke & W. D. Roebuck (1883-84) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. IX. p. 172, say: 'The specimen recorded from the Tees proved to be a Green Sandpiper (J. H. Gurney, jun., Rambles of a Naturalist, p. 255).'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1848 Devon Dartmoor, undated.

(Rowe, 1848).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Rowe (1848: 231) under 'Ornithology of Dartmoor', says: 'Spotted Sandpiper Totanus macularius. Mr. Newton. M. [E. Moore, Secretary of Plymouth Institution].'

Gurney (1876: 260) says: 'Then I hear that it has a place in Rowe's Perambulation of the Forest of Dartmoor, but I have not the book to refer to. There is no mention of it in his catalogue published in 1863, so I pass it by as suspicious.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1848 Nottinghamshire River Meden, Budby, shot, February or March.

(Sterland & Whitaker, 1879; Whitaker, 1907).

[Eds., Ibis 1907: 648; BOU, 1971].

History Sterland & Whitaker (1879: 44) says: 'At Budby, on the outskirts of Thoresby Park, is a low-lying and extensive patch of ground, intersected in various directions by ditches of water which communicate with the shallow stream which flows round one side. Alders and other water-loving trees and plants, cover the bog in some places, while others are free of trees. In this secluded place a spotted sandpiper was shot at the latter end of February, or the beginning of March, 1848, by John Eyre, the principal keeper on that side of Earl Manvers' estate, a man of more than average intelligence, whom I knew well.

He gave the bird in the flesh to Mr. H. Wells, and it was skinned and stuffed by him. Mr. Wells, who has an excellent knowledge of birds succeeded in identifying his specimen, and in this he was confirmed by the late Hugh Reid of Doncaster who was well qualified to judge. Mr. Reid was fully aware of the rarity of the bird in this country and purchased it of Mr. Wells. These particulars I have had from the latter, who, when he sold the bird to Reid, understood it was for Sir Wm. Milner's collection at Nunappleton.

A few years since I had some correspondence with Mr. J. H. Gurney who was anxious to trace the bird. I have no doubt myself as to the correctness of both Mr. Wells and Mr. Reid, but as the latter has been dead some time, we have been unable to ascertain to whom he sold the bird.'

Whitaker (1907: 272) says: 'In March, 1848, John Eyre, then head keeper at Thoresby, shot one of these very rare waders. It was feeding on the side of a shallow stream at Budby, just on the outskirts of Thoresby Park. Eyre gave the bird in the flesh to Mr. Wells, of Edwinstowe, who sold it to Hugh Reid, the well known Doncaster taxidermist of that day.'

In an Editorial (1907) in The Ibis, Vol. XLIX. p. 648, in a review of Whitaker's Birds of Nottinghamshire, they say: '...but we certainly do not, as yet, feel inclined to admit the Spotted Sandpiper of America to the British List.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Wells was the birdstuffer who shot Parrot Crossbills and Two-barred Crossbills in the space of a few weeks in this same county. Not acceptable.

0). 1848 Yorkshire Bridlington, seen, 2nd March.

(E. T. Higgins, Zoologist 1848: 2147; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881).

[Gurney, 1876; Nelson, 1907; Not in BOU, 1971].

History E. T. Higgins of York (1848) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VI. p. 2147, dated 17th May, 1848, says: 'On the 2nd of last March, I saw a specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper on the beach at Bridlington Quay. It was excessively tame, and allowed me to approach within about fifteen yards of it. I am not aware of it having been noticed in Yorkshire before.'

Gurney (1876: 256) says: 'A variety of spurious records found their way from time to time into print, for the most part based on a misapprehension of the correct coloration. Twelve months previously he [Mr. Higgins] had thought he had seen one at Bridlington (Zool. 2147), which is about thirty miles south of Whitby.'

Accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881: 77). However, Nelson (1907 (2): 628) in summing up, says: 'One at Bridlington (Higgins, Zool., 1848, p. 2147), is considered doubtful.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1849 Yorkshire Whitby, adult female, shot, 29th March.

(W. M. E. Milner, Zoologist 1849: 2455-56; E. T. Higgins, Zoologist 1849: 2456; Newman, 1866; Clarke & Roebuck, 1881; Nelson, 1907; Eds., British Birds 4: 319; Witherby, 1920-24; Wilson & Slack, 1996; T. Melling, British Birds 98: 230-237).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971; BOURC (2006), Ibis 149: 195; BOURC (2009), Ibis 151: 225].

History W. M. E. Milner of Nunappleton (1849) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VII. pp. 2455-56, says: 'A beautiful adult female was shot just to the north of the pier, at Whitby, on Thursday 29th March, by a sailor on the beach. The bird came in the flesh the next day to Mr. Graham, my birdstuffer, in York, by whom it has been very well set up, and is now in my collection. It is, I believe, the first instance of this bird being taken in Yorkshire; though Mr. Higgins, of York, tells me he saw one in March, 1848, but was unable to secure it, on the same coast as my bird was found on, about thirty miles south. Of this I saw a notice in The Zoologist (Zool. 2147).'

E. T. Higgins of York (1849) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VII. p. 2456, dated 1st May 1849, says: 'Last spring I sent you a notice of a specimen of Spotted Sandpiper seen by me at Bridlington Quay. I have much pleasure in being able now to send a more satisfactory account of the occurrence of this exceedingly rare British bird, of which a very fine and well-marked specimen was shot near Whitby, at the end of last March. I saw it while in the flesh, but the intestines, having been removed, the sex could not be ascertained. It was remarkably tame. When shot, it was in company with a flock of Dunlins.

This (which I believe is the second instance recorded of the capture in Britain of this American species) certainly entitles it to be without hesitation included in the British list.'

Gurney (1876) says: 'Initially seen in the flesh by Mr. E. T. Higgins but the intestines had been removed. Doubts were raised and questions asked whether it could have been "drawn" and packed in salt, and sent over from America. Mr. Higgins says it certainly was not salted. He also thought he had seen one at Bridlington a year earlier.'

Further, p. 256, Gurney adds: 'A variety of spurious records found their way from time to time into print, for the most part based on a misapprehension of the correct coloration. The second to Whitby, and is not explained at present. It was an adult female, (?) stated to have been shot on the 29th of March. Mr. E. T. Higgins saw it in the flesh (Zool. 2456), but the intestines had been removed. Doubts have been raised, I enquired if it could have been "drawn" and packed in salt, and sent over from America (cf. Zool. 1293), but Mr. Higgins says it certainly was not salted. Twelve months previously he had thought he had seen one at Bridlington (Zool. 2147), which is about thirty miles south of Whitby. A short period elapsed, and in July, 1849, an announcement appeared from Mr. J. Duff (Zool. 2499), that within a few days of the occurrence at Whitby, one had been taken at Bishop Auckland; and after a brief interval a second was reported from that locality: but they proved on a more critical examination to be only examples of the Green Sandpiper (Hancock, 1874).'

Further, p. 262 he sums up by saying: 'I would indicate as those most deserving of credence is the example at Whitby.'

Accepted locally (Clarke & Roebuck 1881; Nelson 1907 (2): 628).

In an Editorial (1911) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 319, under 'Supposed Occurrence of the Spotted Sandpiper in Yorkshire', say: 'In The Naturalist (1911, pp. 100-101) Mr. W. Greaves gives some details regarding a specimen of Totanus macularius which is supposed to have been shot at Hebden Bridge about 1899, but the history of the specimen is so confused and uncertain that it seems inadvisable to accept the record as fully authenticated.

There is only one authentic record of the occurrence of this species in Yorkshire, viz., the bird obtained at Whitby on March 29th, 1849 (Birds of Yorks., p. 628).'

Admitted nationally (BOU 1915). H. F. Witherby in The Handbook states it was doubted by J. H. Gurney (1876) in his Rambles of a Naturalist. However, the BOU (1971) have now rejected it, but Yorkshire avifaunas, i.e. Wilson & Slack (1997) are still accepting it as valid.

Comment In view of the recent [2005] "Tadcaster Rarities" fraud (T. Melling, British Birds 98: 230-237) involving David Graham, who has been discredited, this record is unacceptable.

0). 1849 Co. Durham Near Bishop Auckland, shot, early April.

(J. Duff, Zoologist 1849: 2499).

[Hancock, 1874; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Joseph Duff of Bishop Auckland (1849) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. VII. p. 2499, dated 16th June, 1849, says: 'A fine specimen of that rare bird, the Spotted Sandpiper, was shot by Mr. H. Gornal, animal preserver, on the margin of the river Wear, a little west of this place, and is now in my collection: if was shot early in April, and appeared to have arrived a few days earlier than the common sandpiper.' However, Hancock (1874: 123) says: 'A short time after the occurrence at Whitby, Mr. J. Duff recorded in the Zoologist that one had been taken at Bishop Auckland. Also, a second one was reported from there shortly afterwards. However, on critical examination they proved to be Green Sandpipers.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1850 Co. Durham Bishop Auckland, shot, 3rd June.

(J. Duff, Zoologist 1851: 3036).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Joseph Duff of Bishop Auckland (1851) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. IX. p. 3036, dated 16th December 1850, says: 'About the 3rd of June another Spotted Sandpiper was shot, which we think justifies the insertion of such as British birds; for it not unlikely that many which have been considered as occasional visitors are regular migrants, but may not be observed; or even if taken, not recorded: the person who shot the bird did not know what it was, and had it not come into hands that did, we might not have known that the Spotted Sandpiper had been got for three successive years.'

Gurney (1876: 256) quoting Hancock (1874) says: '...on a more critical examination they were found to be the Green Sandpiper.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1852 Angus & Dundee Craig, Forfarshire, Angus, seen, undated.

(Mollison, Statistical Account; Gray, 1871; Gurney, 1876; H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 8: 374).

[Gray, 1871; Gurney, 1876; BOU, 1971].

History Gray (1871: 299) says: 'It is likewise in a Forfarshire list of birds, drawn up by Mr. Mollison, of Montrose, for the statistical account of the parish of Craig in that county; but, in this case, a mistake may have been committed.'

Gurney (1876: 261) says: 'The example referred to by the late Professor MacGillivray, as "observed near Montrose", (B. B., IV. p. 358) was the same which I learn from Mr. Gray is mentioned by Messrs. Molison and Brewster in their list of the Birds of Craig in Forfarshire. I have no evidence about it, but Mr. Gray thinks that a mistake may have been made. Mr. Molison was a collector and birdstuffer, and I have ascertained that he possessed "Bewick", the picture in which may have led him into error.'

H. M. Drummond Hay (1885-86) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 374, in the Report of the East of Scotland Union, says: '...Mention is also made of this bird by the late Mr. Mollison, in the Statistical Account of the parish of Craigo, near Montrose.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). Pre 1852 Greater London Brent Reservoir, Middlesex, obtained, undated.

(Harting, 1866; Gurney, 1876; Self, 2014).

[Glegg, 1935; BOU, 1971].

History Harting (1866: 180) says: 'A bird of this species, formerly in the possession of Mr. Milton, and sold with his collection at Messrs. Stevens' in April, 1852, was stated to have been obtained at Kingsbury Reservoir. It was purchased at the sale by Mr. Bond, who traced it to the person who had received it in the flesh and stuffed it, and fully satisfied himself of the truth of the statement.'

Gurney (1876: 257-258) says: 'A Spotted Sandpiper is stated in Harting's Birds of Middlesex, p. 180, to have been shot at Kingsbury Reservoir, a large sheet of water near London, considering its inland situation much affected by waders. Its possessor was Mr. Milton, and at his sale in 1852 at Stevens' it was bought by the well-known collector, Mr. Bond. It was lot 75, and entered as killed at Kingsbury. Mr. Bond traced the specimen, which he has kindly permitted me to see, to a person named Crane, who formerly worked for Mr. Ward the taxidermist, and who he believes stuffed it, but no facts were elicited, and I cannot now ascertain Crane's whereabouts.'

Further, p. 262, he sums up by saying: 'I would indicate as those most deserving of credence is the example at Kingsbury.'

Glegg (1935: 153) placing the record in square brackets, says: 'As I cannot find that this specimen has been critically examined I have placed the species in square brackets.'

Comment Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971) but (Self 2014) still believes in it. Not acceptable.

0). Pre 1854 Sussex Near Brighton, several, obtained, undated.

(J. Cavafy, Morris and Bree's Naturalist 4: 234).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History J. Cavafy of Brighton (1854) in Morris and Bree's edition of The Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 234, dated 7th August, 1854, says: 'I have lately bought of Mr. Swaysland...He also showed me several rare birds, procured at different times near Brighton; among which were...several Spotted Sandpipers.'

Gurney (1876: 258) says: 'Under the date of August 7th, 1854, Mr. J. Cavafy writes to The Naturalist to say that Mr. Swaysland had shown him among other rare birds killed at Brighton, "several Spotted Sandpipers". Brighton is noted for rare birds, but if the above were really procured there, it is singular that we should have heard no more of them, and accordingly I think we may take it as pretty certain that there was some mistake which further enquiries or a more critical examination revealed.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 187) says: '...Seeing that these birds have never found their way into any classic more than tentatively, it must be presumed that they were examined by real experts and proved wanting. But even if this is not so, the notice cannot possibly be permitted to "pass the censor" - it is so distressingly crude, and in this connection remember that at the time the obituary appeared there was no certified occurrence of this Wader in Britain.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Probably misidentified. Not acceptable. Although in the hands of Swaysland, who has been discredited (A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 112: 89-98), I do not think there has been a fraud committed here.

0). 1863 Cheshire & Wirral River Mersey, Fidlers Ferry, two, shot, May.

(Smith, 1865-66; Harting, 1872; Saunders, 1892; Dobie, 1893).

[Coward & Oldham, 1900; Not in BOU, 1971; BOURC (2007), Ibis 149: 652].

History Gurney (1876: 258-259) says: 'I have been obliged by a photograph of this bird. There is no mistake about it. And Mr. G [regson] vouches for its authenticity to me, in a letter, in the following words:- "It was shot on the Mersey by E. Lord, skinned by him under the wing, given to me by him, and set up by himself after being shown to various friends while still fresh". But though willing to give credence in this instance, I should for the present withhold it from an example which I am told is stated in Byerley's Fauna of Liverpool (p. 19) - a work I have not seen - to have occurred on Formby shore, fide Mr. Mather, a birdstuffer, not now living.'

Further, p. 262, he adds: 'those most deserving of credence are the examples from...Warrington.'

Howard Saunders (1892: 231-232, 2nd ed.) in the revised edition of Mitchell's Birds of Lancashire, says: 'In a paper on the 'Notabilia of the Archaeology and Natural History of the Mersey District', during the years 1863, 1864, 1865, by Mr. Ecroyd Smith, published in the Proceedings of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Session 1865-66, is a note on this North American species by Mr. C. S. Gregson who says: "Edwin Lord, of Warrington, shot two on the Mersey, below that town, in May, 1863, one of which I possess. Mr. Gregson has written me, under date June 12, 1884, that he saw in all, four specimens, in the flesh, and in process of skinning by Lord".'

Dobie (1893: 339) says: 'In the Warrington Museum there is a specimen...It was formerly in the collection of Mr. C. S. Gregson, and Mr. Greening tells me that his (Mr. Greening's) father saw it in the flesh. Concerning this record Mr. Seebohm says (British Birds, Vol. III. p. 123) that the evidence in support of it remains unshaken; and Mr. Gurney considers it as one of the six most deserving of credence out of twenty-six recorded occurrences in Britain (Rambles of a Naturalist, p. 262). I do not know on which bank of the Mersey it was shot, but from the narrowness of the river at this point, it may fairly be claimed by both Cheshire and Lancashire.'

Not accepted locally by Coward & Oldham (1900: 220-221) who placed the record in square brackets and added: 'Assuming that no deception was practised upon Mr. Gregson with regard to the facts of this case, it is very remarkable that this casual straggler from the American continent should have occurred at the same place on the Mersey in two different years, 1863 and 1865.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1863 Kent Sheerness, adult male, shot, July, now at Bexhill Museum, Sussex (Acc. No. 669).

(Harting, 1872; J. Harrison, Kent Bird Report 24: 93-94; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Harting (1872: 140) in a footnote, says: 'A specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper in my collection, purchased some years ago since of Mr. H. Burton, was said to have been shot, with another, out of a small flock of sandpipers, on the Kentish coast, by a man from whom he was in the habit of buying freshly killed birds; but I have been unable to obtain any further particulars. The price asked and given for it (only two or three shillings) seemed to indicate an ignorance of its value as a British killed specimen, and to preclude the notion of attempted imposition.'

Gurney (1876: 259) says: 'In a foot-note to his Handbook, p. 140, Mr. Harting informs his readers that he procured a Spotted Sandpiper of Mr. Burton, the well-known birdstuffer in Soho, which was said to have been shot with another on the coast of Kent. This other I purchased, and at the same time learnt from Mr. Burton that the name of the person who obtained them was Bromley, but from his conversation with me he appeared to be exceedingly doubtful of either of them being British. My father has a specimen obtained from Mr. Mummery, the curator of the Museum at Margate, who averred that it was killed in that part of Kent. I do not believe a word of it; not that I would insinuate that he could be guilty of intentionally deceiving, but a mistake is possible, and may have been, and no doubt was committed.'

Jeffrey Harrison (1975) in the Kent Bird Report, pp. 93-94, says: 'While recently examining the bird skins in the Bexhill Museum, Sussex, on another project, I came across the skin of an adult male Spotted Sandpiper. The original label states "Spotted Sandpiper, male, shot at Sheerness, July 1863, and presented to Mr. Bramley and sold by him to Mr. Jas Gardner Jany 12/65". Ticehurst (1909) refers to the same footnote in Harting (1872) but added that Mr. Burton "was a Soho taxidermist, and that Harting makes no mention of seeing the other specimen". Neither record was included by Ticehurst (1909). If one assumes that the "Bramley" on the label of the Bexhill Museum specimen is the same person as the "Bromley" mentioned by Harting, then it seems a reasonable assumption that the Bexhill bird is the second specimen.

From the original label and the plumage, which is typical of the worn summer plumage one would expect in late summer, then it would appear that this is the earliest confirmed record of the Spotted Sandpiper in Kent. The presence of this skin in the Bexhill Museum was obviously unknown to either Dr. Norman Ticehurst or to my late father, Dr. James Harrison, when he wrote his Birds of Kent. It bears the registration No. 669 of the Bexhill Museum and was in the late L. A. Curtis Edwards' collection, presented to the Bexhill Museum in 1934. The curator of the Museum, Mr. H. J. Sargent, F.M.A., who knew Mr. Curtis Edwards well, informs me that he was meticulous in keeping records of all his specimens. The catalogue of his collection, now incorporated in the Museum Registers contains the following further details of this specimen: '669 Spotted Sandpiper, adult male, Sheerness, Kent. (2) July 1863. I received this bird in August 1920 from G. Bristow of St Leonards-on-Sea, who had purchased it at one of the sales of the stock of the late James Gardner of Oxford Street, London.' The figure 2 in brackets is in the locality column and it tends to confirm the original report of two birds being taken there.'

Comment Not relocated until 1975 this record pre-dates any in the BOU (1971). Has it been submitted to BOURC ? With George Bristow the main culprit in the "Hastings Rarities" fraud (Nicholson & Ferguson-Lees 1962) and Gurney's statement it would be safer to reject this record. Not acceptable.

0). 1863 Nottinghamshire Near Retford, two, shot, September.

(Gurney, 1876).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Gurney (1876: 257) says: 'About this time [September 1863] two were shot at Retford (Notts.), according to a provincial newspaper, but I can say nothing about them as I have not seen them or the newspaper.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Epworth which also had a reputed Spotted Sandpiper shot in September, 1863, is only twenty miles north, and therefore I believe this is a duplicate record, but I can't say where the two came from, not having seen the original article.

Also, it has not been recorded in any journal of the era or by any other naturalist. Not acceptable.

0). 1863 Lincolnshire Epworth, shot, September.

(S. Hudson, Zoologist 1864: 9046; E. Newman, Zoologist 1864: 9121; S. Hudson, Zoologist 1864: 9290-91; Harting, 1872).

[Gurney, 1876; Not in BOU, 1971].

History Samuel Hudson (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9046, dated 18th February, 1864, says: '...and single specimens of the Spotted Sandpiper and Bittern have been shot here [near Epworth] within the last few days.'

E. Newman, Editor (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. p. 9121, says: 'In Mr. Hudson's communication (Zool. 9046) these two birds [Ruddy Shelduck and Spotted Sandpiper] are recorded as having occurred at Epworth, and the record has induced several communications expressing doubts. It has always been my endeavour to avoid the offence which is frequently given quite unintentionally by the mode in which such doubts have been expressed, and I will therefore, instead of printing the communications I have received on this subject, invite Mr. Hudson to give us further information on the two birds mentioned, first offering a few words on the species in question. The Spotted Sandpiper is an American bird which has never been obtained in Great Britain at all, the figure in Yarrell's work having been drawn from a skin which has been proved to be North American, and is now in the possession of Mr. Gurney. That two such birds should have occurred at the same spot, and within a month of each other is very remarkable.'

Samuel Hudson of Epworth (1864) in The Zoologist, 1st series, Vol. XXII. pp. 9290-91, dated 15th July 1864, with his reply says: '...In September, 1864, a sandpiper was shot by a man of this town, and taken by him to Mr. Gravil, birdstuffer, of the same place, who said it was the Spotted Sandpiper. The man took it away to show to a friend, and unfortunately went to a public-house and sold the bird to a stranger, who bought it with the intention of having it preserved. Mr. Gravil told me the next day he was quite certain of the species: he said the man promised to take the bird back to him the next day. I do not know the address of the man who bought it, although I know he lives near Doncaster; and if I can find him, and the bird is still in existence, I shall have great pleasure in sending you more particulars.'

Harting (1872: 139) says: 'One, Epworth, Lincolnshire, Feb. 1864: Hudson, Zoologist, 1864, pp. 9046, 9290.' Further in a footnote, he adds: 'This like many of the preceding, is a doubtful instance.'

Gurney (1876: 257) says: 'In September, 1863, a man of the name Emerson shot at Epworth in Lincolnshire a Sandpiper, which was pronounced by the local birdstuffer to be a Spotted Sandpiper, and as such it was recorded, together with a Ruddy Shelduck and a Bittern by Mr. S. Hudson (Zool. p. 9291); but serious doubts having been expressed about them, it was suggested that they should be examined by a competent naturalist, when the Ruddy Shelduck proved to be something else very different; and I cannot help thinking that the same fate would have befallen the Spotted Sandpiper had it been forthcoming, but its owner sold it to a commercial traveller at a public house, and I have traced it no further.'

Comment Discrepancy in the date by Harting who doubted the record. Not known to have been seen by a competent ornithologist. Not acceptable.

0). 1866 Sussex The Crumbles, two, shot, early October, one now at Booth Museum, Brighton (BoMNH 208048 or 208049).

(Harting, 1872; Gurney, 1876; Yarrell, 1871-85; Borrer, 1891; Arnold, 1907; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Witherby et al., 1940-52; BOU, 1971; Shrubb, 1979; James, 1996).

[BOURC (2007), Ibis 149: 652].

History Harting (1872: 139) says: 'One, Eastbourne, Sussex, Oct. 1866. In the collection of Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun.'

Gurney (1876: 261-262) says: 'And now to conclude, after having mentioned so many other people's Spotted Sandpipers, let me mention my own. In the course of my enquiries I learnt that Mr. B. Bates, the birdstuffer at Eastbourne, was in possession of a pair which he received in the flesh from a gas fitter named Lee some day in the beginning of October, 1866; and as Mr. Borrer and others were kind enough to make enquiries for me with a satisfactory result, and as I found that Mr. Lee remembered the afternoon when he shot them at what is called the Crumble pond, about a quarter of a mile from Eastbourne, a place where a good many rare birds have been killed, I bought one of them, and have since seen the other. I carefully examined both and made further enquiries without shaking the testimony of any one concerned in the matter, and I can only say that I now most fully believe in them. The circumstance of a pair being got together is no argument against them: I apprehend we have several instances on record of two examples of an American bird being obtained in England at the same time.'

Howard Saunders (1882-84 (3): 453, 4th ed.) in Yarrell's British Birds, says: 'A couple, one of which is now in Mr. Gurney's possession, were said to have been shot at the Crumble pond, near Eastbourne, in the beginning of October, 1866, and their antecedents bore investigation.'

Borrer (1891: 240) says: 'Of these two were shot in Sussex, near Eastbourne. At the request of Mr. J. H. Gurney, I went there and ascertained from Mr. Bates, naturalist, that they had been shot at the Crumbles pond, near that town, in October 1866. One of them was purchased by Mr. Gurney, and the other Mr. Bates retained, declining to let me have it.'

Arnold (1907: 93-94) says: 'As regards the shooting capabilities of the Crumbles...and another rarity that has been shot there is the Spotted Crake: and while I am on the subject of spotted creatures, I may as well add that Mr. J. H. Gurney assured me that he has a Spotted Sandpiper taken at the same place.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 187) says: 'To Sussex fell the honour of providing our Islands with their first Spotted Sandpipers, though, here again, their omission from nearly every magnum opus may mean that something is known to their disadvantage. As to the birds themselves, however, four in number, two at any rate, viz., the couple in the Booth Museum, Brighton, are beyond dispute correctly named. That there should be no possible error on this point they were submitted for verification to the authorities at South Kensington. Of the above quartet three were shot on the same day in October, 1866, on the Crumbles, near Eastbourne, by a man named Lee. They were set up Mr. B. Bates, who subsequently sold one to Mr. J. H. Gurney and another to Mr. Thomas Monk - what befell the third I have never been able to ascertain. The Monk bird ultimately passed into the Booth Museum, Brighton.'

BOU (1971) stated four occurrences between 1866-99 which includes this record of two.

Comment Originally these two were accepted by the BOU (1971); the third bird had never been acceptable to the BOU, and in a review of the species (2007) the remaining two are now found unacceptable.

0). 1867 North-east Scotland Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, two, obtained, August.

(Anon., Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow 1: 256; Gray, 1871; Gurney, 1876; H. M. Drummond Hay, Scottish Naturalist 8: 374).

[Sim, 1903; Not in BOU, 1971; C. J. McInerny, Scottish Birds 30: 27-29].

History Anon. (1858-69) in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow, Vol. I. p. 256, on 30th March, 1869, it says: 'The Secretary exhibited a specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper (Totanus macularius), which had been forwarded by Mr. W. C. Angus, Aberdeen, corresponding member. The bird was one of a pair obtained near that city in August, 1867. Mr. Gray said that although the Spotted Sandpiper had been introduced as a British species by the late Mr. Yarrell many years ago, in his work on British birds, none of the numerous records of that writer regarding that bird could well stand scrutiny.'

Gray (1871: 299) says: 'The only authentic instance of this rare bird having been found in Scotland was lately communicated to me by my obliging correspondent, Mr. Angus, of Aberdeen, who states that two specimens - a male and a female - were left at the Aberdeen Museum in August, 1867, in the absence of Mr. Mitchell, who up to the present moment does not know by whom the birds were presented, or where they were shot. Both were in the flesh, and had not been long dead: they were very prettily marked and somewhat dissimilar in size - the male being the larger. The female is now in Mr. Angus's cabinet, the other specimen has been kindly presented to me by Mr. Mitchell, and is now in my own collection.'

Gurney (1876: 260) in his Rambles of a Naturalist, says: 'With regard to Scotland, there is an air of probability about the pair recorded in Gray's Birds of the West of Scotland, (p. 299) to have been obtained in August, 1870, at or near Aberdeen, which no one can deny, and I must say that all the careful enquiries which I have made from Mr. Angus and Mr. Mitchell, have not shaken the authenticity of these specimens, but have entirely tended to confirm them. I am assured on all hands of their genuineness, that they were left while in the flesh at the Museum, that the stomachs were sent to Mr. R. Gray for dissection, and that they were really killed where stated.' Further, p. 262 he sums up by saying: 'I would indicate as those most deserving of credence the examples at Aberdeen.' Also, in a footnote he adds: 'A photograph of them was obligingly sent to me, and I have since had an opportunity of examining one of them at Mr. Gray's house.'

H. M. Drummond Hay (1885-86) in the Scottish Naturalist, Vol. VIII. p. 374, in the Report of the East of Scotland Union, says: 'Mr. Angus, writing to Mr. Gray (Birds West Scot., p. 299), makes mention of two specimens, in the flesh, as having been left in the Aberdeen Museum in the absence of the Curator in August, 1867, no particulars of which could be obtained, as the person who left them never returned. Mention is also made of this bird by the late Mr. Mollison, in the Statistical Account of the parish of Craig, near Montrose.'

Smart (1886: 59-60) says: 'Mr. H. Saunders admits it on four occurrences which entitle it "to retain its place on the list, two near Eastbourne, 1866; two near Aberdeen, 1867. Mr. Seebohm quotes seven "unshaken occurrences". With reference to the occurrences of the two birds shot by Edwin Lord, of Warrington, on the Mersey, in May, 1863, alluded to by Mr. Seebohm; and those seen (fortunately not shot!) in 1866 by Mr. Lord; Mr. C. S. Gregson, who possesses one of the birds, wrote June 12, 1884, to Mr. Mitchell, author of the Birds of Lancashire, stating that he had seen four specimens of this American bird in the process of being skinned by Mr. Lord.'

Not accepted locally by Sim (1903: 176) who placed the record in square brackets, or admitted (BOU 1971).

C. J. McInerny (2010) states that this pair are not generally accepted due to its association with the taxidermist Alexander Mitchell, who in 1867, also, had a White-throated Sparrow and a Pectoral Sandpiper as well.

0). 1867 Yorkshire Scarborough, obtained, undated.

(Roberts, Yorkshire Post, 1867).

[Gurney, 1876].

History Gurney (1876: 257) says: 'The Yorkshire Post likewise makes mention of one in some "Miscellaneous Rural Notes for 1867", by Mr. Roberts, giving I believe Scarborough as the locality, but this was certainly a case of mistaken identity.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0) c. 1869 Suffolk Near Mildenhall, shot, about February.

(J. G. Tuck, Zoologist 1871: 2684; Gurney, 1876; Babington, 1884-86).

[Ticehurst, 1932; Not in BOU, 1971].

History J. G. Tuck (1871) in The Zoologist, 2nd series, Vol. VI. p. 2684, undated, but in the July issue, says: 'A very rare wader was killed about two years ago near Mildenhall, in this county - the Spotted Sandpiper, which was stuffed by the same man who obtained the [Black-winged] Stilt. I saw it soon after being mounted, when the flesh coloured legs and spotted breast were unmistakeable. The rare birds which have been obtained in Suffolk the last year have been somewhat remarkable, as in addition to the two above mentioned, they comprise the only British specimen of the Gray Redstart (vide Field, April 15th, 1871), the White-winged Crossbill, the Alpine Swift, and the Pectoral Sandpiper.'

Gurney (1876: 260) adds: '...possessor of it is Mr. Gregory Sparke of Bury.' Further, p. 262, he sums up by saying: 'I would indicate as those most deserving of credence is the example at Mildenhall.'

Babington (1884-86: 240) says: 'One taken near Mildenhall Jan. 1869 (Bilson, Journ. Suff. Inst., 46); formerly in possession of the late Mr. Sparke, of Well Street, Bury St. Edmund's. Mr. Tuck saw it soon after it was stuffed, when the flesh-coloured legs and spotted breast were unmistakeable (J. G. Tuck in Zool., 2nd ser. 2684, and v. v.). I have been unable to trace the bird (C.B.).'

Ticehurst (1932: 367) says: 'Without going into long details, I can say that I do not credit either of the supposed occurrences of the Spotted Sandpiper in Suffolk. The first, said to have been shot in February about the year 1869, near Mildenhall, appears to have been in summer dress.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). Pre 1871 Sussex Between Worthing and Little Hampton, killed, undated.

(Gurney, 1876).

[Gurney, 1876].

History Gurney (1876: 258) says: 'In the case of another which I saw at Mr. Swaysland's shop in 1871, I am now satisfied that there was a mistake. He said - doubtless in perfect good faith - that it was killed between Worthing and Little Hampton by a Mr. Gringer, whose letter he showed me as proof. He had bought it of Mrs. Wells, the widow of the late trustworthy and intelligent birdstuffer at Worthing, and with her I had some correspondence on the subject, the result of which was to leave no doubt on my mind that a mistake had been committed by somebody.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1872 North-east Scotland No locality, shot, 23rd August.

(Sim, 1903).

[Sim, 1903].

History Sim (1903: 176) recording the record in square brackets, says: 'A specimen of this species was sent me by Mr. George Sim, Fyvie, who states that he shot it beside a disused mill-dam on August 23rd, 1872.'

0). 1878 Yorkshire Heslington, York, shot, undated.

(W. Prest, Naturalist 1878: 80).

[J. H. Gurney, Naturalist 21: 311].

History W. Prest (1878) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. IV. p. 80, at the York and District Field Naturalists' Society monthly meeting on November 13th, says: 'The following specimen was exhibited by Mr. Helstrip: a specimen of that very rare bird, the Spotted Sandpiper (Totanus macularius), shot near Heslington.'

John Henry Gurney of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1895) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXI. p. 311, says: 'At p. 327 of The Naturalist, Lieut. Col. B. B. Haworth-Booth records a Spotted Sandpiper (Tringoides macularius) shot at Rowlstone, in Holderness, by one of his sons. From a private communication I learn that the specimen was identified from the drawing in Bewick's British Birds, which it exactly resembles. Now, this drawing seems to have been the cause of misapprehension several times, representing, as it evidently does, the common British species, Totanus hypoleuca (L.), and not the American one.

When the 1847 edition of Bewick was in the press, the late Mr. John Hancock tried to get the matter put right, but Bewick's relatives were timid, and would only allow the following not to be added: - "This bird is believed by some to be the Common Sandpiper". As likely as not, Bewick's wrongly-named woodcut was used for identifying another Spotted Sandpiper, entered as such in The Naturalist, 1878-9, p. 80, as having been shot near Heslington, on the authority of Mr. Helstrip, and exhibited at the York Naturalists' Society's meeting as a veritable American visitor; some correspondent may have seen the bird and remember its identity.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1880 Sussex No locality, adult pair, shot, May, now at Horniman Museum, London (NH.83.3/195).

(Hart MS.).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Edward Hart writing in January 1928 states that this cased adult pair were shot in May, 1880 in Sussex. They were purchased at the sale of the late Col. Jeffreys.

Comment This pair were probably unrecorded in the literature of the day and have all the hallmarks of being ‘Hastings Rarities’.

0). 1884 Sussex Rye, killed, undated, now in the Booth Museum, Brighton.

(Booth, 1901; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Booth (1901: 217, 3rd ed.) says: 'Shot in 1884 by a man named Whiteley, of Rye, and purchased by the late Mr. W. Borrer off [George] Bristow, a bird stuffer at St Leonards, in 1891.'

Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 187) says: 'The fourth bird was killed at Rye in 1884 by a Mr. Whitely. It was preserved by George Bristow, who retained it until 1891, when he disposed of it to Borrer. The fact of the latter not having noticed this specimen (now in the Booth Museum, Brighton) in his book, published in 1891, in which, incidentally, only two of the previous trio find place, probably signifies that until that year he knew not of its existence and that, when during that year he did know about it, it was too late for inclusion therein.'

Comment Bristow was the main birdstuffer involved in the Hastings Rarities affair (Nicholson & Ferguson-Lees 1962). Whiteley was involved with the rejected Wilson's Storm-petrel from Sussex. Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

0). 1888 Angus & Dundee Montrose Basin, shot, September.

(Harvie-Brown, 1906).

[Harvie-Brown, 1906].

History Harvie-Brown (1906: 321) says: 'One is entered in the list of specimens in the Montrose Museum, "Shot at the Montrose Basin in September 1888", but on consulting Mr. J. Henry Gurney's account of specimens of this species reported as obtained in Britain, Mr. Gurney dismisses this record (as indeed all previous Scottish records should be dismissed). It was recorded by Messrs. Mollison and Brewster, collectors and birdstuffers, and referred to by Macgillivray (British Birds, IV. p. 358). But as has been explained by Mr. Gurney (Rambles of a Naturalist, p. 260), the said Mr. Mollison possessed a copy of "Bewick" (British Birds), in which a plate given as that of the rarer species is really a plate of the Common Sandpiper; and this same plate has been the occasion of many - or most - of the erroneous records for Great Britain.'

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1892 Yorkshire Near Rowlstone in Holderness, shot, October.

(J. H. Gurney, jun., Naturalist 21: 311; B. B. Haworth-Booth, Naturalist 21: 327).

[J. H. Gurney, Naturalist 21: 311; Nelson, 1907; BOU, 1971].

History John Henry Gurney of Keswick Hall, Norwich (1895) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXI. p. 311, says: 'At p. 327 of The Naturalist, Lieut. Col. B. B. Haworth-Booth records a Spotted Sandpiper (Tringoides macularius) shot at Rowlstone, in Holderness, by one of his sons. From a private communication I learn that the specimen was identified from the drawing in Bewick's British Birds, which it exactly resembles. Now, this drawing seems to have been the cause of misapprehension several times, representing, as it evidently does, the common British species, Totanus hypoleuca (L.), and not the American one. When the 1847 edition of Bewick was in the press, the late Mr. John Hancock tried to get the matter put right, but Bewick's relatives were timid, and would only allow the following not to be added: - "This bird is believed by some to be the Common Sandpiper".

As likely as not, Bewick's wrongly-named woodcut was used for identifying another Spotted Sandpiper, entered as such in The Naturalist, 1878-9, p. 80, as having been shot near Heslington, on the authority of Mr. Helstrip, and exhibited at the York Naturalists' Society's meeting as a veritable American visitor; some correspondent may have seen the bird and remember its identity. It has indeed been suggested that Bewick's woodcut may possibly represent the young of the American T. macularius, which is without spots, but the markings on the back show that Bewick's cut is from an adult, in which stage the breast is spotted. This, I think, forbids the supposition that it could have been anything but an English T. hypoleucus (shot, as I learnt from Mr. Hancock, by Mr. John Wingate near Bellingham).

As this was ninety years ago it has probably by this time passed out of existence, but, from what Mr. Hancock and Mr. R. Howse tell me, it most likely at one time was to have been found in Colonel Coulson's collection at Blenkinsop Hall, near Haltwhistle, dispersed by auction many years since, which collection also contained a Great Bustard, locally shot. There are thirty-one supposed occurrences of the Spotted Sandpiper in the British Isles, and there are very few birds around which so much apprehension has clustered.

A good many of them are undoubtedly cases of mistaken identity, while some are foreign skins wilfully or unintentionally palmed off as British-killed, and admitted into collections where they would otherwise not have found a place. Totanus macularius was allowed to retain its place as a British bird in the 4th ed. of 'Yarrell' by Howard Saunders, but consigned to the comparative oblivion of a note in The Manual (1889), "until some trustworthy person can produce a specimen" - a very proper exercise of caution. There is no reason why it should not sometimes cross the Atlantic as other American sandpipers do, and as it has no spots its first autumn it would not be easily recognised if a bird of the year, except by the browner colour of its secondary quills.'

B. B. Haworth-Booth of Hullbank Hall, near Hull (1895) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXI. p. 327, dated 10th August, 1895, says: 'This very rare bird was shot by one of my sons in October 1892, flying from a rush-grown pond near Rowlstone in Holderness. This scarce migrant of Gätke's Birds of Heligoland (chap. Migration) had no doubt flown direct across the Atlantic - the distance form Newfoundland to Ireland (1,600 miles) being accomplished in favourable weather in nine or ten hours.'

Nelson (1907 (2): 628) in summing up, says: '...is considered doubtful; as is another, reported by the late Col. Haworth-Booth as obtained in October 1892 at Rowlstone in Holderness.'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). c. 1899 Lancashire & North Merseyside Cliviger, shot, undated.

(W. Greaves, Naturalist 37: 100-101).

[Not in BOU, 1971].

History Walter Greaves of Hebden Bridge (1911) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXXVII. pp. 100-101, says: 'In a list of the 'Vertebrate Fauna of the Hebden Bridge District', which the Hebden Bridge Literary and Scientific Society recently published, I recorded two occurrences of the Spotted Sandpiper (Totanus macularius), one within the county, and one slightly over the boundary, in Lancashire. Repeating the latter record in a 'List of the Birds of Todmorden', in the Lancashire Naturalist, it came to the notice of Mr. F. J. Stubbs, Stepney Museum, who added that further particulars would be acceptable. I thereupon procured the skin of the example obtained in Yorkshire, and paid a visit to the gamekeeper, who I was assured possessed the Lancashire specimen, obtained by himself on the moors about Cliviger. The latter, on inspection, proved to be a good example of the much commoner Green Sandpiper (T. ochropus).'

Not admitted nationally (BOU 1971).

Comment Misidentified. Not acceptable.

0). 1899 Yorkshire Hebden Bridge, adult, shot, undated, now at Hull Museum, photo.

(W. Greaves, Naturalist 37: 32, 100-101, photo; Nelson, 1907; Eds., British Birds 4: 319; Eds., British Birds 4: 369; Witherby, 1920-24; Chislett, 1952; BOU, 1971).

[BOURC (2007), Ibis 149: 652].

History Walter Greaves of Hebden Bridge (1911) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXXVII. p. 32, says: 'Mr. Walter Greaves passed round for exhibition a specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper (Totanus macularius) supposed to have been obtained in the neighbourhood of Hebden Bridge a few years ago.'

Walter Greaves of Hebden Bridge (1911) in the new series of The Naturalist, Vol. XXXVII. pp. 100-101, says: 'In a list of the 'Vertebrate Fauna of the Hebden Bridge District', which the Hebden Bridge Literary and Scientific Society recently published, I recorded two occurrences of the Spotted Sandpiper (Totanus macularius), one within the county, and one slightly over the boundary, in Lancashire.

Repeating the latter record in a 'List of the Birds of Todmorden', in the Lancashire Naturalist, it came to the notice of Mr. F. J. Stubbs, Stepney Museum, who added that further particulars would be acceptable. I thereupon procured the skin of the example obtained in Yorkshire, and paid a visit to the gamekeeper, who I was assured possessed the Lancashire specimen, obtained by himself on the moors about Cliviger.

The latter, on inspection, proved to be a good example of the much commoner Green Sandpiper (T. ochropus), but the skin of the Yorkshire bird I submitted to Mr. Stubbs, the result being that my record was confirmed. Of the five alleged occurrences of this species in Yorkshire (Birds of Yorkshire, p. 628), one record on the Tees in 1845 proved on investigation to be a Green Sandpiper, and one at Bridlington in 1848, and another at Rolston, in Holderness, in 1892, are considered doubtful, and the claim of this North American Sandpiper to be admitted to the Yorkshire list, rests on the authority of Sir Wm. Milner, who refers to the specimen shot to the north of the pier at Whitby, on March 29th, 1849, which it is stated was set up for Sir William's collection.

The remaining record of the five specimens referred to concerns one which E. J. Higgins, of York, is said to have seen in the flesh in the company of a flock of Dunlins. Rejecting the three "doubtfuls", then, the example under notice is only the third known occurrence of this species in Yorkshire. In recording it I am wholly in the hands of a taxidermist, who owned the skin, and the data are rather scanty, but he is emphatic in declaring that this bird passed through his hands about the year 1899, and that it was obtained at Hebden Bridge.

He adds that he has always understood that the locality was Hardcastle Crags. His impression is that two representatives of the species were received by his employer both from Hebden Bridge, and about the same time, that one was stuffed and returned to the owner, and he gives me the reason this example remained in his possession. The month of the occurrence is also in doubt, but it was in the autumn; whether July, August, or September he does not remember. Mr. Stubbs who has made a critical examination of the skin, comparing it closely with many dated American skins expressed a doubt about the example being an autumn bird; and rather inclined to the opinion that it was a spring migrant. That belief is based on the fact that the autumn birds which he has examined have their primaries and secondaries very much abraded, whilst the one under notice does not show the slightest tendency to this. He suggests as an explanation that the bird may have been a spring migrant which had remained in Britain throughout the summer, and in that way escaped the wear and tear of the nesting season.

On measuring the specimen I found it to be nearly 8½ inches long, nearly an inch longer than is given by some authorities, the tail extending half an inch beyond the tips of the wings, which reach 4¼ inches; culmen, barely an inch; tarsus ⅞ inch. The plumage of the under parts is whitish, with dark spots, these commencing at the base of the bill, and being continued to the end of the tail. Having personally and specially interviewed the taxidermist referred to with the object of obtaining the history of the specimen, I am of the opinion that there need be no hesitation in accepting it as the third representative of the species that has occurred in Yorkshire. The specimen has now been added to a fine collection of Yorkshire birds in the Hull Museum.'

In an Editorial (1911) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 319, under 'Supposed occurrence of Spotted Sandpiper in Yorkshire', they say: 'Yorkshire. - In The Naturalist (1911, pp. 100-101) Mr. W. Greaves gives some details regarding a specimen of Totanus macularius which is supposed to have been shot at Hebden Bridge about 1899, but the history of the specimen is so confused and uncertain that it seems inadvisable to accept the record as fully authenticated. There is only one authentic record of the occurrence of this species in Yorkshire, viz., the bird obtained at Whitby on March 29th, 1849 (Birds of Yorks., p. 628).'

In an Editorial (1911) in British Birds, Vol. IV. p. 369, they say: 'In a recent issue (p. 319) we expressed a doubt as to the authenticity of a specimen of a Spotted Sandpiper shot at or near Hebden Bridge about 1899, and recorded by Mr. Walter Greaves in The Naturalist (1911, pp. 100-101). Mr. Greaves has very kindly written to us on the subject, and supplemented the information given in the article referred to.

Although the exact date and exact locality are uncertain, there can be, we think, on Mr. Greaves' new evidence, no reasonable doubt that the bird was in fact shot at or near Hebden Bridge about 1899. Mr. Greaves tells us that the taxidermist from whom his information is derived is in no sense a dealer, but is a stuffer of locally-obtained specimens; that he well remembers skinning this bird himself, and immediately noticing that it was a species new to him. There is little chance, therefore, that any mistake could have been made, although, unfortunately, the essential details of date and locality were not attached to the skin.'

Admitted by Witherby (1924 (2): 612) and accepted locally (Chislett 1952: 252).

BOU (1971) stated four occurrences between 1866-99 which included this record. However, BOURC (2007) in their 35th Report now reject this record.

0). 1904 Kent Romney Marsh, adult male and female, shot, 5th May, both now at Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery (Acc. No. 1962Z10.30 & 31), adult female now at Leicester Arts & Museums (Acc. No. Z28.2006.124.6).

(R. Bowdler Sharpe, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 14: 84-85; "Hy. S." Field 11th Jun., 1904: 1000; H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst, British Birds 2: 269; Ticehurst, 1909; Watson, 2010; A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 111: 228-230).

[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].

History R. Bowdler Sharpe, Editor (1904) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. XIV. pp. 84-85, at the 106th Meeting of the Club held on 18th May 1904 at the Restaurant Frascati, London, says: 'Mr. J. L. Bonhote exhibited, on behalf of Dr. N. F. Ticehurst, who was unable to be present, a pair of the Spotted Sandpiper (Tringoides macularius), which had been shot on the 5th of May, 1904, in a ditch between Lydd and Brookland in Romney Marsh. The birds were sent to Mr. Bristowe [sic] at St. Leonards, and were examined in the flesh, when still perfectly fresh, by Dr. Ticehurst on the 7th of May. This was the first properly authenticated record of the species in the County of Kent.'

"Hy. S." (1904) in The Field of 11th Jun., Vol. CIII. p. 1000, says: 'On May 5 a pair of the Spotted Sandpiper (Tringoides macularius) shot in Romney Marsh, and seen in the flesh on May 7 by Dr. Ticehurst, were exhibited on his behalf by Mr. J. L. Bonhote at the meeting of the British Ornithologists' Club on May 18 (Bull., XIV, 84). This occurrence is of more than ordinary interest owing to the fact that the bird was given a place in Yarrell (ed. 4th, III, 452), but displaced in the Manual (ed. 2nd, p. 606), and reinstated (pp. 605, 606) on indisputable evidence while the book was passing through the press. In his Rambles of a Naturalist Mr. J. H. Gurney has examined the supposed previous occurrences up to the date of publication, and a handy analysis of his results is given in Mr. J. E. Harting's Handbook of British Birds.'

Admitted by H. F. Witherby & N. F. Ticehurst (1909) in British Birds, Vol.II. p. 269, under 'On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899', who say: '...pair were shot on May 5th, 1904, in a ditch between Lydd and Brookland, in Romney Marsh (J. L. Bonhote, Bull. B.O.C., XIV. p. 84).'

Ticehurst (1909: 474) says: '...They were received on May 7th, and one of them being a good deal damaged was stuffed at once, the other Mr. Bristow brought to me in the flesh. It was a nice, clean and perfectly fresh bird, evidently quite recently shot. As I was unable to leave home...'

Watson (2010) in detailing the J. L. Auden collection in the Birmingham Museum lists a male and female specimens that were obtained at Lydd, Kent, on 5th May 1904, adding that they were bought at Sir V. H. Crewe's sale.

Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.

0). 1908 Sussex Shoreham-by-Sea, female, shot, 27th November.

(J. B. Nichols, British Birds 3: 377; Walpole-Bond, 1938; Witherby et al., 1940-52; des Forges & Harber, 1963; James, 1996).

[BOURC (2007), Ibis 149: 652].

History J. B. Nichols (1910) in British Birds, Vol. III. p. 377, says: 'A female Spotted Sandpiper (Totanus macularius) was shot by Mr. Ayling, at Shoreham, Sussex, on November 27th, 1908. It was seen in the flesh by Dr. H. Langton, Chairman of the Museum Committee, Brighton, and by the Curator. It is in immature plumage.'

[By the kindness of Mr. Nichols we are enabled to give a reproduction of a photograph of part of the wing of this bird. It will be seen that the dark brown sub-terminal band on the secondary wing-feathers is even and well marked on all the feathers, whereas in the Common Sandpiper (Totanus hypoleucus) the band in the eighth and ninth secondaries is broken, and these feathers are usually irregularly marked with brown and sometimes have scarcely any marking at all. The specimen above recorded is spotted on some of the ventral feathers, but nowhere else on the underside. - H.F.W.]

Admitted nationally (BOU 1915; Witherby 1924 (2): 612; Witherby et al. 1940-52) but later was found unacceptable (BOU 1971).

Accepted locally by Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 187) who adds: 'It was purchased by Mr. J. B. Nichols', and, in the latest Sussex avifauna (James 1996).

Comment It appears to have been overlooked in the Hastings Rarities affair and not mentioned, and missed by the BOU (1971). Therefore, it would appear to be a genuine record.

0). 1913 Sussex Pevensey Sluice, two: adult male, shot, 22nd May; female, shot, 24th May, both now at Leicester Arts & Museums (Acc. No. Z28.2006.124.2 & L.Z407.1983.1255.0).

(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 7: 58; E. N. Bloomfield, Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 2: 99-100; Walpole-Bond, 1938; A. H. J. Harrop, British Birds 111: 228-230).

[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].

History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1913) in British Birds, Vol. VII. p. 58, says: 'On May 23rd, 1913. I was shown a specimen of the Spotted Sandpiper (Tringa macularia) which had been shot the previous day at Pevensey Sluice, Sussex. It was a male in full summer plumage. Another specimen which accompanied it was not obtained until May 24th, and proved to be a female.'

Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (3): 187).

Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.

0). 1918 Sussex Rye, killed, 17th May.

(Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 3; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].

History Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 187-188) says: 'Another example - now in Captain W. H. Andrew's collection - "died" at Rye on May 17th, 1918 (H.E.S.N., III. p. 3).'

Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.

0). 1920 Sussex Pevensey, three: male and two females, shot, 13th May.

(Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist 3: 167; Walpole-Bond, 1938).

[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].

History Walpole-Bond (1938 (3): 188) says: 'On May 13th, 1920, a male and two females were shot at Pevensey, all three being seen in the flesh by Mr. W. R. Butterfield (H.E.S.N., III. p. 167). Of the specimens mentioned since and inclusive of 1908, Volume II of A Practical Handbook (1st edition), published in 1924, omits the one for 1918 and the trio of 1920.'

Comment Hastings rarities. Not acceptable.

0). 1950 Suffolk River Gipping, Stowmarket, 5th September.

(P. R. Westall, Suffolk Bird Report 1950: 27).

[P. R. Westall, Suffolk Bird Report 1950: 27].

History P. R. Westall (1950) in the Suffolk Bird Report, p. 27, recording the record in square brackets, says: 'At 7 p.m., 5 Sept., 2 waders were flushed on the R. Gipping at Stowmarket, which were immediately assumed to be Common Sandpipers. They alighted about 30 yards from us and one commenced preening. As it lifted its wing, round black or dark brown spots were revealed on the flank and lower breast; the bird was watched for some minutes with x25 telescope. Movements and general appearance appeared to be identical with those of the Common Sandpiper which accompanied it. Owing to the fading light, the bill was not clearly seen. The possibility that the spots were caused by splashes of mud cannot be entirely ruled out, although this was considered unlikely and the bird was thought to be a Spotted Sandpiper (A.D.R., E.R.).'

[It is unfortunate that this bird was seen only once, for a short time and in a fading light, so that further details of the underparts might be corroborated and details of the bill obtained. From discussion with the two observers, it is clear that this record of a very rare vagrant is only a "possible" one and must be retained in square brackets. - Ed.]