Introduction

The first ornithological work of any note, Ornithology, was by Francis Willughby (1635-72) which was produced posthumously by his friend and patron John Ray (1627-1705) in 1676. From this, Ray's Synopsis became the standard handbook.

George Edwards (1694-1773) in the 1720s found that the prices his coloured drawings of animals fetched gave him encouragement. Sir Hans Sloane (whose collection formed the basis of the British Museum in 1759) managed to get him the library position of the Royal College of Physicians in 1733, where he was able to start on The History of Birds (1743-51) illustrated in four volumes, which was later continued as Gleanings in Natural History (1758-64). It was probably by having correspondence with Linnaeus that his books had a more scientific feel to them.

Three years later Pennant (1726-98), who enjoyed an ample private fortune, encouraged by Edwards' success, issued the first number of British Zoology, with a number of bird records.

Linnaeus who had visited Britain in 1736, and whose works of 1758 and 1766 were slowly adopted, formed the basis for modern species systematics. Until this time there were many systems in use.

Records recorded in The Zoologist from 1843 until 1917 and its successor British Birds 1907 to 1949, are regarded as generally acceptable as the editors adjudicated on them. But not all individuals of birds were seen by reputable ornithologists. Records from The Field, Science Gossip, Land and Water, were often pseudonymous and lacked authority, and a general rule of early ornithologists was to dismiss any record which didn't bear an author's name. In the case of the 'Hastings Rarities' (Nicholson & Ferguson-Lees 1962) fraud none of the original stories have been documented here, but the persons involved have been recorded as a means of determining a pattern.

The British List was not formed until 1883 by the BOU, but William Yarrell with his four editions of the History of British Birds had started recording rarities from 1838 until his death in 1856, with Alfred Newton and Howard Saunders editing the 3rd and 4th volumes of the fourth edition (1874-85). Then James Harting who was Editor of The Field, from 1853 and also the third series (1877-96) of the The Zoologist, had a good grasp of many of these old records, producing lists of records of species (1872) in his Handbook of British Birds, which acted as a base line for those chosen species, with the rest being published in the second edition (1901). Saunders (1889, 1899) then became the main keeper of the British list with the first two editions. The Handlist (1912) and a two volume tome from Witherby (1920-24), followed by the latters Handbook published from 1938 et seq., the work of recording the British rarities was carried on.

In the meantime J. H. Gurney, jnr. did untold work through the years on the British list and making sure records were acceptable. The following is from his Rambles of a Naturalist in Egypt & other Countries: Gurney (1876: 251-272) under 'Analysis of the Claims of Certain Birds to be Accounted British' says: 'A very useful attempt to put together all the recorded occurrences of our rarer British Birds has recently been made by Mr. Harting in his Handbook of British Birds, but it was not within the scope of his work to examine minutely into the claims upon which each individual rested. Believing that many of these would turn out to be purely imaginary, I have applied myself to this task, and I now present the results of my analysis of seven of them: Eagle Owl, Red-throated Pipit, Spotted Sandpiper, Great White Egret, Harlequin Duck, Red-breasted Goose and Brünnich's Guillemot. It is by no means in the interest of science that fictitious records should be perpetuated and copied from one book into another, - until the original authorities being dead or lost sight of, it is too late to verify them.

I intend to go on working at the subject, so I will only here say that if any reader should chance to be in posses­sion of valid disproof of any of the occurrences here given, I shall be greatly indebted to him to inform me of the same for my future use. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is what we wish to arrive at, and with regard to British Birds that is not always easy.'

I have therefore tried to establish a set of criteria in determining this historic set, bearing in mind that early bird books with any kind of description were not published until around 1840 and were nowhere as good as today, and with binoculars arriving about a decade later in 1859, this meant that prior to 1860 the record needed to be obtained.

1.      By trying to use the earliest or first reference for each individual record.

2.      Establish if it was shot and seen by a competent ornithologist.

3.      Check the established books mentioned earlier for national acceptance.

4.      Check the latest county avifauna to see if they still accept the record.

A lot of earlier records were through correspondence and relied upon the word of that person. Unfortunately, earlier authors seldom stated if a record was dubious, but used the words "said to have been" placing no faith in the record and I have followed that rule by placing the record under the Not proven header. Recording these records was just as important because after a length of time we don't know if the record was overlooked or for some other reason.

Bourne in The Ibis of 1967, says: 'In addition to sea-ports as a place for the disposal of sailors' accumulated pet wares, attention had also to be paid to food markets as a source of live or dead birds. Until the recent imposition of restrictive legislation the first reaction of the peasantry of most parts of the world to any strange bird seems to have been to send it to market; and in some areas they came to be involved in trade with far-distant parts. Thus it is possible to cite at least one, and then a group of three albatrosses, a petrel, and a group of storm-petrels which appeared in Leadenhall Market, London, in the past (Stubbs 1913, Hartert 1926, Bourne 1964), at least some of which hardly seem likely to have occurred in the northern hemisphere naturally, though in view of the demonstrable trend for at least some stray petrels to appear in the most unexpected places it seems quite unpredictable where others came from. It is also notable that some at least of these market specimens were found by taxidermists, who in these cases admitted where they came from.

In assessing the reliability of past records, the difficulties of taxidermists must also be remembered. Past bird-stuffers were simple but highly-skilled craftsman plying a respectable trade much in demand, not learned scientists, and too much must not be expected of them. They were as vulnerable as anyone to the stray lounger in search of a dishonest penny offering a bird with questionable antecedents for sale, and possibly less qualified than some others to detect impostures. If they acted as middlemen themselves and offered the bird for resale after stuffing, it is not clear that they always implied that the bird was locally taken, even if the purchaser insisted on assuming as much. Furthermore, skins might easily become confused in the course of making-up in an untidy workshop, while if he failed to preserve some prized but mangled specimen the taxidermist would be under great temptation to replace it with something that he thought was similar, rather than confessing his failure; and this would be likely to pass undetected in view of the normal difference in appearance of a skin before and after preparation. A taxidermist might identify a stray skin wrongly and sell it as something taken locally before he realized what he was doing. If he was caught out in some mistake or petty deception he might feel it unwise to admit this later, if he was ever informed of what happened at all; and, of course, members of a trade never inform on their less honest brethren, although they may know only too well what is going on.

Even if an important specimen chanced by good fortune to fall straight into the hands of educated people capable of appreciating its importance from the start, it would not necessarily be recorded safely, speedily and accurately, though it would now at least be more likely to be sent to a museum than a market, A private collector might skin it and add it to his own collection without either reporting it at the time or attaching proper data to the specimen. A minor collector or museum might send it to a bird-stuffer for preparation, with the increased hazard of swapping specimens, and again fail either to record the specimen or attach proper data to it. It is also an unfortunate fact that some great and famous institutions are so busy, or the staff are so preoccupied, that specimens may be put aside for years before they receive sufficient attention by experts to reveal their importance; for this reason the first examination of a major collection is always an exciting experience, since the most surprising things may lie unnoticed there. If there is a lapse of time before a specimen is recorded, and especially if the information concerning it is passed on by intermediaries, or the custodian of the collection has changed, there is a much increased chance that labels or specimens may become swapped, or the information concerning them become garbled. Therefore, in addition to specimens originating in ports or commercial centres, delayed or second-hand reports are also peculiarly suspect.

In the circumstances it seems desirable to apply stricter criteria to especially old records than has sometimes been customary in the past. Sight records more than about 50 years old require a great deal of substantiation, as few people possessed binoculars or knew much about the appearance of live birds then. Even specimens require careful investigation, to be sure that they are the birds that were collected, and that they were identified correctly. It is also often overlooked that a minute examination of a specimen may provide much useful information. Thus the first, and indeed the only, direct evidence for the fraudulence of the "Hastings records" was the observation by the custodian of the Dyke Road Museum, Brighton, that one was stuffed "in an unmistakeable oriental manner" (Griffith 1927). Birds are commonly stuffed in distinctive ways and with distinctive local products; dissection of some of our most respected specimens might reveal some surprising things, even if it is seldom the ideal dated local newspaper. I have not attempted to examine the interior of any historic specimens, but the idea deserves more consideration in the future.

Ideally, therefore, all the following information should be available before a record is accepted; and there seems no reason why ancient records which fail to meet acceptable criteria should receive privileged treatment compared with those of the present day:

Who first saw the bird, where, when, and how;

its subsequent history and fate, as far as they can be traced;

how it was identified, if a specimen, as the bird collected, and as a species;

how it was recorded, with details of confirmatory evidence from an independent source, if available;

whether the whole story appears circumstantially probable, in view of past and present

information on the subject.

It seems impossible to test all old records fully according to modem criteria now; but at least we should require a reasonably full and detailed story, logically consistent in itself, to be attached to them. A good many highly respected records which have been vouched for by good authorities seem to lack even this. In such cases the only treatment seems to be to suspend judgement and to await the best and most reliable form of confirmation, further records. If the story was true it may happen again.

In the autumn migration when birds take longer, records of scarce migrants are approximate per year as some records may refer to the same long staying individual seen on various dates by different observers and which have been recorded as separate records, but which may be the same individual; the reference source is unclear on this situation.

Records prior to 31st December 1949 are termed historical, and as such are very difficult to prove if they are genuine records after any great length of time, regardless of whether they were seen, shot or bought as a specimen. A bought specimen was also open to fraud for the financial gain involved to the bird-stuffers, bird-catchers, collectors, dealers, etc.

See H. W. Robinson (1926) in The Ibis, Vol. 68, pp. 629-631, under 'On Recording Birds of Doubtful Authenticity as British,' where he states specimens were being imported in ice from abroad.

Laws affecting birds were the Night Poaching Act (1828), Game Act (1831), Protection of Animals Act (1911) and according to BASC there was no shooting on Sundays or Christmas Day.

Finally, after over thirty years of compiling these records of historical rare birds and their associated history it is time to publish and be damned as they say. My book of 1994 (A Reference Manual of Rare Birds in Great Britain and Ireland) became outdated due to various reviews of species, some down to fraud, counties not accepting certain records anymore due to their own reviews, so I have took it on myself to try and keep abreast of these changes. The book was adopted by British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC) in British Birds 97: 560, and in 2011 I was asked to become a consultant to BOURC on historical rare bird records.

This work is a continuation of the book and I consider it to be as final as can be for any one person to achieve. There are references that I could not find in various libararies and the cost is prohibitive in either travelling to far away places or have photocopies of the documents. But these more obscure records are probably not as authorative as having them published in recognised journals of the day and being vetted.

With the not proven records I have added under Comment the reasons for that and have tried to be consistent in this thinking, otherwise those records with no comment added the reason is obvious in the article.