Moustached Warbler
Acrocephalus melanopogon (Temminck, 1823)
Photo © Kris Webb
STATUS
Eurasia. Polytypic.
OVERVIEW
BOU (1971) state that a pair bred in Cambridge during 1946. Other records were of two in Hampshire (August 1951) and Kent (April 1952).
However, after a review, all records were found unacceptable leading to formal deletion from the British List of the species.
NOT PROVEN
0). 1915 Sussex St Leonards-on-Sea, male, killed, 12th April.
(H. W. Ford-Lindsay, British Birds 9: 197; W. Ruskin Butterfield, Hastings & East Sussex Naturalist 2: 197; BOURC (1918), Ibis 60: 237; Walpole-Bond, 1938).
[E. M. Nicholson & I. J. Ferguson-Lees, British Birds 55: 299-384 HR].
History H. W. Ford-Lindsay (1916) in British Birds, Vol. IX. p. 197, says: 'On April 12th, 1915, an example of the Moustached Warbler (Lusciniola m. melanopogon) was shot at St. Leonards-on-Sea, Sussex. I examined it in the flesh the same day, and found it to be a male in rather worn condition. After skinning, I sent it up to Mr. H. F. Witherby, who kindly identified it for me, as there was some doubt about it.'
Admitted nationally in their First List Report as the first for Britain (BOURC (1918) Ibis 60: 237).
Accepted locally (Walpole-Bond 1938 (1): 367).
Comment Hastings rarity. Not acceptable.
0). 1946 Cambridgeshire Cambridge Sewage-farm, seen, a pair bred and reared three young, 3rd to 20th August.
(R. A. Hinde & A. S. Thom, British Birds 40: 98-104; Eds., British Birds 41: 387-388; BOURC (1950), Ibis 92: 639; R. Meinertzhagen, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 70: 54-55; BOURC (1971), Ibis 113: 142-145; BOURC (1971), Ibis 113: 423; Sharrock & Grant, 1982; Bircham, 1989; C. Bradshaw, British Birds 93: 29-38).
[BOURC (2006), Ibis 148: 594; T. Melling, British Birds 99: 465-478; P. A. Fraser, M. J. Rogers and the Rarities Committee, British Birds 100: 83].
History R. A. Hinde & A. S. Thom (1947) in British Birds, Vol. XL. pp. 98-104, say: 'The first recorded breeding of the Moustached Warbler Lusciniola melanopogon in the British Isles occurred in Cambridgeshire in 1946. On August 3rd, 1946, D. E. Sergeant and R. A. H. noticed an unfamiliar warbler in a sallow bush on the edge of a large reed-bed. Only a few short views of the bird were obtained, but it was seen to have a very dark crown and a very conspicuous white superciliary stripe. After a few minutes it flew out over the reed-bed and did not return within the half hour for which the watchers were able to remain.
On the morning of August 4th both birds of the pair were watched for two hours by C. C. Rose, A.S.T. and R.A.H. They spent most of their time in the reed-bed, but brought food at frequent intervals to a very thick bramble hedge about ten yards from the water's edge. The area between the brambles and the water was thickly carpeted with Coltsfoot, and contained two sallow bushes and a wild rose bush in which the adult birds alighted on their way to the bramble. As they did so, clear views were obtained at a range of less than ten yards. The most conspicuous feature was the superciliary stripe, which, starting from the base of the bill. where it was off-white in colour, became pure white and broadened considerably as it curved over the eye and came to a square finish at the side of the nape. The appearance of this stripe was made even more startling by the almost black crown and the very dark stripe through the eye. This, together with the contrast between the dark chestnut-brown back and white under-parts gave the birds a much more striking appearance than any warbler with which the observers were familiar. Although the two adult birds were clearly very similar, close inspection revealed small differences, and one (which was assumed for purposes of reference to be the female and is referred to as such throughout this paper, although of course no direct proof of sex exists) was seen to have a superciliary stripe which was just off-white throughout. The differences between the two adult birds were such as could easily have been caused by abrasion. As they perched in the bushes the birds called with a soft but penetrating "t-trrt, t-trrt, t-trrt", which all observers agreed was less harsh than and readily distinguishable from that of the Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. Each syllable was uttered separately. When the birds were approached too closely they called with a rather harsher "t-chik", which was repeated rapidly with the syllables sometimes run together. The adults brought food to the bramble at intervals which seldom exceeded two or three minutes. The two birds always used different approach paths, the male approaching on every occasion by a sallow bush opposite the centre of the bramble and the female by a rose bush some eight yards distant. Thus they entered the bramble at two separate points, which were several yards apart, and it seemed from the very dense nature of the hedge and the very short time which the birds spent in it that the two adults must be feeding young birds which were some distance apart in the hedge and which must therefore have been already out of the nest.
During the afternoon of August 4th the birds were again watched by R.A.H. for several hours. Further details of the plumage were noted (a full description compounded from those of all who watched them is given at the end of this paper). On one occasion the female was seen at the same time as a Sedge Warbler in the field of the glasses. The crown was very much darker than the Sedge-Warbler's, the superciliary stripe larger, whiter and more conspicuous and the back and mantle more rufous. It was quite clear to this observer that the birds were not Sedge Warblers. Later the male bird, which had just entered the hedge with food, was heard to give the alarm "t-chik, t-chik" very loudly and persistently. A few seconds later this bird was seen near the top of the hedge displaying vigorously with vibrating, half-raised wings and fanned tail. The tail was seen spread for only a few seconds, but was clearly rounded. After about two minutes of continuous calling the male bird left the hedge, and the observer went up to investigate. A young bird was found near the top of the hedge. This bird was in general similar to the adults, but the forehead, crown and nape were a very dark brown and the mantle was lighter than the adults. The superciliary stripe was the same shape as those of the adults, coming to a square finish near the nape, but was very slightly cream in tone. The young bird flew to the top of the hedge, where it perched for about a minute, and then flew down the hedge for over ten yards. This bird gave the impression of being able to fly several yards with ease, but a bird seen by A.S.T. at dusk on August 7th appeared to have very limited powers of flight. On August 8th, however, A.S.T. saw three young birds, two of which were quite strong on the wing, though the third could only fly short distances.
The observations made up to this point seemed to correspond only with the Moustached Warbler Lusciniola melanopogon, but in view of the fact that this species had only been recorded once before in the British Isles, the conclusion that a pair was actually breeding appeared fantastic. To establish the identity of such an obviously difficult bird two courses were possible - to obtain a specimen, which was decided against, or to invite as many expert ornithologists as possible to give their opinion, On the morning of August 5th, Dr. and Mrs. W. H. Thorpe, the Rev. E. A. Armstrong and Dr. R. W. Butler came to see the birds. All had excellent views, as the birds at this time were reasonably tame and it was possible to watch them from five or ten yards range as they perched in the bushes. All rapidly formed the opinion that these birds were of a species with which they were unfamiliar, and all noticed the characteristics of crown, superciliary stripe and mantle which have been mentioned above. Both Dr. and Mrs. Thorpe remarked independently that the birds were like a warbler with a Whinchat's head, and Dr. Thorpe also emphasized the "dark cheeks and pure white throat and lower cheeks, which gave quite as sharp a contrast as in the Lesser Whitethroat". Skins of both Moustached and Sedge Warblers and the appropriate volume of Dresser were brought into the field. All were agreed that the birds had much darker crowns, very much whiter and more conspicuous superciliary stripes and more chest-nutty mantles than had any of the Sedge Warbler skins which were available, and that the birds appeared to correspond with the Moustached Warbler, although it seemed so exceedingly unlikely that this species should be nesting in the British Isles, During the remainder of the day the adults continued to feed the young at intervals of about two minutes for periods of ten minutes to an hour, followed by breaks of ten to thirty minutes when they disappeared over the reed-bed. The territory seemed to be bounded by the bramble hedge on the west side, by clumps of willow on the north and south sides, and to extend over the reed-bed to the east. On the far side of the bramble hedge was another large area of shallow water without reeds, but the birds were never seen to fly in this direction. Invasion of this area by Reed Warblers Acrocephalus s. scirpaceus, and Garden Warblers (Sylvia borin) produced on several occasions on this and subsequent days a display consisting of fanned tail and spread wings accompanied by the harsh, rapidly repeated "t-chik, t-chik". Sedge Warblers, on the other hand, though seen in the area on only two occasions, were ignored. At 20.10 hours occasional high sweet notes were heard from a bird believed to be preparing to roost. When it was almost dark one of the birds was disturbed from one of the sallow bushes near the border of the reed-bed. On the morning of August 6th, Prof. C. E. Raven and Dr. W. H. Mills watched the birds. Prof. Raven stated that though he had formed the definite expectation of seeing nothing but very strongly marked Sedge Warblers, he was "entirely convinced that the bird was not Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. Its very dark crown and blackish moustache contrasted with the white eyestripe and white throat. The deep red-brown of the back looked much darker than a Sedge Warbler...Its note, heard several times, seemed less harsh and shrill". Dr. Mills also noticed the conspicuous features noted by the previous observers and described above and commented "It was certainly a warbler which I have never seen before". Later in the day James Fisher watched the birds, and in his field description emphasized the very dark crown and the very prominent superciliary stripe, which he described as not quite white but very pronounced. He also emphasized the rufous flanks. Up to this time the weather had been fine, with at most 4/10th cloud, and little wind. During the rest of the period during which the birds were under observation, however, the weather deteriorated somewhat, and with the increasing wind the birds, which had previously come out into the open freely, tended to skulk under the leaves of the coltsfoot. The plumage of the adults, which had seemed to be in good condition before, seemed to deteriorate in the heavy rain which fell. A watch was kept on them for at least several hours every day. Although the young were seen to catch flies for themselves from at least August 7th onwards, the adults continued to feed them as frequently as they had done previously. The young became even more spread out than they had been before, and spent more of their time in the coltsfoot than in the bramble.
The only occasion on which any approach to a song was heard was at 05.32 hours on August 6th. The male was in one of the sallow bushes when a Reed Warbler appeared in a neighbouring bush. The bird gave one sweet fairly high note followed by lower notes not unlike the normal call, and then chased the Reed Warbler, displaying as described above. It then returned to its original bush and gave three of the high notes followed by the low notes as before, thus "Trt, trt, trt, rdl, rdl, rdl". Both of the adult birds, when flying for short distances seemed to carry the tail in a rather elevated position, and on several occasions they cocked the tail to an almost vertical position, especially when excited. A slight cocking of the tail was an invariable accompaniment to the uttering of the alarm note. On August 9th, Dr. H. B. Cott and Dr. E. A. R. Ennion watched the birds. Dr. Cott stated that they differed from Sedge Warblers in the superciliary stripe, which was "whiter, broadened out behind the eye, extended for a considerable distance behind the eye and came to an abrupt finish".
Dr. Ennion stated in his field description that the upper-parts were darker and redder than a Sedge Warbler, and that the "superciliary stripe was very much whiter and broader than any Sedge Warbler that I have ever seen, contrasting so strongly with the blackish forehead and crown border above, and with the dark brown cheeks plus ear-coverts below, that it was strongly suggestive of a cock Whinchat; it did not taper towards the nape as in a normal Sedge Warbler, but ended bluntly"....On August 10th, James Fisher and J. A. Gibb watched the birds. J. A. Gibb have previously observed the Moustached Warbler in Malta and had a very clear description of the single bird which he had seen there which emphasized the very broad white superciliary stripe broadening behind the eye, the black forehead and almost black crown, the white chin and throat and the rich dark chestnut brown of the back and wings. He was satisfied that the Cambridgeshire bird was identical with the Malta bird in all these particulars, and stated that "I feel justified in maintaining the identity of the Cambridgeshire birds as Lusciniola melanopogon in default of any other species with major characteristics identical with those of the Malta bird". A. Darlington also watched the birds on several days and made a long and careful description of them in the field. This description agreed in all points with those made by previous observers, and A.D. stated that "I am myself satisfied that these birds are not Sedge-Warblers in any condition".
The birds were watched for several hours every day until August 20th, which was the last day on which they were seen. The facts of the case had been reported by Dr. Thorpe to Mr. B. W. Tucker, who is familiar with Moustached Warblers in Southern Europe, but unfortunately Mr. Tucker was on holiday in Scotland. On his return he immediately came over to Cambridge and spent part of the afternoon of August 26th and the morning of August 27th watching the territory and searching the reeds and likely spots in the vicinity in the hope of finding the birds, but without success. The complete evidence in the form of the individual descriptions of each observer, together with the paintings made by Dr. Butler, Dr. Ennion and A.S.T., was submitted to Mr. Tucker. After a detailed analysis he replied that although Dr. Butler's account stood somewhat apart in being distinctly more suggestive of Sedge Warblers than any of the others, "the evidence as a whole, and even the two or three fullest and most careful descriptions taken individually, seem to make the conclusion almost inescapable that the birds were Moustached Warblers"; but he pointed out the desirability of making a search for the nest. This seemed particularly important in view of the fact that the parents had first been seen feeding young, evidently recently fledged, amongst brambles some yards from the nearest water. This might have been held to suggest that the young had come from a nest in those brambles rather than in the reed-bed and so to constitute a weak point in the evidence, since all accounts show that the Moustached Warbler normally always breeds over water. It was therefore obviously important not only to search the neighbouring parts of the reed-beds, so far as possible, but also to determine what nests, if any, there were in the brambles or adjacent vegetation. Accordingly a careful search was made of the whole area, including the brambles, the sallows, willows, coltsfoot, and the reed-bed up to a distance of about five yards from the shore. All the bushes which were too thick to be properly covered thoroughly otherwise were cut down. It is quite certain that there was no nest in the bramble or anywhere in the vicinity that could possibly have been that of a Sedge-Warbler (as being the only other species with which a Moustached Warbler could possibly be confused) and this taken with the evidence given above that the young were already out of the nest when the birds were first seen, seems to make it probable that the nest was in some inaccessible part of the reed-bed.
The following is a description of the birds compounded from those of the various observers: Assumed Male. - Forehead, crown and nape very dark brown, almost black, darkest in front and at sides, with a thin warm brown longitudinal line along each side of centre of head. Mantle and scapulars darkish chestnut brown, with four dark brown or black longitudinal lines through mantle, well defined from nape, but continuity becoming lost in posterior area. Back, rump and upper tail-coverts, rufous. Very conspicuous superciliary stripe starting from nostrils, where it was off-white, becoming pure white and broadening as it curved over and behind the eye to finish abruptly and squarely near edge of nape. Very dark brown stripe passing from gape through and under the eye, continuing behind the eye to the ear-coverts. Ear-coverts dark brown, becoming dull brown on the sides of the throat. Chin, throat and breast white, with chin and throat conspicuously so. Breast becoming suffused buffish posteriorly. Flanks reddish-buff, becoming more intense in posterior area. Tail feathers brownish-black with indistinct, badly worn lighter margins. Primaries and secondaries black-brown with yellow-buff margins. Greater and median coverts as secondaries. Lesser coverts brown with dark centres. Bill dull brown; gape vivid orange; legs straw-brown; iris brown. Assumed female. - Like male, but crown and nape slightly less black. Superciliary stripe off-white throughout. Mantle a slightly colder brown. Flanks and under tail-coverts, rather less rufous and more light warm brown in colour. Bill as male but lighter at base. Juvenile. - Like adults. Forehead, crown and nape very dark brown with longitudinal less dark streaks. Superciliary stripe the same as in adults, but slightly cream in tone. Mantle rather lighter than adults. Feathers of wing-coverts with dark brown centres. Under-parts faintly suffused pale buff, with faint reddish-brown on posterior region of flanks. Bill nearly white. It was impossible to identify with certainty the food which the adults brought to the young. The latter were most frequently fed with small Diptera, but the adults were also often seen carrying adult Odonata, Coleoptera and caterpillars (probably Lepidoptera). On two occasions an adult was seen carrying a white moth, one of which was identified as a Gold-tail Moth (Euproctis chrysorrhoea=similis) and once a greyish Tettagonid grasshopper. In the above resume of observations and opinions an endeavour has been made to include all that is pertinent for the establishment of the identification. That the birds were not Sedge Warblers is clearly established: that they were Moustached Warblers seems inescapable.
In conclusion we would like to thank the observers quoted and in addition J. R. Simister and John Wallace.'
[The breeding in England of this Mediterranean bird, the nearest part of whose normal range is the South of France and whose sole previous claim to a place in the British List rested on a single occurrence, is an event so extraordinary as to seem at first sight scarcely credible. The evidence in support of the identification is, however, so complete that no other conclusion appears possible. It may be permissible to observe that this evidence comprises the testimony of highly critical and trained minds of men like Prof. Raven and Dr. Thorpe, as well as of experienced amateur ornithologists, one of whom had actual experience of the Moustached Warbler, and that the identification was supported by an actual comparison of skins with the living birds. As stated by the authors, I have had at my disposal the complete notes of the dozen different observers who watched the birds and the series of coloured drawings prepared by Drs. Butler and Ennion and Mr. Thom. I have made the most thorough comparison and analysis of all this material, having before me a series of skins of Moustached and Sedge Warblers as I did so and, I may say, with the added advantage of familiarity with the former species in Italy, and I entirely concur in the authors' conclusions. A point which deserves emphasis, apart from the plumage characters, is the cocking of the tail, which was noted by two or three of the observers. This is highly characteristic of Moustached Warblers and is an action which is not in my experience normally employed by Sedge Warblers at all.
It is hoped to issue with a later number a reproduction of one of Dr. Ennion's coloured drawings. This was originally prepared and coloured, with the assistance of notes taken in the field, immediately after watching the birds. The striking coloration of the head is entirely unaltered, but it should be stated that the shades of colouring of mantle and tail-feathers have been modified somewhat to meet criticisms by Messrs. Hinde and Thom, who, it must be remembered, saw far more of the birds...I may add that Mr. Thom's own drawings, though not laying claim to quite the artistic skill of Dr. Ennion's, are in some ways more cogent as evidence, since they were based on sketches actually made and coloured in the field (which I have also seen) and were compared again with the birds after completion. They strongly support the identification. - B. W. Tucker.]
R. Meinertzhagen (1950) in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, Vol. LXX. pp. 54-55, says: 'In the Twenty-second Report of the B.O.U. List Committee (Ibis, p. 639, 1950) it has been decided to accept as a breeding British bird Lusciniola melanopogon (Temminck) with the reservation that it is a sight record. Full details of the record are given in British Birds, p. 98, 1947. There is no character in this exhaustive field record which does not equally apply to the Sedge Warbler from which the Moustached Warbler can only with certainty be identified by the first primary. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the many observers responsible for the record but I do doubt their ability to determine the Sedge from the Moustached in the field. Furthermore, it is my experience in Irag and Egypt that the males of the Moustached Warbler pass north in spring before the females; the chances of a female coming to Britain and finding a lone male in Cambridgeshire seems rather remote. I am of opinion that this record should not be accepted even as a sight record. I exhibit a box containing five of each species from which it will be seen that the dark crown and more prominent eye-stripe attributed to the Moustached Warbler is not an invariable specific character.'
In view of the scepticism of several of its members, the record was reconsidered and found to be still convincing (BOURC (1971) Ibis 113: 423).
0). 1951 Hampshire Eling Great Marsh, Totton, two, 13th August.
(G. E. Wooldridge & C. B. Ballantyne, British Birds 45: 219-220).
[BOURC (2006), Ibis 148: 594; D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers, British Birds 99: 463].
History G. E. Wooldridge & C. B. Ballantyne (1952) in British Birds, Vol. XLV. pp. 219-220, say: 'At about 7 p.m. on August 13th, 1951, Campbell Ballantyne told G. E. Wooldridge of two warblers that he had been watching that morning. Although obviously warblers their identity was puzzling. He gave a fairly full description of the birds seen, the most striking feature being, "very dark brown head with white eyestripe". He had been first attracted by their call, a Stonechat-like "tac-tac" which he considered an unusual note to hear from a reed bed. We went at once to Eling Great Marsh, Totton, near Southampton, and in the same area of low spartina, about two to three feet high, found first one and then two warblers. They moved through the spartina just above the ground or water level, occasionally appearing on the tops, particularly preparatory to taking flight when driven to the edge of the small patches. Flights were short, usually to the next nearest patch, twenty to fifty feet away. They flew low, not above five feet, direct, and with little undulation. They almost invariably called after a flight. We watched them for nearly an hour, with good sunlight (though low) behind us, and had good views down to five yards, with 8 x 30, and 12 x 40 binoculars. CB had previously watched them in morning sunlight for approximately two hours.
The following notes were made in the field, with initials where variations between observers occur: - Size - about Sedge Warbler (Acrocephalus schcenobcenus) to which at first sight there was a resemblance. Crown and nape - black, some dark brown at certain angles. Conspicuous white stripe above eye, black stripe from beak through eye, broadening behind eye, dark ear coverts (ashy-brown C.B.). Sides of neck light brown (G.E.W.). Mantle - dark brown (with darker marks C.B.). Back - dark brown, ruddy in some lights, uniform with rump. Tail - grey brown (C.B.), dark brown (G.E.W.), shortish and rounded, nearly always slightly fanned. Under-parts - from white chin through belly to under tail-coverts gradually becoming greyish-white. Rufous tinge on sides. Wings - darkish-brown (showing light edges to some feathers G.E.W.), lighter edge to closed wing on primaries. Bill - dark tip, pale base; pink (G.E.W.) on under mandible at base (flesh-coloured C.B.); thin, like Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa striata) side view (G.E.W.). Eye - dark or black. Legs - dark-flesh or brown (C.B.); dark (G.E.W.). Note - Stonechat-like "tuc-tuc" (C.B.). "Tac-tac" (pebble-like) sometimes "tac-tac-tac". Also sometimes with a slight churring quality, not with the sharpness of two pebbles.
The two birds made considerable efforts to keep together. They were often seen to flick their tails upwards in the manner of Dartford Warblers (Sylvia undata). It was noticeable that in flight the birds appeared much lighter, dark browns apparently lightening and under-parts showing whiter.
G.E.W. had considered when watching the birds, that they could be Moustached Warblers (Lusciniola melanopogon) but had not realised until checking in The Handbook afterwards the rarity of this species. However, our notes seemed so conclusive that we decided that all haste must be made to get other opinions. As it was dusk by then, we planned to visit the location next morning with a view to telephoning other local ornithologists if the birds were still there. We arrived on the marsh before 7 a.m., and made an extensive search without success, and made further searches at intervals throughout that day and the next without seeing the birds again.
The general appearance of these birds did not completely agree with the plate of this species in The Handbook, or with Dr. Ennion's painting in British Birds (Vol. XLI. frontispiece). The head most resembled that of the lower bird in The Handbook plate, with the dark eye-stripe much more pronounced. The upper-parts were not quite as rufous as in Dr. Ennion's picture. There was also a less extensive rufous area on the sides than in the latter.
We feel, however, that there can be no doubt as to their identity, and this will be the first record of this species in Hampshire.
[Some doubt has recently been cast on the possibility of making reliable sight identifications of the Moustached Warbler. While such identification undoubtedly calls for the utmost caution and thoroughness we are satisfied that it is not impracticable in favourable conditions with adequately experienced observers. In addition to plumage the field observer can study characters such as the tail-flicking habit and the voice - the former an important detail in the case reported above - which are not available when skins of different species are compared; and even in plumage the trained observer may find differences in the living birds which are not appreciable in the museum. We therefore continue to regard field identification of a Moustached Warbler as practicable and we accept the record. - Eds.]
After a review of all records the species was removed from the British List (BOURC (2006) Ibis 148: 594).
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.
0). 1952 Kent Cliffe, 14th April.
(E. H. Gillham & R. C. Homes, British Birds 45: 412-413; E. H. Gillham, Kent Bird Report 1952: 22; Taylor, Davenport & Flegg, 1981).
[BOURC (2006), Ibis 148: 594; D. I. M. Wallace, C. Bradshaw & M. J. Rogers, British Birds 99: 463].
History E. H. Gillham & R. C. Homes (1952) in British Birds, Vol. XLV. pp. 412-413, say: 'On the morning of April 14th, 1952, near Cliffe in N. Kent, Messrs. L. C. Batchelor and R. Hutchings watched a bird for about a quarter of an hour, which they came to the conclusion was a Moustached Warbler (Lusciniola melanopogon) after taking plumage description and comparing their notes with The Handbook. Later in the day R. H. took us and Mr. J. S. Wightman to see the bird, which was watched for half an hour under perfect conditions. It was still in the same dyke, which was bordered with low sedge and thick tussocks of grass. A keen wind was blowing from E.N.E. and the bird spent most of its time sheltering as far as possible in the sedge and the low banks of the dyke. For the previous week the wind had been persistently from a southerly quarter.
The following plumage details are compiled from our joint notes. The most conspicuous features from a side view were a marked pure white superciliary stripe from the base of the bill to the nape, where it stopped clearly and did not merge with the plumage of the neck. Below this stripe, a distinct black line ran from the bill to the eye, while over the stripe the sides of the crown showed very black. Behind the eye the black was more in the form of a small smudge which did not extend as far back as the superciliary stripe. The chin, sides of neck and underparts were white, the breast being very faintly suffused with yellow or buff and the white being most pronounced on the chin, throat and belly. The whole of the lower plumage was without any streaks or spots.
Though from a side view the crown appeared to have a black band along each side, when seen from above it was apparent that the whole of it was blackish, slightly paler in the centre. Nape and mantle were olive-brown and streaked like a Hedge Sparrow (Prunella modularis), while the lower back and rump were a clear rufous colour which is difficult to define more exactly without a colour chart. The end of the tail was rounded and brownish black in colour. The under-tail coverts and flanks were a warm buff, in marked contrast with the white underparts. Blackish marking on the closed wing was set off by tawny lines running diagonally across the primaries. Bill and legs were pale brown and iris dark.
No Sedge-Warblers (Acrocephalus schcenobcenus) were available for comparison, but the appearance of this bird was strikingly different in the marked whiteness of the superciliary stripe and of the underparts, contrasting with the black of the crown, and the general dark appearance of the upper plumage when the wings were at rest. The white superciliary stripe and dark crown from a side view were very reminiscent of the head of a cock Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra). Equally striking in flight were the brightness and greater extent of the rufous area on the lower back and rump compared with a Sedge Warbler, and the gentle curve of the end of the tail. All these features were clearly noted at the time, as at one stage the bird was watched through a telescope (25-40 X) in good visibility at a range of about ten yards on the side of a gate crossing the dyke. It was also repeatedly observed as it sheltered under the lee of the bank. At times it took refuge in clumps of sedge and grass, from which it was flushed at our feet, permitting a clear view of the back and tail as it flew low and direct over the water before switching suddenly into cover.
An opportunity was taken the following week to study Sedge Warblers under the same conditions, and the absence of a marked contrast between upper and lower plumage was most apparent. The eye-stripe appeared pale buff as distinct from pure white, the rufous area on the rump was less striking and smaller in extent, while the tail was noticeably tapering due to the length of the central tail feathers. We are indebted to Col. Meinertzhagen for giving R. C. H. the opportunity to examine skins of the Sedge and Moustached Warblers, which could clearly be separated on the characters discussed above, though in the live bird they are more readily apparent. The upward nicking of the tail, which is said to be a characteristic of the Moustached Warbler, was not seen, but this is not surprising as at all times the bird was obviously inconvenienced by the wind. The only note heard was a soft "tack" on one occasion. After comparison of the two species, alive and dead, we are perfectly satisfied that the bird seen was a Moustached Warbler, which appears to be the first record for Kent. Full credit for the initial identification must go to Batchelor and Hutchings.'
E. H. Gillham (1952) in the Kent Bird Report, Vol. I. p. 22, says: 'One at Cliffe on Apl. 14 (L.C.B., R.H., E.H.G., R.C.H., J.S.W.). This is the first record of this species in the county, and one of the few for the British Isles. Full details have been published in B. B., XLV: 412-3.'
After a review of all records the species was removed from the British List (BOURC (2006) Ibis 148: 594)..
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.
