fiL) t*

^'OBER 1986

1 - —

i— —

OBC Council

Sally Allport

Mark Cocker (Bulletin Editor)

Jon Eames

Paul Goriup

Richard Grimmett (Chairman)

Carol Inskipp (Secretary)

Tim Inskipp

Paul Jepson (Sales Officer)

Rod Martins (Membership Secretary)

Nigel Redman (Treasurer)

Craig Robson (Information Officer)

Helen Taylor (Publicity Officer)

Editorial Committee

Mark Cocker, N. J. Collar (Editor), Richard Grimmett, Tim Inskipp, Rod Martins,

Nigel Redman.

OBC Representatives

Murray Bruce (Australia), K. Z. Hussain (Bangladesh), Tan Yao Kuang (China),

David Melville (Hong Kong), S. A. Hussain (India), Derek Holmes (Indonesia), Chris

Murphy (Ireland), Mark Brazil (Japan), Frank Lambert and David Wells (Malaysia),

Arnoud van den Berg (Netherlands), Terje Axelsen (Norway), Edgar Buensuceso

(Philippines), Chris Hails (Singapore), Sareth Kotegama (Sri Lanka), Per Alstrom

(Sweden), Philip Round (Thailand), Robert Kennedy (USA).

The Oriental Bird Club has been established for ornithologists throughout the

world, both amateur and professional, who share a common interest in the

region’s birds and wish to assist in their conservation.

The Club aims to:

• Encourage an interest in the birds of the Oriental Region and their conservation

• Liaise with, and promote the work of, existing regional societies

• Collate and publish material on Oriental birds

Membership

Member (individual): £6 p.a.

Reduced rate member: £5 p.a.

For residents in the Orient belonging to other Oriental ornithological or natural history societies

Corporate Member: £12 p.a.

Libraries and institutions

For further information please write to:

The Oriental Bird Club

c/o The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, U.K.

Cover photograph: captive male Gurney’s Pina Pitta gumeyi, Bangkok, 1985, by P. D. Round.

FORKTAIL

- k-*

Number 1, October 1986

CONTENTS

List of founder members . 2

Inaugural editorial: The scope of Forktail . 3

A. B. VAN DEN BERG and C. A. W. BOSMAN. Supplementary notes

on some birds of Lore Lindu Reserve, Central Sulawesi . 7

D. R. WELLS, P. D. ROUND and J. SCHARRINGA. New information on

the ‘Brown-streaked’ Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris williamsoni . 15

P. PALMES and C. BRIGGS. Crab-plovers Dromas ardeola in the Gulf of Kutch . 21

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS. The past and fhture of

Gurney’s Pitta Pitta gurneyi . 29

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP. Some important birds and forests in Nepal .... 53

A. D. JOHNS. Effects of selective logging on the ecological organization

of a peninsular Malaysian rainforest avifauna . 65

Short communications

C. J. O. HARRISON. A re-assessment of the affinities of some small

Oriental babblers T imaliidae . 81

A. TYE and H. TYE. Nepal House Martin Delichon nipalensis new to Thailand ... 83

E. C. DICKINSON. Does the Pied Harrier Circus melanoleucos breed in

the Philippines? . 85

Guidelines for contributors . 87

PUBLICATIONS

Brasenose Farm, Eastern By-pass, Oxford, England.

Typeset by Holywell Press, Oxford, England.

Printed by Information Printing, Oxford, England.

2

Forktail 1

FOUNDER MEMBERS

OF THE

ORIENTAL BIRD CLUB

H. ALDERMAN

P. D. ALEXANDER-MARRACK

S. ALLPORT

P. ANDREW

A. BAKER

C. BALCHIN

R. J. BARNES

M. A. S. BEAMAN

K. D. BISHOP

D. BOERSMA

W. R. P. BOURNE

D. BRADFORD

C. D. BRADSHAW

M. A. BRAZIL

P. H. BRISTOW

J. BROUWER

M. D. BRUCE

H. A. BUCK

E. M. BURMAN

G. M. BURMAN

G. CLARK

P. M. COCKER

N. J. COLLAR

S. D. G. COOK

D. COTTRIDGE

S. COX

P. S. CROSS

K. CURRY-LINDAHL

T. M. DAKIN

A. R. DEAN

E. C. DICKINSON

M. J. EARP

H. F. I. ELLIOTT

G. G. EVANS

R. J. FAIR BANK

MA HAI FENG

J. FENTON

T. H. FISHER

J. FITZPATRICK

R. FLEMING

J. P. GEE

H. GILSTON

A. E. GOODALL

H. J. GOODHART

P. D. GORIUP

K. GRACE

B. J. GREGORY

R. F. GRIMMETT

H. C. G. GROH

T. GULLICK

C. J. HAILS

R. G. HARDING

C. J. O. HARRISON

Mr and Mrs P. HEATHCOTE

B. E. van HELVOORT

D. HENDERSON

K. J. HERBER

R. D. HODGKINS

J. HORNSKOV

R. P. HOWARD

S. HOWE

The late D. HUNT

C. INSKIPP

T. P. INSKIPP

D. JAMES

D. L. JOHNSON

D. JOHNSTON

Z. J. KARPOWICZ

M. KAVANAGH

E. F. KEEBLE

R. S. KENNEDY

P. R. KENNERLEY

M. A. R. KHAN

C. KIGHTLEY

B. F. KING

J. KLAPSTE

V. KONRAD

R. KRUPA

F. R. LAMBERT

D. T. LEES-SMITH

R. LEVEQUE

M. LEWIS

H. LOEHRL

T. LOSEBY

J. LOWE

C. S. LUTHIN

F. MAROEVIC

T. MARSHALL

J. MARTENS

R. P. MARTINS

b. McCarthy

D. S. MELVILLE

B. W. MILLER

F. B. MOODY

C. MOREBY

R. D. de la MOUSSAYE

C. W. MURPHY

NETHERLANDS SOCIETY

FOR THE

PROTECTION OF BIRDS

A. NOE (donation)

D. NOE

W. OAKLEY

W. E. ODDIE

R. F. OLLINGTON

W. OLSSON

S. J. ORMEROD

J. PALFREY

M. PEACOCK

H. J. PHARO

R. F. PORTER

N. POWELL

C. PRENTICE

R. J. RAINES

A. J. RANDALL

N. J. REDMAN

T. M. REED

T. J. ROBERTS

I. S. ROBERTSON

K. W. ROBERTSON

P. D. ROUND

S. RUMSEY

J. F. RYAN

J. B. SALE

R. SCHER

D. A. SCOTT

K. SCRIVEN

J. T. R. SHARROCK

D. SHEPPARD

S. SMITH

D. L. SOWERBUTTS

G. J. SPEIGHT

R. D. STOTT

R. S. E. SWANQVIST

D. E. SWITHENBANK

O. SYVERTSEN

H. TAYLOR

TRANSVAAL MUSEUM

K. A. TURNER

S. J. TYLER

G. W. VENATTA

C. VINEY

G. WALBRIDGE

M. P. WALTERS

H. W. WAREMAN

J. WASHBURN ROBINSON

W. WATSON

H. WELLENDORF

D. R. WELLS

A. and D. WESTCOTT

T. C. WHITE

J. WILDS

C. T. WILLIAMS

M. WONG

M. W. WOODCOCK

D. YONG

N. P. van ZALINGE

1986

3

The scope of Forktail

Forktail is intended to be an annual journal. However, the Oriental Bird Club’s first

subscription year was 1985, so this issue is for those who joined then rather than in

1986. Apologies for absence are therefore in order, but, as members will appreciate,

some critical obstacles stand in the path of producing a journal the year a society

starts up. Agreement must be reached on the type of journal to be issued; an

accumulation of subscriptions is needed to pay for it; an accumulation of texts is

needed to fill it; the procedures for editorial management must be established; and a

printer has to be found. With all these now achieved, there are good grounds for

hoping that Forktail 2 can appear before the end of 1986, and so discharge the club’s

immediate obligations to its membership. Thereafter it is proposed that Forktail

should appear each June or July, with a deadline on submissions of the previous 1

March.

The object of the Oriental Bird Club is ‘to promote an interest in Oriental birds

and their conservation for the benefit of the public’, and to this end the Club

undertakes, among other things, to ‘collate and make available for public use

material on Oriental birds and publish a journal by the name of The Forktai? .

Clearly this constitutional formulation allows the widest range of subjects for both

the Club and Forktail to address, with only the provision of a concern for

conservation serving as some indication of a priority to observe. I certainly regard it

as essential that Forktail should be a medium for as broad a spectrum of interests as

possible, and not develop into a ‘specialist’ journal that specialists in other fields can

afford to ignore. It should not become (or be thought to have become) a field

identification journal, a distributional journal, a taxonomic journal, an academic

journal, an ‘expatriate’ journal, or whatever: it must be all of these things, and more.

The contents of the first few issues are intended to manifest this commitment to the

diversity of ornithological interests and activities in the Oriental region; and to

counteract the biases that result through chance from the routine submission of

material, it has been editorial policy to solicit contributions that will improve the

journal’s overall representativeness. It is to be hoped that, in the course of the next

few years, ForktaiT s reputation will be sufficiently confirmed for the practice of

active solicitation of text to become almost redundant.

There are, however, certain factors that constrain the subject-matter of the

journal. The first, as noted, is the constitutional commitment to the promotion of

interest in the conservation of Oriental birds (something which I both personally

and professionally welcome). This does not make Forktail a conservation journal,

but it means that a proportion of papers will always have some clear bearing on

conservation issues. There is good sense here: the less bird conservation there is in

the Orient, the fewer birds there will ultimately be for the public to enjoy and study.

The second constraint is the will of the membership, difficult though this may be

to gauge (Annual General Meetings are the obvious forum). It is clearly of practical

value that the journal should take some account of the feelings and opinions of those

who finance it, however the constitutional requirements may be construed. A set of

4

Forktail 1

highly specialized papers from a wide variety of disciplines would scarcely be in the

spirit of the Club’s aims and ambitions. It is clear that the main thrust in the Club’s

formation came from an increasing body of active amateur birdwatchers with a deep

interest in pursuing their hobby in Asia. This journal exists because of them: it

must, to some extent, repay them with material that reflects their activities. At any

rate, papers with a very obvious minority interest, and without obvious broader

implications for ornithology, are unlikely to be acceptable to Forktail, even if

technically eligible.

The third constraint on material concerns documentation that might more

appropriately be published elsewhere. Ever since the first moves towards forming

the Oriental Bird Club, those involved in it have repeatedly stressed their desire to

co-operate and not compete with other ornithological and general natural history

societies. A vacant niche existed which the Club has occupied, but it was a

generalist’s niche, and generalists always partially intrude across a range of more

specialist niches. Authors of papers naturally have the right to choose the journal

they wish to publish in, and it seems possible that Forktail will attract some material

away from pre-existing national and local journals. However, it is Club policy not to

publish first records of bird species in a country without seeking the permission of

the relevant national society, and to urge submission of such records to national

journals when it is known (as in the case of the Journal of the Bombay Natural

History Society for India and Kukila for Indonesia) that they are in principle

committed to publishing them. In certain other circumstances, where it is felt

appropriate, prospective authors in Forktail may be advised to offer first refusal of

their papers elsewhere, such advice being part of the less specific Club policy to

work as much as possible in ways that complement and support the activities of

national and local societies.

Certain authors understandably prefer to seek publication in ‘refereed’ journals.

In the debate over whether Forktail should be such a journal, the view prevailed

that, since the referee system evolved to help assess papers treating subjects outside

the sphere of an editor’s competence, and since the preponderance of submissions to

Forktail was expected to concern non-specialist (or at least non-statistical) material,

an Editorial Committee to review all submissions was preferable, with referees to be

used only where expert guidance was required. Forktail is thus not a fully refereed

journal, but the knowledge and scrupulousness of my colleagues on the present

committee make it the equivalent of one, and I should regret it if papers were offered

elsewhere because our formal standards are judged to be insufficient.

To the members of the Editorial Committee - P. M. Cocker, R. F. Grimmett,

T. P. Inskipp, R. P. Martins, N. J. Redman - I offer my best thanks for their

dedicated assistance, and I thank too, the two referees consulted in this issue -

D. R. Wells and E. O. Willis - for their prompt and willing labour. I must also

acknowledge here the early role of T. M. Reed, whom I succeeded as editor in

December 1985. Even the authors deserve a vote of gratitude, for their willingness

to support an unknown venture, and for their patience while the venture moved

slowly from concept to fulfilment. I should record my appreciation of the Royal

Society for the Protection of Birds, whose postal address the Club uses, and of the

International Council for Bird Preservation and its director, Ch. Imboden, for the

1986

5

free use of the many office facilities in the course of my (I should stress spare-time)

editorial work for Forktail. For her tolerance of my use of that ‘spare time’ I must

pay tribute to my wife, Alison. Finally, I thank P. Creed of Pisces Publications for

his expert and patient guidance in bringing the journal out.

1 August 1986

N. J. Collar

FORKTAIL 1 (1986): 7-13

Supplementary notes on

some birds of Lore Lindu Reserve,

Central Sulawesi

ARNOUD B. VAN DEN BERG and CECILIA A. W. BOSMAN

From a sound-recording expedition to Lore Lindu Reserve, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, in July-

August 1984, notes are provided on the occurrence, altitudinal distribution, nesting season and/or

vocalisations of 34 bird species where data are at variance with or additional to previous work. Two

species, Falco peregrinus and F. severus, were new to the area. The occurrence of Serinus estherae on

Mt. Rorekatimbu was confirmed, and its plumage found to differ from other populations.

Hieraaetus kienerii, Eurostopodus macrotis, Picoides temminckii, Ficedula westermanni, Eumyias

panayensis and Myzomela sanguinolenta were more widespread in altitudinal range, or more

obviously abundant, than previously reported. Descriptions of vocalisations are given for 19 species.

Nesting season data are given for nine species.

In July and August 1984, in Central Sulawesi (formerly Celebes), Indonesia, at Lore

Lindu Reserve and its environs (c. 1 0 1 5' — 1°30'S 1 19°50' - 120°20'E), south-east of

the provincial capital Palu, we made sound-recordings of 97 bird species for the

collection of the Library of Natural Sounds (LNS), Laboratory of Ornithology,

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. This paper presents a selection of our

ornithological notes on occurrence, altitudinal distribution, nesting season and vocal

behaviour, and is intended as a supplement to Watling (1983), to which one should

refer for more information on the Lore Lindu Reserve and its avifauna, and which is

followed in taxonomy, nomenclature, and delineation and classification (with capital

first letters) of vegetation zones.

The notes are from the following localities (see Figure): lower Palu river valley

( = LP), 0-200 m, secondary vegetation and agricultural fields at Palu and Lowland

Rain Forest at Saluki (200 m); upper Palu river valley ( = UP), 300-1,000 m,

Lowland Rain Forest at Sidaonta along metalled road up from Saluwa (300 m) and

along c. 4 km of footpath up to Lake Lindu; Lake Lindu ( = LL), 960-1,000 m,

secondary vegetation bordering rainforest at Tornado and Anca, along the shore of

the 3,000 ha lake (see also Klapste 1982b); lower Sopu river valley ( = LS), 650-850

m, Lowland Rain Forest and secondary vegetation at agricultural land, along c. 19

km of road and footpaths at confluence of Gumbasa river near Pertigaan Lindu, at

Kamarora and at Tongoa (respectively km post 50, 57 and 62); upper Sopu river

valley ( = US), 850- 1,800 m, Upper Lowland Rain Forest to Montane Rain Forest,

along c. 18 km of the road to Napu, mostly at Dongi-dongi logging camp (km post

75, 990 m) and at pass south of Mt. Rorekatimbu (km post 89, 1,800 m); Mt.

Rorekatimbu ( = MR), 1,800-2,610 m, Upper Montane Rain and Moss Forest,

along c. 9 km path to Anaso logging camp.

JERDON’S BAZA Aviceda jerdoni On 1 August, a few kilometres beyond Tongoa,

and on 5 and 27 August, near Saluwa, pairs were seen in and above roadside forest.

8

A. B. VAN DEN BERG and C. A. W. BOSMAN

Forktail 1

In flight, probably both birds were calling, one at a higher pitch than the other,

every 2 s a downward ‘peeew’ of 0.5 s duration. A recording presumably of this

species was made at the first location (LNS 32933). This raptor was not noted by

Watling (1983) but was mentioned for the area by Riley (1924).

SULAWESI HAWK-EAGLE Spizaetus lanceolatus This hawk-eagle was seen or

heard on many days especially in Sopu river valley where it was even perching on

buildings at the forest edge. The most commonly heard call was a continuous series

of four to ten 0.5 s ‘kluuu’ notes, each note slightly lower in pitch, and each

successive series on a slightly higher scale than the previous one. There was a 0.5 s

pause between each series, preceded by a higher, rather more disyllabic starting note

with a distinct upward inflection (LNS 32747, 32751). A slightly different call was

also recorded: a fast series of c. 45 ‘kee’ notes delivered over 9 s, only slightly

varying in pitch and each note of 0.2 s duration, usually uttered when the bird was

circling several kilometres up in the sky (LNS 32764). The song of perched birds

consisted of series of 55 ‘kee’ calls in 10 s up to 77 ‘kee’ calls in 12 s with an upward

inflection after one-third, and a downward deflection after two-thirds of each series

(LNS 32900, 33008). On 28 July, at upper Sopu river valley, one such bird was

observed while singing from a horizontal branch in the canopy of a tree above the

river (LNS 32900). It called with bill wide open, and during the pauses between

each series of calls it preened its feathers.

BLACK KITE Milvus migrans While Watling noted this species as common for

Lake Lindu, we, surprisingly, did not find any kite other than the common

Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus, in August.

Figure. Lore Lindu Reserve and its environs, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, showing locations mentioned in the text.

1986

Birds of Lore Lindu, Sulawesi

9

BRAHMINY KITE Haliastur indus This kite showed a large altitudinal range,

being present even at 2,400 m circling over Moss Forest near the top of Mt.

Rorekatimbu.

LESSER FISH-EAGLE Ichthyophaga humilis On 8-11 August, at Lake Lindu,

mostly at dawn and dusk, but also in late morning between lOhOO and 12h00, the

song was heard and sound-recorded (LNS 32953, 32958, 32968, 32971). Three

birds in immature plumage were seen daily at the lake. On 21 and 22 August, the

song was also heard at Kamarora and Pertigaan Lindu on agricultural land near

small rivers (LNS 33020). The song was a loud and far-carrying sequence of seven

to 11 disyllabic ‘kahAW’ calls delivered over 6 to 10 s respectively, abruptly

shortening at the end.

SPOT-TAILED GOSHAWK Accipiter trinotatus Sound-recorded on 16 August at

Pertigaan Lindu, and on 28 August at Sidaonta (LNS 33013, 33089; identified by F.

Rozendaal). It uttered five rhythmic ‘ke’ notes in nearly 2 s, each successive note

slightly lower in pitch than the preceding, and the last notes more slowly delivered.

This vocalisation was also described by Heinrich (Stresemann 1940). When calling

the bird kept moving through the lower canopy never repeating it twice from the

same spot.

RUFOUS-BELLIED EAGLE Hieraaetus kienerii While Watling had only four

sightings, all below 1,000 m, we found this species to be much commoner, and also

at higher altitudes. On 20 August, two birds in display, one (still) in white immature

plumage, were observed at 2,400 m on Mt. Rorekatimbu, producing a rising song of

five or more syllables.

PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus On 22 August, at Kamarora, a small and

dark Peregrine of the subspecies F. p. ernesxi was seen in a 20 m high tree-top at the

forest edge, feeding on a bird. This species had not previously been recorded from

Lore Lindu (see Watling 1981).

ORIENTAL HOBBY Falco severus In the second half of July, three birds were

present at Dongi-dongi. When perched in the highest tree-tops or chasing each other

over the forest, these falcons were quite vocal, especially in the morning and

evening, giving long series of high, slightly variably pitched, penetrating ‘kleee’ calls

(five per second) (LNS 32771, 32790, 32803, 32810). These calls were also

described by Coomans de Ruiter (1947). This species had not previously been

recorded from Lore Lindu (see Watling 1981).

MALEO Macrocephalon maleo During July and August, birds were absent from the

known nesting sites on volcanic thermal soil in Lowland Rain Forest at Kamarora

and Saluki. Villagers said that eggs were laid from October onwards, indicating

seasonal breeding.

GREEN IMPERIAL PIGEON Ducula aenea Apart from the frequently repeated,

characteristic, rolling ‘birrup’, certain other vocalisations were recorded, such as a

plain shortish ‘hoo’ and more disyllabic variable cooings, e.g. ‘koo koooo’ (inflected

downward at the end) and a questioning ‘woohoo woo’ (with upward inflection in

the first syllable) (LNS 32999, 33011, 33012, 33014, 33016, 33050, 33053).

10

A. B. VAN DEN BERG and C. A. W. BOSMAN

Forktail 1

YELLOW-AND-GREEN LORIKEET Trichoglossus flavoviridis On 25 July, at

2,400 m in Moss Forest above Anaso, a nesting hole high in a dead tree was found

occupied by two birds. This species was very common in Sopu river valley where

large noisy flocks were seen moving fast through and foraging in tall flowering

Euphorbia trees (LNS 32792).

SULAWESI HAWK-CUCKOO Cuculus crassirostris On 16 August, at Pertigaan

Lindu, and on 22 August, at Kamarora, before or just after dawn, sounds of this

species were recorded in secondary growth at the forest edge bordering agricultural

fields. Birds were not seen, but the recordings agree with descriptions by Heinrich

(Stresemann 1940). At the first locality, at 05h50, the song consisted of three cooing

notes with a hardly audible fourth ‘kO kO ku (ku)’, lasting in total 1 s. The first two

notes were rather similar, the third was softer and four semitones lower in pitch, and

the fourth even softer and shorter (LNS 33010). At the second location, at 04hl5

(before daylight) and 05h50, two different calls, probably of this species, were a two-

note cooing, repeated every 8 s, the second note four semi-tones lower in pitch than

the first, and a three-note cooing with each following note two semitones lower in

pitch (LNS 33043, 33048).

SPECKLED BOOBOOK Ninox punctulata On the evening of 19 August, sound-

recordings of this endemic owl were made in broken forest at c. 2,000 m along the

road to Anaso. Its song consisted of 15 ‘toy’ sounds on a rising scale accelerating

slightly towards a kind of climax, after which a lower pitched ‘toy’ was given, lasting

in total 5 s, often immediately followed by one or more repetitions of the five to

seven climax ‘toy’ sounds. After play-back, a rather rhythmic four-note call was

given: three ‘toy’ sounds on a rising scale followed by a high, piercing and vibrating

‘seeeet’. This call was usually repeated every 1.2 s (LNS 33022). Descriptions of this

species’s vocalisations can also be found in Coomans de Ruiter (1950).

GREAT EARED NIGHTJAR Eurostopodus macrotis On 30 July, just after dawn,

at 1,750 m in the upper Sopu river valley, this large nightjar were seen flying over

the forest. Watling mentioned 1,100 m as maximum elevation for this species.

SULAWESI KINGFISHER Ceyx fallax On 29 August, on the banks of the Saluki

river near the Maleo nesting ground, a pair of this species showed alarm behaviour,

suggesting the presence of a nesting site. The call was typical for the genus, a thin

‘seeee’ repeated every 3 to 5 s (LNS 33100).

GREEN WOOD-KINGFISHER Halcyon (Actenoides) monachus On 29 August, at

Saluki, long mournful calls of this species, repeated about every 6 s, were recorded

at 05h30 (dawn) (identified by F. Rozendaal). The ‘huuuuwEEEEu’ call, also given

after play -back, was of 2 s duration, starting with a slowly rising 1.5 s ‘huuuu’,

immediately followed, with a catch in the voice, by a mournful, higher pitched

‘wEEEEu’ (0.5 s), and ending with a shortish subdued lower note (LNS 33099).

The bird was present in forest near a palm grove bordering the Saluki river.

SACRED KINGFISHER Halcyon sancta On 19 July, one individual of this

southern migrant was present in the centre of Palu. This species was not seen by

Watling, although previously recorded from the Palu valley (Escott and Holmes

1980).

1986

Birds of Lore Lindu, Sulawesi

11

BLUE-TAILED BEE-EATER Merops philippinus On 9 and 10 August, at Anca, a

family of two adults and a juvenile bird were seen on a bamboo in an open field,

possibly indicating a breeding period in June-July (LNS 32950, 32952, 32963).

PURPLE-BEARDED BEE-EATER Meropogon forsteni On six occasions, above

Sidaonta, in the lower and upper Sopu river valleys and above Anaso (at 2,300 m),

pairs of this species were observed in the mid-height of forest near earth banks of

excavated hill-side forest-trails or in steep ravines near roads (e.g. at km post 72

before Dongi-dongi). On 27 July and 20 August, at Anaso, sound-recordings were

made of the species’s queer, frequently given call (one per 2 s), a peculiarly loud,

penetrating and high-pitched ‘wheep’ (LNS 32878, 32880, 33025). When calling,

the birds sat inconspicuously on horizontal branches while constantly wagging the

tail slowly up and down. Regularly, large insects were caught in short flights, and

beaten to death on a thick branch before being swallowed. On 1 1 August, above

Sidaonta, a nesting hole was apparently being excavated in a bank at a height of 1 m

just beside the footpath to Lake Lindu. For more information on this species, see

Klapste (1982a).

PURPLE-WINGED ROLLER Coracias temminckii Seen at somewhat higher

elevations than by Watling, e.g. above Dongi-dongi at 1,000 m (LNS 32809).

SULAWESI WOODPECKER Picoides temminckii Watling regarded this species as

relatively uncommon and observed it only above 900 m. However, after becoming

familiar with its call, we found it a common tree-top species at all elevations down to

300 m near Saluwa. Its call was a sharp trill lasting 1 s, slightly inflected downward

halfway, given at long irregular intervals (LNS 32858, 33065). A description of this

sound was also given by Coomans de Ruiter and Maurenbrecher (1948) who

observed this species at sea-level in southern Sulawesi.

GREY WAGTAIL Motacilla cinerea On 21 August, in upper Sopu river valley, one

individual was seen and sound-recorded. (LNS 33035). This date is three to four

weeks earlier than the first arrival date given by Watling for this northern migrant.

PYGMY CUCKOO-SHRIKE Coracina abbotti This species appeared to be rather

common on Mt. Rorekatimbu. It was quite vocal and generally seen in groups of

about five birds ( contra Watling). The calls were thin, piercing, high-pitched and

pure-toned (LNS 32821, 32883). The song, recorded from a solitary bird, started

with two hardly audible notes followed by a faster four-note warble lasting 1 s, of

similar thin and piercing quality as the calls, though a little lower pitched (LNS

32889). Sharp, high ‘tseet’ flight-calls were also noted.

MOUNTAIN TAILOR.BIRD Orthotomus cuculatus On 30 July, in upper Sopu

river valley, two adults of this species were feeding two juveniles (LNS 32906).

' LITTLE PIED FLYCATCHER Ficedula westermanm Owing to its characteristic

song, this species was noted as common between 1,300 and 2,400 m elevation, most

often in the canopy ( contra Watling). On 25 July, two adults with two apparently

recently fledged juveniles were seen in the understorey of Moss Forest (LNS

32820). On 20 August, a male calling in alarm with food in its beak was observed

near the top of Mt. Rorekatimbu above Anaso. The commonest song was a ‘tee-

12

A. B. VAN DEN BERG and C. A. W. BOSMAN

Forktail 1

dEE-turr-dUrr’ lasting 1 s with a typical hesitant pause between the two disyllables

(LNS 32800, 32893, 33040). Also a more complicated song lasting 2 s was recorded,

in which similar !tee-dEE’ notes were followed by a warble of six to eight notes

(LNS 32907). On play-back, the latter song provoked a much stronger approach

reaction than the former.

BLUE-FRONTED FLYCATCHER Cyornis hoevelli The fine song of this Upper

Montane and Moss Forest species was of 4-5 s duration, given from the lower

storeys of forest and mainly heard in the morning and evening twilight. It started

with a soft, short note followed by a rich and loud thrush-like sequence of c. 20

notes, closely matched in pitch (LNS 32822, 32824, 32879, 32887, 33032). On 28

July, on Mt. Rorekatimbu, a bird was seen in juvenile plumage, with black fringes

to the body feathers giving it a scalloped appearance.

ISLAND FLYCATCHER Eumyias panayensis In forest and at forest edge above

1,000 m, this species appeared to be very common (contra Watling). It was seen in

both lower storey and canopy, and was often present in mixed-species bird-flocks.

The song, a clear rather monotonous warble lasting c. 5 s, consisted of a fast series

of c. 20 notes, of a more liquid quality towards the end, reminiscent of Black-fronted

White-eye Zosterops atrifrons (LNS 32782, 32797, 32913).

CITRINE FLYCATCHER Culicicapa helianthea The song of this species was

always a combination of four or five loud, clear notes at different pitch, given in a

variable order, lasting 1-1.5 s (LNS 32788, 32802, 32807, 32825, 32835). On 21

July, at Dongi-dongi, two adults were feeding two juveniles.

STREAK-HEADED WHITE-EYE Lophozosterops squamiceps Apparently partly

frugivorous, as several birds on Mt. Rorekatimbu were seen eating berries.

SCARLET MYZOMELA Myzomela sanguinolenta A common and vocal species

between 1,000 and 2,400 m, seen daily on Mt. Rorekatimbu in secondary growth

and canopy. Among a variety of calls were: a loud and clear ‘peeeew’ repeated every

2 or 2.5 s, given while moving through the canopy (LNS 32847, 33024, 33036); a

sharp disyllabic call ‘treeu trEE’, higher pitched in the second syllable, given every

10 s while perched in a tree-top (LNS 33031); a fast and liquid trisyllabic ‘tuwEEdu’

call lasting 0.5 s repeated every 2 or 3 s while foraging in Loranthus (LNS 32896);

and a fast, shortish, thin and high-pitched warble delivered while perched on the

bare branch of a tree-top (LNS 32895).

STREAKED HONEYEATER Myza sarasinorum This common montane species

had a wide variety of calls, such as long series of short, sharp ‘kep’ notes, much

resembling nervous scoldings of squirrels though less penetrating, endlessly

repeated two (LNS 32828) to four times per second (LNS 32849, 32861, 32884,

33029); also a combination of three to five wheezy high-pitched notes in less than a

second, usually given at long, irregular intervals by birds foraging in Loranthus

(LNS 32847, 32881).

INDONESIAN SERIN Serinus estherae On 26 July, 16h00, at 2,400 m on Mt.

Rorekatimbu, ‘chip’ contact-calls of two birds foraging in small tree-tops were

sound-recorded (LNS 32848). Until recently, this species was only known from

1986

Birds of Lore Lindu, Sulawesi

13

highlands in Java and Sumatra (Indonesia) and Mindanao (Philippines). In August

1980, it was discovered on Mt. Rantekombola, south-western Sulawesi, in open

habitat above 2,000 m (Schuchmann and Wolters 1982). In Central Sulawesi,

Watling observed this species in Upper Montane Rain Forest at Rano Rano, Lore

Lindu, in March 1981. As early as April 1979, he had a probable sighting on Mt.

Rorekatimbu. Unfortunately, he did not give any details of plumage. Our birds,

however, were distinctly different from those described by Schuchmann and

Wolters, showing orange-red forehead and orange-red rump and uppertail-coverts,

instead of yellow.

SULAWESI MYNA Basilornis celebensis On a few occasions, solitary immature

birds were found associating with large flocks of Flame-browed Myna Enodes

erythrophris feeding on berries in tree-tops (LNS 32912).

Our thanks are due to the Indonesian -Dutch Snellius-II Expedition which provided us with the

opportunity to visit Indonesia, and to members of staff of the Library of Natural Sounds, Ithaca,

New York, for their assistance. We would like to thank the personnel of PPA Palu and of Kebun

Sari logging company for their hospitality. We thank also Max van Balgooy, David Bishop, Derek

Holmes and Frank Rozendaal for information and advice. We are grateful to Peter and Sara van den

Berg for their support.

REFERENCES

Coomans de Ruiter, L. (1947) Roofvogelwaarnemingen in Zuid Celebes. Limosa 20: 213-229.

Coomans de Ruiter, L. (1950) Vogels van het Quarles-Gebergte (ZW. Centraal Celebes). Ardea 38:

40-64.

Coomans de Ruiter, L. and Maurenbrecher, L. L. A. (1948) Stadsvogels van Makassar (Zuid-Celebes).

Ardea 36: 163- 198.

Escort, C. J. and Holmes, D. A. (1980) The avifauna of Sulawesi, Indonesia: faunistic notes and additions.

Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 100: 189-194.

Klapste, J. (1982a) Celebes Bee-eater. Austr. Bird Watcher 9: 252-259.

Klapste, J. (1982b) Bat Hawk on Celebes in December 1981. Dutch Birding 4: 29-30.

Schuchmann, K.-L. and Wolters, H. E. (1982) A new subspecies of Serinus estherae (Carduelidae) from

Sulawesi. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 102: 12-14.

Stresemann, E. (1940) Die Vogel von Celebes. Teil III. Systematik und Biologie. J. Orn. 88(3): 389-487.

Riley, J. H. (1924) A collection of birds from north and north-central Celebes. Proc. U.S. Natn. Mus.

no. 2506.

Watling, D. (1981) A management plan for the proposed Lore Lindu National Park. Bogor, Indonesia:

World Wildlife Fund Report.

Watling, D. (1983) Ornithological notes from Sulawesi. Emu 83: 247-261.

A. B. van den Berg and C. A. W. Bosman, Duinlustparkweg 98, 2082 EG Santpoort-Zuid, Netherlands

FORKTAIL 1 (1986): 15-20

New information on the

6 Brown-streaked 5 Flycatcher

Muscicapa latirostris williamsoni

D. R. WELLS, P. D. ROUND and J. SCHARRINGA

Breeding of the Asian Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris williamsoni is recorded from

peninsular Thailand, confounding speculation that this race was a migrant from north of its known

range. However, the breeders observed may not represent a migratory population. The species

appears to prefer evergreen conditions, but part of each breeding territory of williamsoni was in open

habitat, birds commonly feeding at the forest/clearing interface (where two nests were found).

Breeding appeared over by July, clutch-size not larger than two, and multi-broodedness to occur.

Juveniles resemble those of other flycatchers; adults in new and old plumages are strikingly

different.

An inclusive interpretation of the taxonomic limits of the Asian Brown Flycatcher

Muscicapa latirostris allows the suggestion that its widespread but rather uniform

Palearctic migrant population emerged late in the history of a species that may

formerly have been mainly Oriental in distribution (Wells 1982). Pockets of

breeders have long been known in the uplands of India (Ali and Ripley 1972), and

sparse records between southern China and Indonesia of birds of more varied

morphology indicate the existence of a perhaps more ancient, South-East Asian

breeding range. We speculate that this may still be widely populated and one of us

(D.R.W.) has for some time been assembling the evidence. Recent discoveries

include distinctive, additional populations in north-west Thailand and Sabah, with

evidence of breeding from both areas (Wells 1982, Wells and Francis 1984).

This paper fills out another piece of the map but there are still large areas of the

region that, on present understanding, could hold breeding Asian Brown

Flycatchers where none has yet been found. Their inconspicuousness and the

hitherto inadequate knowledge of their preferred habitats may well be factors in this

lack of records and we draw attention in particular to the possible presence of

further indigenous populations on the Greater and nearer Lesser Sunda islands.

These lie within or marginal to the known winter range of migrants; thus, short of

actual breeding records, it will be necessary to establish presence outside the

migration season (late July to the end of April) and if possible to collect mensural

data. Fairly certainly, the blunt-winged island forms discussed by Wells (1982) are

sedentary or make only short seasonal movements - M. 1. randi, known only in the

Philippines, has been taken among other migrants on Luzon (Wells 1977).

Continental South-East Asian birds with a wing-tip morphology much as in

Palearctic breeders, on the other hand, may be considerable intratropical migrants.

These include, in particular, the ‘Brown-streaked’ Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris

williamsoni , a form described by Deignan (1957) as a separate species but since

linked with other continental subspecies of latirostris via plumage intergrades (Wells

1977, 1982). Apparently pure williamsoni have now been identified from about

16

D. R. WELLS, P. D. ROUND and J. SCHARRINGA

Forktail 1

latitude 17°20'N in Burma to below the equator, on Siberut island, west of Sumatra

(NUSZRC) (see Figure). Deignan implied, without discussion, that williamsoni was

sedentary but, among a greater number of records gathered since, Wells (1977)

noted that all those of northern winter date were from south of latitude 10°N. The

rest fell within an eight-week portion of the general autumn passage period,

indicative of migration - a conclusion bolstered in peninsular Malaysia by regular

seasonal appearances and the actual interception of birds moving at night. This

prompted Wells to speculate that williamsoni might in reality come from breeding

grounds north of its recorded range, and to dismiss isolated instances of post¬

juvenile moult at Kyeikpadein, Pegu, Burma on 30 July (BMNH) and adult primary

and tail moult at Khao Phanom Bencha, Krabi province, Thailand on 3 August

(ANSP) as unusual postponements of events normally completed before migration.

Field findings in peninsular Thailand during 12-18 June 1984 (P.D.R. and J.S.)

and 26-30 June 1985 (P.D.R. and D.R.W.), reported here, show both

considerations to have been premature. The mystery of where williamsoni breeds is

now at least partly solved by discovery of a minimum nine territories, with proof of

nesting in five, at three sites, namely 10°43'N 99°00'E in Tha Sae district,

Chumphon province; within 5 km radius of the headquarters of Khao Sok National

Park (8°55'N 98°33'E), Surat Thani province; and within 1 km of the headquarters

Figure. Breeding and other locality

records of the ‘Brown-streaked’ Flycatcher

Muscicapa l. williamsoni.

1986

‘Brown-streaked’ Flycatcher

17

of the Khao Chong nature centre (7°33'N 99°47'E), north end of Khao Banthad

wildlife sanctuary, Trang province. Breeding may, therefore, be presumed to span a

minimum ten degrees of latitude of the range as currently mapped. In effect,

equivalent semi-evergreen rainforest biotope extends a further one degree south of

Khao Chong, over the Malaysian border into Perlis state (cf. Collar et al., Forktail,

this issue), and may be found to be occupied to its terminus.

Status

In 1985, migrant williamsoni arrived on schedule in the Kuala Lumpur area of

peninsular Malaysia from 24 July. They are of unknown origin, and our findings of

1984-1985 shed no definite light on the latitude at which local breeders cease to be

migratory. Hints that those located were south of this limit included repeated

impressions of a longer tail than in proven migrants, which could have been due to

proportionate shortness of the wing-tip folded against it. No birds were handled but

the Krabi specimen mentioned above (ANSP 127964, from a locality midway

between Khao Sok and Khao Chong) supplied one additional morphological clue.

R. Meyer de Schauensee (in litt. to D.R.W., 1976) found its outer (tenth) primary to

project 11.5 mm beyond the longest primary covert, which is over three times the

value for migratory williamsoni and actually a little in excess of any broad-winged

island form measured. Such a shape would be expected in a resident, but since this

particular specimen was moulting and also badly worn we have no information on

the rest of the wing-tip (cf. Wells 1977).

Preferred habitat

All the territories found were at Low elevation, not above the base of slopes; indeed,

apart from passage birds attracted to floodlights on the Malayan mountains, there is

only one definite upland record of williamsoni. This is of an adult (ANSP 130379)

from 1,000 m altitude on Khao Luang, Prachuap Khiri Khan province, at 11°39'N

in the Thailand - Burma divide. It is dated 10 August, which is well within the

known migration season, and has a typical migrant wing-shape. By contrast,

northern Thai and Viet Nam subspecies (e.g., siamensis) have not been found in the

lowlands. This difference may be determined by an apparent species preference for

evergreen to semi-evergreen conditions, at least within the tropics. Such conditions

are available down to sea level over relevant latitudes adjacent to the Bay of Bengal

but not below 800- 1,000 m in areas that experience a longer and more severe dry

season.

At least a part of each breeding territory was in open habitat managed by man,

either ‘parkland’ with a ground layer of short herbs or bare soil (much as noted for

wintering birds in peninsular Malaysia) or recently fired slash-and-burn farm

\ clearings with most of the soil bare, apart from fallen logs. Clearings reinvaded by

appreciable secondary cover were not used, including one at Khao Sok in 1985 that

had been occupied when clear in 1984. A freshly burned farm clearing with fallen

wood near Sandakan, Sabah, is, incidentally, the site of collection of the only known

parent and dependent fledglings of the Borneo subspecies M. 1. umbrosa (C. M.

Francis, postscript to Wells and Francis 1984). These sites were in all cases

18

D. R. WELLS, P. D. ROUND and J. SCHARRINGA

Forktail 1

surrounded by secondary forest including, at Khao Sok, much bamboo, and it may

be guessed that prior to deforestation williamsoni would have sought out fresh wind-

throw gaps.

Foraging behaviour

Where no trees had been left standing in isolation, the interface between forest and

clearing provided most of the perches from which feeding sallies were launched. On

many occasions, adults with dependent young, and older fledglings themselves,

were also noted using low, charred stumps and fallen wood often fully exposed on

open ground. More unexpected behaviour in all parents feeding young was the

regular taking of food items from the ground itself. One bird, watched as it tended a

brood of nestlings at Khao Chong on 16 June 1984, flew down into short grass

seven times in 43 minutes, during which it visited the nest 12 times. Ground

foraging was not seen in independent birds, nor has it ever been recorded in

wintering individuals in peninsular Malaysia. The latter not infrequently snatch

from surfaces, but strictly only from those that are arboreal, such as bark (Wells

1977, Ramachandran 1982).

Fully exposed clearings may not be used for the whole day. In one at Khao Sok,

watched under bright, windy conditions on 29 June 1985, an adult and two

fledglings fed in the open only before 08h30 and after 15h45. At 08h30 they were

seen to enter adjacent bamboo jungle and are presumed to have sheltered there

through the hottest part of the day.

Breeding, brood-size and broodedness

Failure to find nests or any fledglings with less than full-grown wings or tail

suggests that by the end of June 1985 the breeding season was over, i.e. at least one

month before the expected peak of the south-west monsoon wet weather in

August - September.

Mossy, open-cup nests found on 12 and 16 June at Khao Sok and Khao Chong

respectively were both in forest-edge trees, on the tops of horizontal boughs 1 5 -

18 m above ground. Asian Brown Flycatchers in India select similar sites (Ali and

Ripley 1972). Both nests were being visited frequently but neither could be reached

to examine contents, though two gapes were seen above the rim of the second. The

number of fledglings of equivalent age consorting as evident siblings was two in two

cases although in two other instances only a single young was seen. It is unlikely,

therefore, that M. 1. williamsoni has a clutch larger than c/2, which is below that

reported in India but the modal value among insectivorous passerines of the Malay

Peninsula (Medway and Wells 1976).

In both years, indications of multi-broodedness were observed, with overlap in

the raising of consecutive broods to independence. Thus, in the first slash-and-burn

clearing at Khao Sok on 12 June 1984 two fully speckled fledglings accompanied a

third apparently older bird in post-juvenile moult, with a nest that evidently

contained chicks nearby. While it is possible that two or more territories overlapped

here, no more than two adults were ever present and were seen briefly to visit the

nest together. At least the younger fledglings were also being fed and the inference is

1986

‘Brown-streaked’ Flycatcher

19

that two, and possibly three, broods were being raised in overlapping succession by

a single pair. It was not established if the feeding of the broods was partitioned

between mates but no other group of fledglings in either year was seen to be tended

by more than a single adult. One adult at Khao Sok in 1985 associated with one fully

speckled fledgling and a second in mid post-juvenile moult, though it fed only the

younger of these.

Plumage, wear and basic moult

The full juvenile plumage was noted as white below with narrow but sharp blackish-

brown streaking on the breast; dark brown above including wings and tail (rump

and uppertail-coverts slightly rufescent), with all of the upper contour plumage

boldly spotted buff-white; the greater coverts and tail tipped, and tertials edged,

rufous-buff. In the field, juveniles may not, therefore, be easy to separate from those

of other flycatcher species.

Our early misgivings about specific identification arising from unexpected

foraging behaviour were redoubled by the appearance of the unmoulted adults. By

mid-June, fading or abrasion had in all cases reduced typical ventral streaking to a

soft mottling, and eliminated all, or virtually all, trace of an eye-ring and wing-

patterning, and all rufescent coloration except on the tail, leaving the birds dull,

plain grey-brown above and whitish below. The adult feeding nestlings at Khao

Chong on 16 June may have commenced basic moult as it had a brownish wash on

the sides of the breast and rufous tips to the greater coverts (cf. the description of

fresh adult plumage in Wells 1977).

By late June 1985 at Khao Sok, moult had proceeded further. At least one lone

adult was in full, fresh, basic plumage, permitting an almost feather-by-feather

confirmation of the zvilliamsoni identification. Its lower mandible was distinctly

more orange-yellow than in unmoulted birds implying, but not necessarily proving,

I that this feature, too, may vary seasonally. This bird gave high-pitched subsong

from a restricted area of clearing edge not far from a 1984 breeding site, but date is

the only indication that it may have nested locally itself. Of other adults still tending

young in that week, one was completely unmoulted, hence strikingly different-

looking, and the other had just begun moult, with a recognizable chocolate-brown

wash on the sides of the breast. One of two fledglings associating with it was

sufficiently far into post-juvenile moult to be identified beyond reasonable doubt as

: williamsoni and thus to reaffirm the connection between the two plumages.

A contrast as striking as this between the new and old plumages of the adults of

williamsoni had not been expected from experience of Palearctic subspecies on

i passage through the tropics in spring and autumn. Depigmentation may be extreme

I in williamsoni, but further post-breeding (wet season) collecting is needed to provide

the necessary basis for comparison, since no other South-East Asian population is

yet known in its freshly moulted plumage. For this reason, also, further subspecific

allocations, at least in the continental tropics, should be made with caution. In the

meantime, field observers in the region are urged to be watchful.

BMNH, NUSZRC and ANSP are, respectively, the British Museum (Natural History), the

20

D. R. WELLS, P. D. ROUND and ]. SCHARRINGA

Forktail 1

National University of Singapore Zoological Reference Collection and the Academy of Natural

Sciences, Philadelphia, from all of which specimens have at one time or another been borrowed. We

thank Mr Phanat Rattanarathorn and Mr Prasert Khunnarong, superintendents of Khao Sok and

Khao Chong respectively, for their assistance and hospitality. D.R.W. and P.D.R. also wish to

acknowledge Peter Alexander-Marrack who has allowed them to use joint field observations made in

1985.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1972) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, 7. Bombay: Oxford

University Press.

Deignan, H. G. (1957) A new flycatcher from southeastern Asia, with remarks on Muscicapa latirostris

Raffles. Ibis 99: 340-344.

Medway, Lord and Wells, D. R. (1976) The birds of the Malay Peninsula, 5. London: H. F. and G.

Witherby.

Ramachandran, S. D. (1982) Arboreal feeding habits of birds in the University of Malaya campus. B.Sc.

dissertation. Zoology Department, University of Malaya.

Wells, D. R. (1977) Muscicapa williamsoni Deignan; a reappraisal. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 97: 83-97.

Wells, D. R. (1982) Notes on some representatives of the Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris Raffles

in Southeast Asia. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 102: 148-153.

Wells, D. R. and Francis, C. M. (1984) Further evidence of a resident Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa

latirostris in Borneo. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 104: 125-127.

D. R. Wells, Zoology Department, University of Malaya, 59100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

P. D. Round, Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, 4 Old Custom House Lane, Bangkok 10500,

Thailand.

J. Scharringa, Steenen Camer 34, 3721 NC Bilthoven, Netherlands.

FORKTAIL 1 (1986): 21-28

Crab-plovers Dromas ardeola

in the Gulf of Kutch

P. PALMES and C. BRIGGS

An anomalous wader, the Crab-plover Dromas ardeola of the north-eastern Indian Ocean, was

studied in and near the Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park in February and March 1984. Some

2,300 birds were counted throughout 40% of available intertidal flats, so the total population of the

area may be 5,000 or more. Roosts were traditional, cohesive and tidally related. When feeding

(which may also occur at night), adults spaced out evenly along the shoreline; most immatures

foraged close to (some soliciting food from) adults. Two foraging techniques were: motionless

waiting, then dash or walk and stab (commoner, for larger crabs); slow pause-peck-pause for smaller

prey. Intra- and interspecific kleptoparasitism occurs. Handling of prey varied with size; immatures

took smaller items and handled them longer. The breeding grounds of the Gulf of Kutch population

are not known to be local.

Crab-plovers Dromas ardeola are extremely unusual waders. They have customarily

been placed in a family of their own, Dromadidae, and were considered to be closely

related to the stone-curlews Burhinidae (Jehl 1968), but DNA studies place them as

a subfamily Dromadinae of the pratincoles and coursers Glareolidae, this in turn

being placed in the superfamily Laroidea (i.e. closer to the gulls and terns than to

true plovers) within the Charadriiformes (Sibley and Ahlquist 1985). Their breeding

habits are unique within the Charadriiformes: they nest colonially in burrows in

sandbanks and the females produce a clutch of only one egg; the young are

precocial, but unable to walk at first and remain in the burrow, relying on the adults

for food; they continue to be fed by the parents after they leave the nest and

apparently remain dependent for a considerable period - indeed young have been

seen to solicit food from adults on passage and in winter quarters, although begging

becomes indiscriminate and juveniles may even beg from each other (Cramp and

Simmons 1983).

Crab-plovers are confined to tropical coastlines and their range extends eastwards

from the Red Sea and the west coast and islands of Africa, through the Arabian Gulf

and the Indian Ocean, as far as the east coast of India and the Andaman Islands (Ali

and Ripley 1969, Cramp and Simmons 1983, Urban et al. 1986). They have been

recorded as winter visitors to Pakistan and the west coast of India (Ali and Ripley

1969) and, prior to this study, the Gulf of Kutch was reported to support a small but

significant winter population (S. Chavan pers. comm.). It remains unknown

whether the birds breed in the Gulf of Kutch. The nearest breeding records are

from southern Iran and Oman, and possibly also Sri Lanka (Ali and Ripley 1969,

Phillips 1978, Cramp and Simmons 1983).

The Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park provides the specialist habitats they

need to obtain their diet of crustaceans and other marine invertebrates, i.e. shallow

lagoons or tidal zones exposing mudflats and coral reefs (Archer and Godman 1937).

Their behaviour in the winter quarters is gregarious with a crepuscular though

tidal-based activity pattern (see Cramp and Simmons 1983).

22

P. PALMES and C. BRIGGS

Forktail 1

The 1984 Oxford University Expedition to the Gulf of Kutch had an ideal

opportunity to make a population estimate for the species in the Marine National

Park and to make some additional observations on the wintering biology of this

unusual and little studied bird.

METHODS

Counts and observations of Crab-plover populations were made during the course

of a five-day boat cruise along the south coast of the Gulf of Kutch (27 February -3

March) and over a period of six days spent on Pirotan Island (20-25 February).

Incidental observations were made while travelling along the southern coast of the

Gulf of Kutch between 7 February and 10 March 1984. Observations of numbers

and behaviour were made at all stages of the tidal cycle, using binoculars and

telescope.

Low-tide observations were made on the reef flats of several coral islands, namely

Bhaidar, Mathechusna and Pirotan Islands and also at Bhaina Bet and the mudflats

at Salaya Point and Rozi Bunder. High-tide roosts were located and counted on

Bhaidar and Pirotan Islands, Goos Reef, Gandhnakadoi Reef and on the mudflats

beyond the reclamation dam to the north of Jodiya (for all localities, see Figure).

RESULTS

Population and distribution

Maximum counts from the high-tide roosts are listed in the Table. Bhaidar Island

held the largest roosting population and a maximum of 1,200 birds were counted at

the roost at the northern end of the island. This island is surrounded by a relatively

large area of reef flat, and at low tide only a narrow channel separates it from the

Chusna Islands. We were unable to locate a roost on the Chusna Islands, although

the surrounding reef flats were used for feeding at low tide. The main part of the

Bhaidar population was seen feeding within 1,000 m of the high-tide roost. On

Pirotan, the roost of up to 470 birds was on the western side of the island. The

exposed northern side did not support many feeding birds, but 200 were seen

feeding on the muddier and more sheltered south-western side.

Table. Maximum counts of Crab-plovers

at high-tide roosts

1986

Crab-plovers in Gulf of Kutch

23

Immatures were easily recognised by their smaller size and browner coloration.

The immature plumage is retained for up to two years, so accurate assessment of age

was not possible. Immatures were present in all roosting flocks and on the feeding

grounds. At Pirotan, it was possible to get close enough to make a count of the

proportion of immatures in the flock. Out of a roost of 470 birds, 80 were

immatures. Thus the immatures represented approximately 17% of the flock.

It is not known whether the wintering population of Crab-plovers is sedentary,

but it appears from the limited evidence (see Foraging dispersion below) that the

numbers of Crab-plovers on the exposed reef flats at low tide and then at high-tide

roosts relate to the size of the available feeding area. A total of 2,300 birds were

counted in the areas surveyed, which represents 40% of the available intertidal flats

along the 160 km length of the south coast of the Gulf of Kutch. So a conservative

population estimate would be about 5,000 birds.

Diurnal rhythm

Activity was linked to the tidal cycle. At high tide, the birds gathered to roost on

high ground. They could be found roosting an hour or two either side of high tide.

Other waders started to feed as soon as the tide began to ebb, but Crab-plovers

always remained on their roost for up to two hours before moving off to the water’s

edge to feed.

During our stay on Pirotan, high tide coincided with dawn and dusk and the roost

was easily visible. In the mornings, the flock dispersed during the ebb tide to

feeding grounds that could not be seen from the island. On the night of 24

Figure. The Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park

N

/

Jodiya

24

P. PALMES and C. BRIGGS

Forktail 1

February, adults and immatures were heard on the shoreline of the northern part of

the island at about 22h40. The rotating beam of the lighthouse revealed that they

were feeding.

Roosting

At Bhaidar and Pirotan Islands, the birds were always seen at the same roosts. They

gathered well before high tide and, once settled, the single-species flock was tight

and cohesive and over 70% of the flock would appear to sleep, while the rest would

be preening or moving out of the way of the rising tide (see Plate). The immatures

tended to be noisy and there would always be a few individuals trying to solicit food

by standing in front of an adult with head lowered, calling continuously with a

twittering sound and pecking at the beak of the adult. It was difficult to tell whether

the birds were begging from a parent or from any adult nearby. Only one adult was

seen to regurgitate food in response to such solicitation.

Foraging dispersion

Adult Crab-plovers would space out evenly along the shore. As the tide receded, the

distance between the feeding birds increased. Distances between the birds were not

quantified, but the impression was that at low tide birds would be spaced up to 50 m

apart, a dispersion substantially greater than hitherto reported (Cramp and

Simmons 1983, Urban et al. 1986). Feeding took place mainly at the edge of the

water and along the tidal channels, particularly on the outer section of the reef flat

where live corals were exposed. A few birds would feed further inshore on the reef

flats where the corals are covered with sand.

Most immatures would forage in close attendance with a single adult. This may

well have been one of the parents, but we did not see any birds foraging in family

Plate. Crab-plovers by Tom Owen Edmunds

1986

Crab-plovers in Gulf of Kutch

25

groups of three. Some immature birds would run close behind a feeding adult,

soliciting whenever food was located. Most immatures would obtain their own food,

but they still remained in contact with an adult, although they might stray up to

50 m away at times. We did not observe any immature birds foraging entirely alone.

Foraging techniques

Two kinds of direct foraging techniques were observed. The commoner involved

standing motionless, waiting for the prey, then taking 8-20 steps and standing still

again for up to 70 s. When prey was detected, the bird would dash forward and stab

at the victim, or move forward more slowly and probe with an open bill. This

method yielded a prey item every 1-5 minutes and was used for hunting larger

prey, usually crabs. In the less usual technique, when feeding on small items, the

birds would pause briefly (1 - 10 s), then move forward 2-4 steps and either peck or

pause again. This method usually gave rise to 3-4 pecks per minute. The prey

items involved were too small for the observer to see how many of the pecks were

successful.

Immatures tended to hunt by the second method, but if they found a large crab,

they would stand still and call until the accompanying adult arrived. Thus it would

appear that, despite the assertion that immatures in winter beg wholly

indiscriminately (Cramp and Simmons 1983), a bond can persist between immature

birds and at least one parent and that many of the immatures were feeding in co¬

operation with a parent.

Birds holding a large prey item were subjected to kleptoparasitism from

[neighbouring birds of their own species and fighting would then commonly

develop. On one occasion, a bird with a large crab was followed by two Ruddy

Turnstones Arenaria interpres. They appeared to be scavenging for any dropped

pieces, rather than actually trying to appropriate the prey. Brown-headed Gulls

Larus brunnicephalus and a second, unidentified Larus species were seen chasing

Crab-plovers with prey.

Handling prey

Small items, including small crabs, were consumed whole. Large crabs took more

handling, but were eventually swallowed whole, as long as the crab was small

enough to be aligned in the beak. Very large crabs with pincers as long as the beak

had to be prepared before they could be consumed.

Birds were not always successful in tackling large crabs. The crab would assume a

defensive stance, with pincers spread, showing the brightly coloured body. The bird

would circle the crab, stabbing at the pincers, but would eventually give up and

:move off.

Smaller crabs were picked up by one pincer and shaken, then dropped upside

down and stabbed. The bird would then carry the prey off to dry ground. If other

birds were attracted to the catch, it would be forced to fly a considerable distance to

an isolated spot.

Once on dry ground, the process continued, and the crab was eventually

swallowed, usually within 30 s. If the crab was too big for this, the limbs would be

26

P. PALMES and C. BRIGGS

Forktail 1

eaten first, pincers before legs. To do this, the bird would hold one limb in its beak

and shake its head until the crab fell to the ground, then swallow the limb left in the

beak and rapidly grab the next one. The carapace was opened by wedging the bill

inside the front of the shell, then shaking the head and beating the shell on the

ground. The whole process took about three minutes.

Whether foraging independently or with an adult, immatures tended to catch

smaller prey than adults and took longer to handle a prey item. Accompanied

immatures tended to spend time begging from the adult and would often run up to

beg when the adult was dealing with a prey item. On one occasion when an adult

and an immature bird were foraging in close association the adult kept the immature

away, with raised rump feathers, until it had consumed all the limbs of a large crab.

It then moved off and left the young bird to deal with the carapace. The immature

bird spent five minutes trying to open the carapace, which was eventually stolen by

a nearby adult.

DISCUSSION

The population estimate of 5,000 birds in the south of the Gulf of Kutch is probably

a conservative one. It would be relatively easy to perform a complete census, making

use of the fact that flocks use the same high-tide roosts over several days and

possibly over longer periods.

Since Crab-plovers can only rear a maximum of one young per pair, a count of

17% birds less than two years old would suggest that breeding had been relatively

successful. Bearing in mind the fact that very few of the immatures appeared to be

foraging entirely independently it might perhaps be inferred that most of them were

in their first year.

It was suggested to us by local ornithologists that breeding may occur within the

Gulf of Kutch. The sand dunes on Bhaidar might be suitable for the construction of

nest burrows. Further research and questioning of local people might well reveal

more information, for despite its remoteness, the area is well visited by fishermen. It

would also be worth investigating the north side of the Gulf.

The specialised feeding techniques of Crab-plovers restrict their feeding activities

to the period of low water. With such a limited time available for feeding, it would

seem likely that they need to hunt at every low tide. When one tide falls at night,

they probably feed in darkness and indeed our observations confirmed that this does

at least sometimes happen. It is possible, however, that the lighthouse on Pirotan

Island could have influenced the night-time behaviour of the birds, as they were

hunting close to the lighthouse in an area which they had never been seen to use

during the day. (Night hunting presumably requires good eyesight and hearing; the

large eyes of the Crab-plover suggest that it can utilise low levels of light.)

It was clear from our observations that Crab-plovers roost in the close vicinity of

their feeding grounds. However, some form of artificial marking would be necessary

to discover the movements between feeding and roosting grounds and the amount of

exchange between islands. The monospecific high-tide roosts provide an ideal

1986

Crab-plovers in Gulf of Kutch

27

opportunity for large-scale netting, for example with cannon-nets. Considering that

the birds spend so much of their time roosting, the presence of suitable roosting

sites is an important ecological requirement for the species.

Studies in Aldabra showed that birds fed in flocks of 7 - 50 (mean 22), with each

bird 3 m distant from the next one without provoking aggression (Cramp and

Simmons 1983). Our observations in the Gulf of Kutch revealed a very different

pattern with birds much more spread out yet with fights a common occurrence. It

was not clear whether the low-tide feeding distribution of Crab-plovers reflected the

distribution of the prey, or if the birds spaced themselves out in an attempt to avoid

interference from neighbours.

The prolonged association between immature birds and adults is of considerable

interest. The immatures obviously take some time to become skilled at feeding

themselves and continue to rely on at least one parent to help with the catching and

preparation of larger food items. It is very difficult to interpret the bond between an

immature bird and its parents, but from our observations, it appeared that a young

bird would associate with one adult, rather than feeding in a family party. The

matter was further confused by the impossibility of discriminating between first and

second year birds in the field.

Some important questions must be asked in relation to the conservation of Crab-

plovers in the Gulf of Kutch. How much of the intertidal area is suitable for

feeding? How many undisturbed roosting sites are available? How does the

deposition of sediment in the Gulf affect their feeding grounds? Is there a danger

that their feeding habitat could be destroyed by an oil spill from the international oil

terminal at Vadinar? Are Crab-plovers a useful indicator of the equilibrium of the

coral ecosystem of the Gulf?

The significance of the Gulf of Kutch as a habitat for these rare and highly

sophisticated birds has been recognised by the management of the Marine National

Park, and it has been proposed that they should be the emblem of the Park. It is

important that further studies should be carried out to try to understand the ecology

of the Crab-plover, and the Marine National Park has the facilities for this.

Thanks are due to the other members of the 1984 Oxford University Expedition to the Gulf of

Kutch, Tom Owen Edmunds and Catherine Hickman and to the sponsors of the Expedition. The

Expedition members are particularly grateful to the Director of the Gulf of Kutch Marine National

Park, Dr Sanat Chavan, and his staff for their help and advice and for the provision of their research

boat for the visits to the coral islands in the Gulf of Kutch. The lighthouse keeper on Pirotan Island

also provided us with encouragement and hospitality. Wing Commander Jadeja kindly provided

accommodation and the benefit of his knowledge of the natural history of Gujarat. Dr A. S.

Richford of Academic Press kindly permitted access to proofs of Urban et al. (1986).

REFERENCES

Archer, G. F. and Godman, E. M. (1937) The birds of British Somaliland and the Gulf of Aden, 1-2.

Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1969) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, 2. Bombay: Oxford

University Press.

Cramp, S. and Simmons, K. E. L. eds. (1983) The birds of the western Palearctic , 3. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

28

P. PALMES and C. BRIGGS

Forktail 1

Jehl, J. R. (1968) The systematic position of the surfbird Aphriza virgata. Condor 70: 206-210.

Phillips, W. W. A. (1978 ) Annotated checklist of the birds of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Revised edition. Colombo:

Wildlife and Protection Society of Ceylon and Ceylon Bird Club.

Sibley, C. G. and Ahlquist, J. E. (1985) The relationships of some groups of African birds, based on

comparisons of the genetic material, DNA. Pp. 115-161 in K.-L. Schuchmann, ed. Proc. Internatn.

Symp. African Vertebrates. Bonn: Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig.

Urban, E. K., Fry, C. H. and Keith, G. S. (1986) The birds of Africa, 2. London: Academic Press.

P. Palmes, Nature Conservancy Council, Thornborough Hall, Leyburn, North Yorkshire, DL8 5AB.

C. Briggs, Cromwell House, East Grinstead, Sussex.

FORKTAIL 1 (1986): 29-51

The past and future of

Gurney’s Pitta Pitta gurney i

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Gurney’s Pitta Pitta gurneyi, whose plumages are described here with particular reference to the

little-known juveniles and to those of Banded Pitta P. guajana, is known only from southernmost

Burma (last record 1914) and from peninsular Thailand between 11°50'N and 7°30'N (last

record - prior to 1986 - 1952). The species was considered relatively common at least until

around 1920, but in the past 50 years has been seen in the wild only twice, although a few captive

specimens have been known since the 1960s, the last such dying in 1985 (a sonagram of the one type

of call produced by this individual is provided). The species appears to breed from late May through

to November. Records suggest that it disappears from southern Burma in response to the monsoon

rains (July to September), and so may not breed there. Its distribution in the peninsula coincides

with the distribution there of its (almost sole) habitat, semi-evergreen rainforest, and only the most

northerly records (possibly both migrants) and those from the mountain Khao Phanom Bencha in

1936 could refer to different (drier) habitats, these being the only cases where the species has been

recorded away from lowland. Competition with Banded Pitta at most sites may have confined

Gurney’s to lowland forest, its disappearance (and possible extinction) being directly attributable to

the almost entire deforestation of lowland peninsular Thailand. Khao Phanom Bencha and a few

other sites are identified as conceivably still holding the species.

Gurney’s (or the Black-breasted) Pitta Pitta gurneyi is endemic to the forests of

peninsular (i.e. southernmost) Burma and Thailand, from south of 12°N to around

7°N. It is not known to extend into Malaysia, but this is just possible (see Natural

constraints). Such a restricted range is unusual in a (non-montane) species in

mainland South-East Asia, a fact remarked upon by Chasen (1939:203) and Wells (in

Medway and Wells 1976:2). It is evidently this very limited distribution, combined

with a lack of records in recent decades, that led to the species being considered by

King (1978-1979) as threatened (IUCN status category ‘Indeterminate’), although

there is no mention of it in Jintanugool et al. (1985) or Blower (1985a). As King’s

treatment of the bird is somewhat cursory, a complete review of our knowledge of it

seems appropriate; and indeed, the provision of every available detail relevant to the

species’s conservation is now essential in the face of evidence that, if it survives at all,

it stands at the very edge of extinction.

In the following account, unless otherwise clearly stated, all coordinates and

modern place-name spellings are derived from The Times atlas of the world (1980) or

Office of Geography (1966a,b), the latter taking precedence over the former where

discrepancies over coordinates occur. AMNH stands for American Museum of

Natural History, ANSP for the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, BMNH

for British Museum (Natural History), BNHS for Bombay Natural History Society,

CUMZB for Chulalongkorn University Museum of Zoology, Bangkok, IUCN for

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, MAPS for

Migratory Animal Pathological Survey, MCML for Merseyside County Museums,

Liverpool, MNHN for Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, NRM for

Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, NUSZRC for National University of

30

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

Singapore Zoological Reference Collections, RMNH for Rijksmuseum van

Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, ROM for Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, RTSD

for Royal Thai Survey Department, SMF for Natur-Museum Senckenberg,

Frankfurt, TISTR for Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research,

UMMZ for University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, UMZC for University

Museum of Zoology, Cambridge (U.K.), USNM for National Museum of Natural

History, Washington, ZMK for Zoological Museum, Copenhagen.

DESCRIPTION

The male Gurney’s Pitta is unmistakable, having an intense iridescent blue

hindcrown and nape, contrasting with a black forecrown, lores, sides of head and

ear-coverts (see cover photograph). The head pattern contrasts sharply with a

whitish throat and a bright yellow band across the upper breast extending onto the

sides of the neck. The lower breast, belly and vent are black, with the feathers of the

breast glossy, but those of the belly and vent matt. The flanks are yellow with short,

bold, black bars. The upperwing coverts, tertials, mantle and rump are all rufescent

brown; the primaries and secondaries are darker blackish-brown. The uppertail-

coverts and tail are turquoise-blue.

The female is relatively subdued in coloration, having the entire crown and nape a

rich ochre. The lores, sides of head and ear-covens are black while the underparts

are narrowly barred black on dull white, although this white is suffused with yellow

across the breast. The upperpans and tail are as in the male.

Knowledge of plumages of juveniles is poor, owing to a paucity of skins: there are

two males (Gyldenstolpe 1916, Meyer de Schauensee 1946) and two females (Meyer

de Schauensee 1946 and in CUMZB). Of these, only the last is undescribed. From

the descriptions of this (below) and the others, it would seem that there are no

discernible differences between males and females. The Gyldenstolpe male appears

to have been in post-juvenile moult, since it shows some black and yellow on the

undersides; Meyer de Schauensee’s (younger) male shows no such feathering.

In the CUMZB specimen, collected by C. J. Aagaard (see Distribution in

Thailand), the upperparts, wings and tail are coloured as in the adult, save that there

may be buffy tips to feathers of the coverts and tertials. The feathers of the crown

are blackish-brown, with buffy shaft streaks, and there is also a long, buffy

supercilium, the individual feathers of which are narrowly edged and tipped

blackish, giving a scaly appearance. The lores, sides of head and ear-covens are

blackish-brown; the throat is buffy white, with some brown scaling. There is a dark

brown, horseshoe-shaped patch across the upper breast which extends onto the sides

of the lower breast. This is finely streaked with rufescent buff. The flanks and sides

of belly are whitish, boldly barred blackish, while the centre of the lower breast and

belly are buffy and are finely barred dark brown. The legs appear to be dull fleshy,

while the bill is black.

The adults are impossible to confuse with any other pitta occurring in the region,

given a good view. Both sexes of the Banded Pitta possess a broad white stripe

which shows on the folded wing and which is formed by the broad white tips to the

1986

Gurney’s Pina

31

median coverts and inner greater coverts. The female Banded Pitta (of the races that

occur in the peninsular region) differs additionally from female Gurney’s in having

flame-orange sides to the hindcrown and nape, and a broad, buffy supercilium.

Adults of both sexes and juveniles of Banded Pitta differ from Gurney’s Pitta in

the following respects. (1) The tail and uppertail-coverts of Banded Pitta are a rich

azure-blue (as compared with paler, turquoise-blue in Gurney’s Pitta). (2) While

both Gurney’s and Banded Pittas possess white bases to the outermost five or six

primaries, this band of white is approximately one centimetre wide in Gurney’s and

roughly half that width in the Banded Pitta. The assertion by King et al. (1975) that

Gurney’s Pitta has no white in the wing is technically incorrect, but is probably

appropriate for the purposes of field identification, since the white bases to the

primaries are so slight that they would probably be invisible even when the bird was

seen in flight from above. (3) Banded Pittas have broad white edges to the outer

webs of secondaries 5, 4 and 3, which are lacking in Gurney’s Pitta, so that even if

juvenile Banded Pittas lack the white coverts that form the white stripe on the folded

wing (one specimen in BMNH appears to, others do not) they should still be easily

separable from juvenile Gurney’s.

DISTRIBUTION IN BURMA

Gurney’s Pitta was first discovered in Burma in 1875 (Hume 1875:296). Locality

records for the country are, apparently, derived from two collectors (W. Davison,

Hume’s collector, and W. L. Abbott for USNM) in three years (1875, 1877 and

1904) at six localities, all in southern parts of the most southerly division of Burma,

Tenasserim. Davison, the collector of the type material, seems to have obtained by

far the highest number of specimens (38 in BMNH alone) and certainly learnt more

about it in the wild than anyone: without his remarkable record (in Hume and

Davison 1878:244-245) we would know virtually nothing of the species. In his

account he lists the localities at which he found the bird as Laynah, Malewoon and

Bankasoon; Palaw-ton-ton is also noted without comment as a locality. As the

glossary in Hume and Davison (1878:522-524) makes clear, ‘Laynah’ is modern-day

Lenya (11°28'N 99°00'E), while ‘Malewoon’ is Maliwun (10°14'N 98°37'E) and

‘Bankasoon’ Bankachon (10°09'N 98°36'E). Palaw-ton-ton was, according to the

glossary, ‘a Malay village on the coast about 30 miles [50 km] north of Victoria

Point’, but the village in question (Kampong Pulo Tonton) is actually on an island

(Pulo Tonton) c. 8 km north-west of Victoria Point, at 10°01'N 98°31'E (and is so

mapped, e.g., on Army Map Service 1966).

Abbott obtained only two specimens, at Sungei Balik on 26 February and Telok

Besar on 1 March (Riley 1938:261, also B. W. Miller pers. comm. 1986). ‘Sungei

Balik’ is evidently Sungei Baleihgyi (10°29'N 98°32'E), while ‘Telok Besar’,

untraceable as such, could perhaps be Talobusa (10°23'N 98°33'E); in any case it is

evident from the dates that ‘Telok Besar’ is close to Sungei Baleihgyi, as Riley

(1938:15) indicates that Abbott was collecting at the latter on 25-26 February and

the former from 27 February to 6 March 1904.

Oates (1883: 419) mentions that his collectors also obtained specimens at

32

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

Maliwun, but this was evidently in deliberate duplication of Davison’s work. One of

these specimens is in AMNH, another in RMNH; the whereabouts of any others is

unknown to us. The specimen in BNHS listed without date from Bankachon

(Abdulali 1975:480) was collected by G. C. Shortridge in January 1914 (S. Unnithaa

in litt. 1985), again presumably in duplication of Davison.

DISTRIBUTION IN THAILAND

The earliest record - apparently made in either 1875 or 1877 - of Gurney’s Pitta

in Thailand was by Davison at ‘Kenong, within the estuary of the Pakchan, but on

the Siamese or southern side’ (Hume and Davison 1878:244), i.e. just across the

river (and border) from Bankachon. However, no locality bearing this name can be

traced; the only settlement on the south side of the Pakchan estuary whose name has

any resemblance is Ranong (9°58'N 98°35'E), which used commonly to be spelt

‘Renong’ (see, e.g., the map accompanying Robinson and Kloss 1921), so it seems

that ‘Kenong’ was the result of a typographer’s misreading of a manuscript R as K.

This record was quickly followed by Hume’s (1879:156) announcement, without

comment, that the species had been found on ‘Tonka’, i.e. Phuket Island (Ko

Phuket) off the west coast of peninsular Thailand. This evidently refers to a male

bird in BMNH from ‘Tapraw’ (untraced), taken on 1 1 April 1879 by J. Darling (one

of Hume’s collectors: see Robinson 1927: xxxiii), since a specimen of a male listed as

from ‘Tapraw, Island of Tonkah’ is mentioned by Sclater (1888:449), although the

issue is confused by this being attributed to Davison and ascribed to the type

material.

There is a skin of an adult female Gurney’s Pitta in MNHN, received in 1893 but

otherwise undated; it was collected by G. M. Bel at or in ‘Siam Prov. Banataphan’

(C. Voisin in litt. 1985). This would appear most likely to have come from Ban

Saphan district in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, at 11°13'N 99°31'E (read from

RTSD 1973).

All the remaining records from Thailand stem from the twentieth century in the

years 1909-1919, 1929, 1936, 1952 and 1986. E. C. Dickinson (in litt. 1985) has

pointed out that early collectors in the northern peninsula were chiefly dependent on

the railway system for their transport and that railway station villages were

commonly used as bases for collecting forays. This fact is certainly borne out by

Gurney’s Pitta records and indeed helps confirm the identity of some sites.

Robinson and Kloss (1911:49) found the species in ‘several localities’ in Trang

province. They do not specify these sites, but there are skins in BMNH, AMNH,

NRM, NUSZRC and UMZC dating from 1909- 1910 and stemming from Trang

which are evidently theirs and whose labels bear more precise site data: ‘Chong’, 4,

5 (two specimens) and 12 December 1909, ‘Lam-ra’, 6, 8, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 31

January and 24 February 1910, ‘Ko-Khau’, 13, 19 and 21 January 1910, and

‘Krongmon’, 16 February 1910. All these localities are mentioned (with these

spellings) several times throughout Robinson and Kloss (1910, 1911), but only one

of them, Chong, is traceable with immediate certainty. As Robinson and Kloss

(1910:669-670) make clear, Chong is Khao Kachong, whose coordinates as read

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

33

from Army Map Service (1965) are 7°31'N 99°48'E, this being Khao Chong in or

near the Nature Centre at the northern end of the Khao Banthad Wildlife Sanctuary

(described, e.g., by Lekagul et al. 1985:36). The altitude at which one of the Chong

specimens was taken on 5 December is noted on the label as 250 ft (75 m).

The other sites were evidently not visited by Robinson and Kloss personally, as

they say (1910:670-671) that ‘after our departure from Chong our collectors visited

several localities in the N. E. portion of the State [Trang] towards Lakon [i.e.

Nakhon Si Thammarat], but for various reasons were unable to ascend any of the

hills’. There is a Ban ( = village) Lamphu La, whose old name was Ban Lam Ra, at

7°41'N 99°34'E, this being only 10 km north of Trang town. E. C. Dickinson (in

litt. 1985), who maintains a Thai locality card index bequeathed him by H. G.

Deignan, confirms the position and identity of this locality, which he also has as

‘Lam Phura’ and ‘Sathani [station] Lam Phila’. ‘Ko-Khau’ (untraceable as such or

as, e.g., Kiio Khao) must have been very close; Robinson and Kloss (1911:15)

describe it as ‘at some considerable distance inland’. Dickinson suggests that ‘Ko-

Khau’ is a typographer’s misreading of ‘Ko-Khan’ (it appears indeed as the latter on

specimen labels) and that this is therefore (Ban) Khok Khan, or now (Ban) Khuan

Khan, at 7°34'N 99°38'E. ‘Krongmon’ (specimen in AMNH, where the label reads

‘Krongmun’) seems unlikely to have been far distant either. It does not feature in

any gazetteer, but there is a Khlong Muan railway station at 7°53'N 99°38'E, which

is only another 10 km or so to the north of Ban Lamphu La (Dickinson’s index

agrees with this identification and position). ‘Krongmon’ is also important for

providing a record of the highly threatened Giant Ibis Thaumatibis (Pseudibis)

gigantea (Robinson and Kloss 1911:17).

Robinson (1915:97) found Gurney’s Pitta ‘in the neighbourhood of Ban Kok

Klap’ (in former Bandon - now Surat Thani - province), where he collected

during the week 29 June to 6 July 1913. He describes this locality as four miles

(c. 7 tan) west of the main Bangkok -Singapore railway, and on the banks of the river

Lampun (Khlong Lamphun). By relating this information to several maps it is

possible to determine the coordinates of the site as 8°53'N 99°17'E. During this

collecting trip he also visited the mountain c. 25 km to the east of Ban Kok Klap,

named ‘Kao Nawng’ (Khao Nong), where he failed to find the species (reporting it

as ‘not extending far up the slopes, as it was not met with at either of our camps’).

Gyldenstolpe (1916:85) collected an immature male Gurney’s Pitta on 8

December 1914 inland of Koh Lak (now renamed - or replaced by - Prachuap

Khiri Khan, as noted by Deignan 1963:99). This is the most northerly record for

the species. The locality is given as ‘Koh Lak Paa’ (‘paa’ merely signifies ‘forest’),

the encounter being made ‘during one of my excursions among the mountain chain

separating Tenasserim and Siam’. It is clear from Gyldenstolpe’s (1916:10) account

of his itinerary that he was in the low dividing range several (perhaps up to 20)

kilometres to the north of the mountain Khao Luang, and the approximate

coordinates for the record may therefore be read from the latitude of Prachuap Khiri

Khan just before it intersects the Burmese border, hence 11°50'N 99°40'E. The

statement in King (1978- 1979) that this record was from Koh Lak itself, ‘an island

on the west [sic] coast of the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand’, is obviously erroneous.

In October 1915 a nest (the first and until 1986 only to be recorded) was found at

34

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

‘Klong Wang Hip, Tung Song’ (Herbert 1924:298). Tung Song (Thung Song) is a

town in Nakhon Si Thammarat (the record is thus generalised in Medway and

Wells 1976:255); Klong Wang Hip (‘Klong Wahip’ on BMNH specimen labels) is

described by Herbert in Baker (1 9 1 9a: 1 78- 180) as a stream at the foot of the hills

about eight miles (13 km) north-east of Thung Song. He also mentions the mountain

Khao Wang Hip and implies it was very close to the stream in question; the

coordinates for the mountain read from Army Map Service (1965) are 8°19'N

99°42'E. E. C. Dickinson’s card index places Klong Wang Hip at 8°10'N 99°40'E.

One small anomaly in this record is Herbert’s statement that ‘the female was shot by

my Dyak collector as it flew from the nest ... on the 9th October’ when the skin of

this bird in BMNH is dated 1 October. A male from the same locality - presumably

the mate (these are the only two specimens from this site) - is dated 9 October.

Perhaps therefore it was the male that was shot as it flew from the nest, the search

for the latter having intensifed after dissection of the female had showed it to contain

a shelled egg ready for laying.

In January 1916 the same collector (C. Chunggat for E. G. Herbert, on BMNH

labels) obtained (at least) six further specimens of Gurney’s Pina: on 5th, at

‘Maprit’, he took four, three males and a female; on 17th and 20th, at ‘Klong Bang

Lai’, he took a female and a male respectively (Baker 1919b:417-418; specimens all

in BMNH). Herbert again provided details of these two localities in Baker

(1919a: 178-180), Maprit being ‘a station on the southern railway, west of Patiyu’

and Klong Bang Lai ‘a camp on the banks of a stream of that name, about 10 miles

[17 km] north-west of Maprit and close to the hills’. The two sites are marked on the

map that accompanies Robinson and Kloss (1921) and on the map in Robinson

(1927: xii). Royal Survey Department (1930) marks Maprit as ‘Ma Prid station’,

from which the coordinates are 10°55'N 99°20'E: this puts it a little to the north¬

east of its position on the map in Robinson and Kloss (1921) and it is also thus

north, and not west, of Pathiu (this error is because Pathiu was misplaced on many

nineteenth century maps north-east of its true position). Through this link it

becomes possible to identify ‘Maprit’ with what Office of Geography (1966b) calls

Sathani Map Ammarit, at 10°52'N 99°21'E (its coordinates for Pathiu being

10°42'N 99°19'E). E. C. Dickinson’s card index places Klong Bang Lai at 10°45'N

99°10'E, and indicates that this is the same as Ban Salui (also marked on Royal

Survey Department 1930).

There is a skin of a male Gurney’s Pina in ZMK, collected by R. Havmpller on

23 May 1916 at ‘Hannaat, Bandon, Siam’ (S. Brogger-Jensen in litt. 1985). Hannaat

cannot be traced with certainty. There is, however, a Ban Han Not at 8°55'N

99°10'E, in the lowlands of the Tapli valley, Surat Thani province, due west of

Robinson’s Ban Kok Klap.

On 12 December 1917 Robinson and Kloss (1919:103) obtained a male at Klong

Tung Sai (Klongtun Sai on BMNH label) on Junk Seylon ( = Phuket Island). The

coordinates (read from RTSD 1973) are 8°02'N 98°23'E (the locality is thus

marked in Robinson and Kloss 1919:89).

In March 1919 Robinson and Kloss (1924:222) found the species at ‘Tasan’

(Thasan), in Chumphon (‘Chumporn’, ‘Chumpawn’ on BMNH labels) province.

Ban Tha San is at 10°29'N 98°55'E, mapped as (e.g.) Ban Htasan at precisely these

1986

Gurney’s Pina

35

coordinates on the junction of the river ‘Khlaung Htaung Kha’ and another

unnamed stream in Bagge (1897). Robinson and Kloss (1921:10-11) describe

Thasan as ‘pleasantly situated among low hills covered with evergreen forest at the

confluence of two clear-water streams’ and mark it on the map that accompanies

their paper; Robinson (1927: xii) also maps it. Seven birds (four males, three

females) were collected there in the eight days 15-22 March; three of these (one

male, two females) are in BMNH, the other four being in NUSZRC.

On 25 July 1929, C. J. Aagaard collected a specimen of a juvenile female Gurney’s

Pitta at or in ‘Bandon’, i.e. in Surat Thani province. The specimen, erroneously

labelled ‘ Eucichla cyajane irena’ (meaning Banded Pitta Pitta guajana) is now

deposited in CUMZB. The precise collecting locality is not clear. Bandon is the

former name both for the city and for the province of Surat Thani, the former being

at 9°08'N 99°19'E, the latter stretching along the whole lowland area bordering

Bandon Bay (Robinson 1915; see map in Robinson and Kloss 1921).

In August 1936 collectors for Meyer de Schauensee (1946) found the species on

the mountain Khao Bhanam (Phanom) Bencha (1,360 m), at 8°17'N 98°56'E, north

of the town of Krabi. Four birds (two females, an immature female and a male

nestling) were reported collected in the three weeks 5-27 August, at 600-1,060 m,

but the nestling (in USNM) is in fact dated 19 September (B. W. Miller in litt.

1986).

On 24 December 1952, H. G. Deignan collected an adult female Gurney’s Pitta at

Ban Khlua Klang, Prachuap Khiri Khan province; the gonads were not enlarged

(specimen in USNM: B. W. Miller in litt. 1986). While this site is not marked on

any modern map, Deignan (in litt. 1956 to R. E. Elbel) stated that ‘Ban Khlua Klang

is a very new settlement currently being carved out of the forest for the cultivation of

castor beans; it is in tambon Huai Yang, and in amphoe Prachuap Khiri Khan’.

This enables the site to be placed with confidence in the present-day Huai Yang sub¬

district, in the plains or foothills to the east of the mountain Khao Luang, at around

11°38'N 99°36'E (as also given in E. C. Dickinson’s card index).

From 1952 to 1986, no ornithologist reported encountering Gurney’s Pitta in the

wild, despite considerable fieldwork within its known range, and the few records

were all of birds in trade (see below). However, in June 1986 P.D.R. and U.

Treesucon found a pair with a nest (which failed) at an unprotected site in the

Khlong Thom district of Krabi province. This rediscovery of the species took place

long after the text of this paper was complete (and only a few days before it went to

press); all further details plus a general prognosis will be found in Round and

Treesucon (Forktail 2, in press).

NUMBERS

Within its rather restricted area of distribution, Gurney’s Pitta has been judged to

be relatively numerous. This at least was the finding of Robinson and Kloss, who

reported it ‘the commonest of the genus [ Eucichla , of which however they recorded

only one other species (Banded Pitta) while obtaining four of Pitta ] in Trang’,

where they ‘secured over thirty specimens from several localities’ (Robinson and

36

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

Kloss 191 1:49), and found it ‘very common indeed’ around Ban Kok Klap (where,

in contrast to the situation in Trang, the Banded Pitta was ‘even commoner’)

(Robinson 1915-97) and ‘equally common’ at Thasan (Robinson and Kloss

1924:222); however, on Phuket Island they considered it ‘apparently not nearly so

common ... as on the mainland of Trang’ (Robinson and Kloss 1919:103).

These findings evidently led subsequent reviewers of the species to describe it as

occurring ‘rather commonly’ (Riley 1938:261), being ‘apparently fairly plentiful’

(Gibson-Hill 1949:256), and ‘fairly common locally’ (Glenister 1951:246 and

subsequent reprints down to 1983). Chasen (1939:203) made the mistake of

returning the species to Pitta whilst citing without proviso the remark above about

it being the commonest of the genus at Trang, so that he exaggerated its abundance

there. On the other hand, in southernmost Burma, to which Davison considered the

species probably a non-breeding migrant, he was at pains to stress that it was ‘by no

means a common bird’ and that ‘it was only by persistently hunting them, and never

missing an opportunity of securing a bird where possible, that I and my people

succeeded in getting the number we did’ (Hume and Davison 1878:244). (With

regard to these comments it is worth noting that four of the six Burmese localities

for Gurney’s Pitta have produced only a single specimen each.)

What is curious about Robinson and Kloss’s findings is that other workers have

failed to find it in Trang: Riley (1938:13) reports that Abbott was at Chong for a

month from around 19 January to 21 February 1897, and was in Trang generally

from February 1896 to April 1897 and again from December 1898 to early March

1899, obtaining over 1,300 specimens of birds, yet not one Pitta gurneyi; and Meyer

de Schauensee’s (1946) collectors worked at Chong in October 1936, with similar

negative results. E. C. Dickinson (in litt. 1985) comments that such anomalies may

be attributable to the hunting methods of the native collectors involved, those using

snares probably being much more successful than those depending on firearms.

In recent years the species has been judged uncommon (Lekagul and Cronin

1974:143), and this is presumably a source for the unattributed statement in King

(1978-1979), repeated by Bain and Humphrey (1982:330), that it ‘is now scarce

over much of its range in Thailand’. This assertion may well be true, but it gives a

false impression of being derived from positive contact with the bird in the field. In

fact, such information as exists on the modern status of the species emanates solely

from observations of specimens in trade. At the Bangkok Sunday Market from

November 1966 to December 1968 there were only six Gurney’s as against 37

Banded Pittas (also listed as ‘uncommon’ by Lekagul and Cronin 1974:142) among

a total of 214 pittas offered for sale (McClure and Chaiyaphun 1971:68).

One of these birds was purchased by B. Lekagul in September 1968 and its skin is

now in his private collection (there is also a market-purchased female in TISTR,

with no data). The skin of a female in UMMZ is derived from a captive bird

received in the flesh in September 1972 (B.W. Miller in litt. 1986), and might

evidently have been one of the birds reported by McClure and Chaiyaphun (1971).

At least one pair of gurneyi was in captivity in Britain up to around 1975, when the

male escaped (Vince 1980:105), this stock perhaps also deriving from birds on sale in

1966- 1968 (C. Vince in litt. 1985 has no clear record of the origin or number of

these birds, ‘but from memory I would say I had an adult male and probably three

1986

Gurney’s Pina

37

immatures, one of which I always considered a female’). However, during casual

observations at the Sunday Market from 1978 to the present, there was only one

further undoubted record of a Gurney’s Pitta, a male bird which was kept alive in an

aviary until 2 June 1985; reports of at least three further individuals were received

during this period, whereas in contrast the number of Banded Pinas entering the

(now illegal) trade in Bangkok has remained constant, at roughly 20 individuals per

year (P. na Patalung verbally 1985).

BIOLOGY

Our knowledge of the biology of the species is slight and easily summarised. It is

strictly confined to evergreen forests, never venturing into the open or into gardens:

favoured localities are narrow, densely wooded but undergrowth-free valleys lying

between hills (Hume and Davison 1878:244). The Koh Lak (Prachuap Khiri Khan)

specimen was flushed in ‘a very dense and almost impenetrable piece of jungle’

(Gyldenstolpe 1916:85). Birds keep to the ground (they have a habit of jerking up

their tails and slightly drooping their wings as they hop along) and feed on snails,

worms, slugs and insects; they are shy and retiring, rarely flying when disturbed but

hopping rapidly away at the slightest indication of danger to the cover of an obstacle

or some tangled vegetation where they remain hidden until the trouble has passed

(Hume and Davison 1878). Usually birds are found singly, ‘occasionally a couple

together’ (Hume and Davison 1878). The one nest found held a clutch of four eggs

but the female contained a shelled egg (Herbert 1924), so the full clutch may be as

much as five (Chasen 1939). Herbert reported that this nest ‘was made of dry

bamboo-leaves, domed, with an entrance on one side, and placed on the ground at

the foot of a bamboo-clump’ (Baker 1934:259; also 1926:458).

Davison apparently discerned three calls from the species: one (‘its ordinary note’)

distinctly pitta-like yet ‘notably’ different; a ‘peculiar note - a sort of kir-r-r’ when

suddenly alarmed; and - heard on one occasion only - a ‘peculiar short double

note’, given with a flapping of wings and jerking of tail by a male perched high in a

tree (Hume and Davison 1878). During the morning and evening birds call

(presumably giving the first of the calls above) ‘and may then be heard answering

one another in all directions’ (Hume and Davison 1878).

The ‘kir-r-r’ note may be similar to the well known ‘brief but strident, whirr’ of

Banded Pitta (Medway and Wells 1976:255), which also appears sometimes to be

given in the context of alarm. The captive male gurneyi in Bangkok, tape-recorded

by P.D.R. on 31 May 1985 (less than two days before it died), was heard to give a

mellow but explosive ‘taroop’ at frequent intervals; both syllables were very short

with the first stressed (the tape recording of the call sounded to J. Hall-Craggs and

N.J.C. like a very rapid but rather mellow whistled ‘lilip’, both syllables equally

stressed). This may be the ‘peculiar short double note’ mentioned by Davison, but it

was only given when the bird was standing on the ground. The head and neck were

first stretched upwards, then suddenly bobbed downwards as the sound was

uttered. According to P. na Patalung, the bird’s owner, no other call was uttered by

the bird in over six years of captivity, calling was restricted to a six-week period

38

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

during May and June each year (mostly taking place in the early morning and

evening), and the bird was not with certainty heard to call from a perch (although it

usually roosted in the low trees and shrubs with which the aviary was provided).

Sonagrams of this call, prepared by J. Hall-Craggs, are given in Figure 1. Making

allowances for the amount of reflection on the recording, she comments (in litt.

1985) that this is ‘a distinctly disyllabic sound of brief duration, 0.12 to 0.125 s, each

syllable c. 0.06 s, the two connected at the lower frequencies (just >1.0 to 1.5 kHz)

but increasingly divided up to c. 0.02 s at the highest frequency, c. 2.4 kHz. In view

of the very short time interval between the syllables, the separation is -surprisingly

clear and easy to hear. The call begins and ends abruptly, giving a slight consonantal

sound, but has an overall tonal quality of rather mellow, hollow timbre. It is likely

that this sound is locatable and used to maintain contact or to gain attention’. Thirty

calls were recorded consecutively over a period of three minutes forty-two seconds,

thus an average of one call every 7.4 s, although some calls were only 2-3 s apart.

Davison reported that ‘specimens dissected in April, May and June showed no

signs of breeding’. This finding is fairly consistent with the few records of breeding

that we have, although of course Davison’s birds were all from Tenasserim, where

somewhat different conditions apply (see Natural constraints) and where breeding

was never recorded. Breeding records comprise the Aagaard juvenile from 25 July,

the nestling collected in September, when an immature bird was also obtained

Figure 1. Sonagrams of the call (two versions) of Gurney’s Pitta in captivity (see Biology).

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

39

(Meyer de Schauensee 1946), and the nest found in early October (Herbert 1924);

the bird taken by Gyldenstolpe (1916) in December was also immature. The

induction to be made is that breeding might commence in late May or early June

and continue into November. It seems clear therefore that, like other pittas so far

studied in Thailand (Robinson 1915, Herbert 1924, Round and Treesucon 1983),

gurneyi is primarily a wet season breeder.

Davison speculated that the Burmese birds went to breed ‘probably to Siam or

into the higher portions of the hills dividing Siam from Tenasserim’ and on the face

of it Gyldenstolpe’s specimen seems a good testimony to the latter proposition. It is

noteworthy that the immature and nestling in August/September were from a

mountain locality — not, incidentally, ‘at least 2000 ft’ as reported in Medway and

Wells (1976:255), but as noted above (at least, according to Meyer de Schauensee’s

collectors) between 2,000 and 3,500 ft - and indeed the locality of the October nest

appears, on the evidence presented above, to have been in the vicinity of a mountain

and therefore quite possibly in hilly country. The testimony of Robinson (1915),

that birds in July were common in lowlands but absent from an adjacent mountain,

takes no account of the fact that his first hill camp was at 360 m, and that no

collecting appears to have been conducted en route upwards. It is much to be

regretted that Robinson and Kloss never investigated (or at least never published)

the gonadal condition of the many birds they collected.

MOVEMENTS

The problem of the species’s (former) numerical status is compounded by the

problem of its movements. Davison’s experience in southern Tenasserim was that a

few birds began to appear around 10 February but that the species remained scarce

until mid-April, becoming more numerous until the end of May, and then largely

disappearing with the onset of the regular monsoon, though with some birds staying

on into July (Hume and Davison 1878:244). Robinson and Kloss (1924:222-223)

were respectful of this view, but could not confirm it, reporting that they had always

found it equally common, in Trang (in the south of its range) in December and

January, near Chumphon (north-centre) in March, and in Surat Thani (centre) in

June and July. Chasen (1939:204) took these findings as providing ‘no evidence to

show that the bird is migratory in Peninsular Siam’; Gibson-Hill (1949:256)

rephrased this as ‘the evidence would suggest that in the peninsula it is sedentary’,

and Bain and Humphrey (1982:330) in turn declared that ‘the Thai population is

believed to be sedentary’. The point about Robinson and Kloss ’s evidence is,

however, that it neither confirms nor negates Davison’s judgement; and the point

about Davison’s judgement is that it was based on more fieldwork in Tenasserim

and greater knowledge of the species than anyone else has ever achieved.

Davison’s skins in BMNH and AMNH - plus two in SMF (D. S. Peters in litt.

1985), one in MCML (Fisher 1980:282), one in ROM (N.J.C.), one dated by month

of three in MNHN (C. Voisin in litt. 1985) and one in RMNH (F. G. Rozendaal in

litt. 1986) - appear to confirm the pattern he suggests. In 1875 he obtained three

birds in February, six in March, three in April and one in May (one of those in April

40

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

was from Palaw-ton-ton, the one in May from Lenya: the latter indicates that he was

not in southernmost Burma in that month). In 1877 he obtained five in April, 19 in

May and five in June. Taken together this yields three in February, six in March,

eight in April, 20 in May, and five in June. It turns out, however, that two of his

BMNH specimens were taken in December 1875, while the AMNH specimen

collected by Oates in ‘South Tenasserim’ is dated 23 January 1877 (as indicated by

Baker 1926:458) and the BNHS specimen is also from January (see above). So

proven records for Burma extend from December through to June, with July also

claimed. In Thailand the records listed above cover January and February (Trang),

March (Chumphon), April (Phuket), May and July (Surat Thani), August and

September (Krabi), October (Nakhon Si Thammarat) and December (Prachuap

Khiri Khan, Phuket, Trang), i.e. no records apparently exist for June prior to 1986

or November.

If the picture appears confused, this need not be blamed wholly on paucity of data.

It seems very likely that the species’s seasonal responses may be complex and

dependent on several factors; such migrations as occur may, for example, be age-

related or confined to populations in only part of the whole range. From the point of

view of conservation, however, some understanding of the species’s displacements,

seasonal or otherwise, is obviously essential it if is to be afforded adequate

protection throughout its annual (and life) cycle.

NATURAL CONSTRAINTS

The factors naturally restricting the species’s range to what it is (or was) appear to be

related to climate, vegetation and, in part, competition, although how is by no means

clear. Drawing on Smitinand et al. (1967), Wells (in Medway and Wells 1976:2-3)

notes and maps two important ecological boundaries across the isthmus of the

Malayan peninsula, the first being the northern limit of ‘rainforest’ at about

10°40'N (on the Thai side of the Tenasserim chain), beyond which it is replaced by

‘dry evergreen forest’, the second being the transition from ‘Thai -Burmese’ to

‘Malaysian’ floristic formations, this occurring as a north-north-east divide roughly

between 6° and 7°N (and thus just including the northernmost part of Perlis state in

Malaysia). Whitmore (1984:201-203) proposes slightly different boundaries and

vegetation categories, the Kra Isthmus being characterised as holding ‘semi¬

evergreen rain forest’ changing north of around 12°30'N (i.e. just north of Prachuap

Khiri Khan) to ‘moist deciduous forest’, while in the south he re-draws the ecotone

line (between semi-evergreen and evergreen rainforest) east-north-east through

Perlis and Pattani (see Figure 3). Wells’s comment is that ‘Gurney’s Pitta, the one

species confined between the two zones of differentiation, may have evolved in this

small area; alternatively its former range may have been reduced by extinction’.

Either way, the conclusion must be that the region under review has features which

enable (or would enable, man permitting) the bird to survive there.

RTSD (1972) charts the distribution of tropical monsoon climate as occurring

throughout peninsular Thailand from just north of 12°N south to the Malaysian

border, with the exception of the eastern half of the region from around 8°N, this

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

41

being classified as ‘tropical rainforest climate’. This conforms well with Whitmore’s

ecological boundary to the north (and gives a slightly better accommodation than

Wells’s to the Prachuap Khiri Khan record at around 11°50'N), and similarly, to

the south, what Wells and Whitmore treat in terms of floristic composition can also

be seen as a real climatic boundary (although the lines are not exactly coincidental,

the features are obviously correlated). It is also worth noting that the 80% humidity

contour almost exactly embraces the Pitta’s range, running across the isthmus just

south of Prachuap Khiri Khan and just south of Trang (RTSD 1972).

Records of Gurney’s Pitta are thus all from semi-evergreen rainforest, with the

possible exceptions of Prachuap Khiri Khan, which is at the boundary with moist

deciduous (dry evergreen) forest, Khao Phanom Bencha, which has some ‘hill

evergreen forest’ (Round in press), and of Thung Song, which may be or may have

been in or on the edge of the evergreen rainforest area. Certainly it is striking that, of

65 specimens of bird (inexplicably, Gurney’s Pina is not counted among them)

listed from Ban Khlua Klang (Prachuap Khiri Khan) in H. G. Deignan’s papers

(which are now in the possession of E. C. Dickinson), there are no exclusively

Sundaic lowland forest species: most are common birds of open country or

deciduous forest, indicating that the area supported a continental Indochinese fauna.

The Gurney’s Pitta at that and the other Prachuap site may thus have been migrant

individuals in atypical habitat, en route to or from the moister forests to the west in

Burma, or at least having dispersed from breeding areas to the south.

The climatic difference between semi-evergreen and evergreen rainforest, as

indicated by RTSD (1972), which plots the rainfall patterns at Ranong, Surat

Thani, Phuket and Songkhla, is that the former not merely experiences a ‘dry’

season, but also endures periods of much greater wetness: the area of such forest

thus coincides with the distribution of ‘tropical monsoon climate’ within peninsular

Thailand. Ranong receives under 100 mm per month, December - March, but

200-600 mm per month, April -June, and over 800 mm per month,

July -September. Further south, at Phuket, the dry season is similar but otherwise

rainfall is fairly regularly distributed at c. 250-350 mm per month. At Surat Thani

the pattern is broadly similar, though with lower rainfall and December still ‘wet’.

Down at Songkhla, however, in the ‘tropical rain forest climate’, the rainfall is fairly

constant from February to September at approximately 100 mm per month, rising

to 300, 550, 450 and 175 mm for the months from October to January (so overall

much drier). It is possible, therefore, that Gurney’s Pitta is adapted to a seasonal

environment and requires high levels of rainfall in which to breed, but that the

phenomenally high rainfall at Ranong and just across the border in southern Burma

forces it elsewhere for the duration of the monsoon. (Davison reported parallel

fluctuations in the populations of many southern Tenasserim birds.)

There may be some quite specific adaptation in the ecology of the species which is

responsible for its restriction of range. Such a feature could only be identified from a

close study of the bird in the wild. Meanwhile, the other major consideration

concerns competition from other species of pitta. Throughout the Sunda subregion

sympatric species of pitta tend to show segregation on size, habitat or altitude. The

Blue Pitta Pitta cyanea and Garnet Pitta P. granatina have distributions that border

the northern and southern frontiers respectively of Gurney’s Pitta (Lekagul and

42

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

Cronin 1974, King et al. 1975). Although there is a vocal record of cyanea from

Surat Thani province, Thailand (P.D.R. and D.R.W.), and a sight record of

granatina from Trang (Holmes 1973:51), cyanea is larger and granatina smaller than

gurneyi, and neither should compete with it. Moreover, both the similar-sized Blue¬

winged Pitta P. moluccensis and the smaller Hooded Pitta P. sordida, though partly

sympatric with gurneyi in the breeding season, are largely segregated on habitat,

preferring forest-edge, secondary growth and bamboo (Round in press).

The closest potential competitor would be the Banded Pitta P. guajana, which is

almost identical to gurneyi in size and which also inhabits forest interior. The

relationship of guajana and gurneyi is unusual, however, in that both have been

found together at many sites: in Trang (Robinson and Kloss 1911), Surat Thani

(Robinson 1915), Chumphon (Robinson and Kloss 1921) and on Khao Phanom

Bencha (Meyer de Schauensee 1946). Although Robinson’s (1915) findings imply

that both Banded and Gurney’s Pittas were abundant in the lowlands, they show

that gurneyi was absent at around 360 m on a nearby mountain, where guajana was

common up to at least 600 m. Robinson and Kloss (1911:49) described guajana in

Trang as ‘exceedingly common wherever met with, but very local’ and (1924:223)

wrote of its distribution in peninsular Thailand as ‘most strictly associated with

limestone hills such as are found throughout the Malay Peninsula on both sides of

the main range . . . The association is correlated with the presence of certain species

of shells on the limestone, which constitute the principal article of food of these

birds’. Most subsequent workers have thought this claim mistaken, however, since

the species appears to be equally common in lowland forests which are remote from

limestone outcrops. Chasen (1939:202) stressed that the species was ‘a bird of the

low-country forests’ but that ‘it avoids the swamps’.

The possibility exists, therefore, that while gurneyi and guajana can both occupy

lowland forest, with some degree of segregation or dominance based on subtle

variations in forest-floor conditions, reduced resources commonly lead to gurneyi

being excluded from the hill slopes by guajana. In some cases even the

lowland - foothill ecotone may be unsuitable for gurneyi : in recent searches by

P.D.R. of valley-bottom forests among the foothills of the peninsular mountain

spine (at Khlong Nakha Wildlife Sanctuary in Ranong province and at Khao Chong

in Trang, 50-100 m, as well as in an isolated patch of c. 20 km2 of logged forest in

the level lowlands near the town of Krabi), only guajana could be found.

In a few sites, however, gurneyi might be able to survive on higher ground

(although whether it could do so in the absence of adjoining lowland forest must

remain open to doubt: see Habitat destruction); on Khao Phanom Bencha, for

example, the resource base must have been (and may still be) sufficiently wide to

allow it to co-exist with guajana, but the destruction of all adjacent lowland forest

may have caused gurneyi problems at this site. The other area of high ground from

which gurneyi has been recorded is the hill region of Prachuap Khiri Khan. Since

the most northerly records of Banded Pitta are from Thasan, Chumphon province

(Robinson and Kloss 1921:223), and it is so far unknown from Tenasserim, it seems

likely that gurneyi is less altitudinally restricted wherever guajana is absent. The

narrow strip of forest remaining on the submontane slopes of the Thai - Burmese

border in southern Prachuap province may yet prove crucial for gurneyi.

1986

Gurney’s Pina

43

The Table provides measurements of gurneyi, guajana , cyanea and granaiina .

Curiously, while body size varies between species, bill and tarsus lengths barely do.

Feeding ecology may not, therefore, be the principal isolating mechanism.

However, differences in the weight of gurneyi and guajana conceivably indicate

differing preferences for forest substrates.

HABITAT DESTRUCTION

The sense that some disaster must have befallen Gurney’s Pitta is very strong when

one considers that as many as 62 skins, none more recent than 1919, lie in BMNH

drawers, and yet that the species has only twice been found by ornithologists in the

Table. The comparative morphology of four species of pitta from the Malay peninsula. Measurements are in

millimetres; those of P. guajana irena and P. granatina are from live specimens netted at Pasoh, Negeri Sembilan,

Malaysia (2°59'N 102°18'E); all others are from specimens in the flesh (i.e. before preparation as museum skins).

Maximum and minimum lengths are italicized.

44

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

wild in the past half-century. This seeming disappearance cannot simply be

attributed to a lack of fieldwork within its range. Although no systematic

ornithological surveys appear to have been conducted in southernmost Burma since

Abbott’s visit just after the turn of the century (the duration and intensity of

Shortridge’s work in 1914 are not known; the species is no more than listed by

Salter 1983:7), no fewer than 22 terrestrial forest localities in the semi-evergreen

rainforest zone of peninsular Thailand were visited in the years from 1962 to 1985

by ringing or collecting teams of MAPS (King 1966, McClure and Leelavit 1972)

and TISTR (J. Nabhitabhata verbally 1985) or by independent birdwatchers and

researchers who reported their findings to the Association for the Conservation of

Wildlife. In spite of this, not one specimen or even sighting of Gurney’s Pitta

resulted, although five of the sites visited (Ranong, Khao Wang Hip, Klong Tung

Sai, Khao Phanom Bencha and Khao Chong) were close to or coincided with former

gurneyi localities (see Figure 2).

Such recent fieldwork has, however, taken place against a scenario of large-scale

forest destruction, by both officially approved logging and illegal encroachment,

Figure 2. Records (and their absence)

of Gurney’s Pitta. Black circles and

respective names represent sites for the

species mentioned in the text. Open

circles represent sites where fieldwork

was conducted, 1962-1985: all such

sites were forested at the time of visit,

but none resulted in a record of

Gurney’s Pitta.

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

45

within the range of Gurney’s Pitta. According to unpublished data in the Royal

Thai Forest Department, the cover of terrestrial forest in peninsular Thailand had

been reduced to 14,301 km-, or approximately 20% of the land area of the region,

by the end of 1982 (Round in press). Although this still comprises some extensive

blocks, of which the largest, shared between the provinces of Ranong, Surat Thani

and Phang-na (including some selectively logged areas), was measured at 4,426 km2

(Round in press), all such areas coincide almost exactly with the uplands of the

peninsular mountain spine (Figure 3). The forests of the level lowlands have almost

entirely disappeared and have been replaced by croplands, fruit orchards, rubber

and oil-palm plantations. The major expansion of Thailand’s protected area network

did not take place until the late 1970s and, as a result, the opportunity to include

extensive forested lowlands never arose. Most of such areas had already been

destroyed.

There are currently five national parks and five wildlife sanctuaries in peninsular

Thailand (excluding coastal sites and offshore islands) but, although their combined

area exceeds 5,000 km2, it is doubtful whether any of them encompasses individual

Figure 3. The distribution of remaining

forest cover in peninsular Thailand in

relation to elevation (note: forest cover

in Burma is omitted from this map).

The contour line is placed at 200 m

above mean sea level. The shaded area

represents remaining forest (source:

Royal Thai Forest Department 1983).

Black circles indicate sites for Gurney’s

Pitta, as in Figure 2. The stars indicate

sites referred to in the text which may

still support lowland forest. The bold

diagonal line marks the suggested boun¬

dary between semi-evergreen ‘Thai type’

rainforest and evergreen ‘Malayan type’

rainforest (after Whitmore 1984).

46

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

patches of level lowland forest greater than 5 km 2 (Round in press). Even where

lowland areas have been included within protected areas, most have suffered

subsequent encroachment by ‘slash-and-burn’ farmers and, in the worst affected

areas, cultivation has ascended the hill slopes above 200 m.

The Thailand distribution of Gurney’s Pitta mapped by Bain and Humphrey

(1982:332) is puzzling in its lack of relation to proven records until one realises that

all they have done is delineate remaining forest patches within the species’s known

latitudinal extremes (compare the map of deforested areas in Bain and Humphrey

1982:10; see Figure 3). If one considers the 16 precise localities where Gurney’s

Pitta was (or is assumed to have been) collected in Thailand (treating both sites in

Phuket, one of which is untraced, as a single locality, and discounting Aagaard’s

‘Bandon’) and compares them with the map of forest cover (Figure 3), it is evident

that at least seven (Klong Bang Lai, Maprit, Ban Kok Klap, Hannaat, Krongmon,

‘Ko-Khau’ and Lam-ra) are in parts of the level lowlands which are now remote

from remaining forest. At a further eight sites, (three in Prachuap, plus Thasan,

Ranong, Klong Wang Hip, Phuket and Chong), although the lowlands are

deforested, nearby hills still support forest above the 100 or 200 m contour and at

one of these, Chong, there is still c. 2 km2 of valley bottom forest remaining. The

one other site, Khao Phanom Bencha, is the only undoubted locality where

Gurney’s Pitta was found on the steep, submontane slopes. Not only is the

mountain still almost entirely forested, but by good fortune it was established as a

national park in 1982.

Wells (1985) has identified over 30 species of bird which are lowland specialists in

peninsular Malaysia and Thailand. These are species which either do not cross the

hill-foot boundary or populations of which are thought to be unable to survive on

hill slopes without adjoining level forest. Most such species (e.g. Red-crowned

Barbet Megalaima rafflesii and Sooty-capped Babbler Malacopteron affine) are now

extremely scarce in Thailand as a direct result of lowland deforestation, and

speculation that Gurney’s Pina may also have fallen victim to this process led

P.D.R. and his colleagues to search for remaining level lowland forests within its

former range during 1984-1985.

In the course of the fieldwork the area identified as being most likely to support an

intact lowland forest bird community was along the Klong Mala and its tributaries

in Tha Sae district, Chumphon province (approximately 10°43'N 99°00'E). This

area, an estimated 910 km2 of forest, encompassed as much as 150 km2 of level

lowlands between 100 and 200 m elevation (Round in press), and lies roughly

between the former gurneyi localities of Maprit and Thasan. A reconnaissance

during 21-25 September 1984 by P.D.R., K. Komolphalin and U. Treesucon

confirmed the continued presence of many lowland forest birds now scarce or

absent elsewhere. Even then, however, there were many clearings created by newly

arrived settlers. During 11-20 June 1985, P.D.R. and U.T. returned, equipped

with a newly acquired tape-recording of the call of Gurney’s Pitta (see Biology), only

to discover that in the dry season since the last visit hundreds of landless settlers had

moved into the area, cut and burnt almost all the standing lowland forest, and

established cucumber fields in its place. No patches of trees larger than a few

hectares remained and, although the survey concentrated on the Klong Lahia, near

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

47

the eastern boundary of the area, the settlers reported that the lowlands elsewhere

along the Klong Mala river system had already also been cleared. Even though the

area is shortly to be declared a wildlife sanctuary, it is unlikely that there will be any

forest remaining other than on the hill slopes by the time this happens (for other

details and comment, see Round and Treesucon 1986).

Recently it has become clear that deforestation is not much less a problem in the

lowlands of southern Tenasserim: there, where Burma’s ‘most highly developed

moist evergreen forest and associated fauna’ are found, the stands are ‘under

increasing pressure from local people (resin tapping, mangrove charcoal, timber

exploitation) and the highly organised Thai timber thieves’ (Blower 1985b:85).

PROGNOSIS

During 1982-1985, at least one captive male Gurney’s Pitta lived in a private aviary

in Bangkok and, since this bird was bought from a trader no earlier than 1978, this

provided concrete evidence of the species’s survival in the wild until at least that

time. In addition, there were reports of three further individuals held captive in

Thailand in the early 1980s, at least one, concerning a female held in 1982, being

considered genuine (P. na Patalung verbally 1985). Prior to 1986, the records of

birds in captivity in the previous two decades were the only evidence that the species

survived, albeit in very small numbers and perhaps only in one or two localities.

However, if we are to refer to the ‘disappearance’ of Gurney’s Pitta, it is as well to

reflea how records of it have been patchily distributed over time ever since its

discovery: 1875-1879 by Davison, Oates and Darling; 1904 by Abbott;

1909-1919 by Robinson, Kloss, Shortridge, Herbert and Havmpller; 1929 by

Aagaard; 1936 by Meyer de Schauensee; 1952 by Deignan; and 1986 by Round and

Treesucon.

It should also be noted that even though biologists from MAPS and TISTR

visited such a large number of peninsular forest localities, relatively few pittas of any

species (and no more than ten Banded Pittas) were ringed or colleaed (King 1966,

McClure and Leelavit 1972, J. Nabhitabhata verbally 1985). This is undoubtedly a

refleaion of the difficulty both in seeing pittas, which can be highly secretive, and of

catching them in mist-nets. Rather more Banded Pitta sightings, for example, have

been made by birdwatchers searching specifically for this family of birds from 1979

onwards. However, since the call of Gurney’s Pitta had not been tape-recorded and

was not known with certainty until 1985, the species could easily have been

overlooked. Pittas are most often seen when the observer is able to move swiftly and

silently along a well-marked forest trail; slow stalking is much less successful and

enables the birds to disappear quietly before they are seen. Most parks and

sanctuaries in peninsular Thailand are not yet provided with good trail networks;

moreover, the steep, rugged mountainous terrain combined with the threat of

encountering armed insurgents has discouraged exploration of the remoter areas.

Although most former gurneyi localities were evidently in the lowlands, this might

simply reflea their relative accessibility, since most were close to the few major

settlements and railway lines which existed around the turn of the century. There is

48

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

also the evidence of Meyer de Schauensee’s records that, at least on occasion, the

species could be found at considerable elevation and, indeed, much of what is

known about the habitat requirements of Gurney’s Pitta is pure conjecture.

Nevertheless, the destruction of the Klong Mala forests in 1984- 1985 was a serious

blow to hopes of rediscovering the species, only partially compensated for by the

events of June 1986.

There is thus still an urgent need to mount a comprehensive search for Gurney’s

Pitta, and this might also be used to identify those areas in peninsular Thailand

which continue to support the richest lowland forest bird communities. Such survey

work could also yield further detailed information concerning the impact of the

‘diversity attenuation phenomenon’ (Wells 1985:216) on the lowland bird

community in Thailand. Such a search should first concentrate on those former

gurneyi localities where forest still remains on the submontane slopes: the hills west

of Prachuap; Thasan (Chumphon province); the headwaters of the Klong Lamphun

(Surat Thani province); Khao Wang Hip (Nakhon Si Thammarat province); Khao

Phanom Bencha (Krabi province); the headwaters of the Klong Tung Sai (Phuket

Island); and Khao Chong (Trang province). Of these, the Prachuap hills and Khao

Phanom Bencha appear to provide the best hope.

Particular attention should also be given to those areas which may still support

some level lowland forest. In addition to the Klong Mala area, mentioned under

Habitat destruction, the Tha Chana district of Surat Thani province (approximately

9°34'N 98°57'E) on the gently sloping, eastern flank of the peninsular mountain

spine is identified in Round (in press) as possibly still supporting 116 km2 of forest

below 100 m.

Areas of 20-50 km2 of forest, mostly centred on or around lower hills which are

remote from the main mountain massifs, may still exist at four further sites

(coordinates read from RTSD 1973): Khao Si Suk, Phanom district, Surat Thani

province (8°42'N 98°55'E); Khao Wet -Khao Khai, Phrasaeng district, Surat

Thani province (8°23'N 99°11'E); Muang district, Krabi Province (8°11'N

98°49'E); and Khao Noi Chuchi, Thung Song district, Nakhon Si Thammarat

province (7°54'N 99°18'E) (Figure 3). However, all of these areas are certain to be

much disturbed.

With regard to the possible occurrence of Gurney’s Pitta in Perlis state, Malaysia,

despite the opinion that it ‘almost certainly’ does not or did not live there (Robinson

and Kloss 1924:223), potential habitat was extensive until five years ago but now

only two separated fragments, both logged, remain. One is a 100-200 ha valley

bottom in the Bukit Bintang Forest Reserve (total area 2,638 ha) and the other a

maximum 1,000 ha of lowlands within the Mata Air Forest Reserve. The latter

totals 4,884 ha but its lowland remnant is in two parts, separated by a forested hill

ridge. One of these parts is threatened by a new town, the other by plantation

agriculture. Both forest reserves are on the north-west side of Perlis, up against the

line of limestone hills that forms the Thailand frontier. Mata Air is contiguous with

Thaleban National Park in Thailand, and World Wildlife Fund Malaysia has urged

the fusion of the two into an international conservation area. Plans are in hand to

search these two areas in 1986. Meanwhile, of course, approaches need also to be

made to the Burmese authorities in order to determine the feasibility of survey work

1986

Gurney’s Pina

49

in south Tenasserim.

Gurney s Pitta is, as Hume (1875) called it, a ‘really lovely species’. The search to

discover a viable population, the survey to plot its distribution accurately, the work

to determine its year-round and life-cycle needs, and the effort to get it adequately

conserved, must involve major initiatives. The future of one of the finest and most

distinctive birds in South-East Asia is the prize.

Museum specimens: an inventory and appeal

Museum specimens have played an important part in the preparation of this paper,

and it is our wish to trace every one in the hope that some new information may

come to light. To date we can account for 103: AMNH has seven, ANSP four,

BMNH 62, BNHS one, CUMZB one, MNHN four, NRM three, NUSZRC eight,

RMNH two, ROM one, SMF two, TISTR one, UMMZ one, UMZC one,

USNM three, ZMK one, and B. Lekagul’s private collection one. We would greatly

appreciate being sent details of any other specimens.

J. Hall-Craggs selflessly devoted a day and a half of her valuable time making 21 sonagrams in

search of the most appropriate illustration for reproduction here. E. C. Dickinson provided

confirmation of the identity of many Thai localities, copied us the letter from Deignan to Elbel, and

commented helpfully on the typescript. B. W. Miller, having already checked all pitta specimens in

the U.S.A., provided a complete print-out of his data on Gurney’s, answered several major queries

with alacrity, and drew our attention to the undocumented record dating from 1952. We thank them

heartily for their very generous assistance. We are also most grateful to the staff of the Sub¬

department of Ornithology, BMNH, for access to the collections in their care, to M. LeCroy

(AMNH), S. Unnithau (BNHS), C. Voisin (MNHN), C. Edelstam (NRM), F. G. Rozendaal

(RMNH), D. S. Peters (SMF) and S. Brogger-Jensen (ZMK) for the provision of data from labels

on specimens in their respective museums, to T. Wongratana for permission to examine the bird

collection in CUMZB, to the staff of the Forest Mapping and Remote Sensing Subdivision of the

Royal Forest Department, Bangkok, for permission to examine maps of forest cover, and to the staff

of the Map Room, University Library, Cambridge, for their patience in providing many of the

maps consulted in this study. We are also grateful to J. Nabhitabhata for information on localities

visited by field teams from TISTR, to R. E. Elbel for help with Deignan’s collecting localities, and

to P. na Patalung for information on Gurney’s Pitta in trade and for permission to tape-record and

photograph the individual in his care. T. P. Inskipp kindly drew our attention to Vince (1980).

Members of staff at the ICBP International Secretariat kindly read and commented on this paper in

draft. J. F. Bellamy and R. Pfaff very ably prepared much of the typescript. N.J.C.’s part in this

paper is a contribution from the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book programme.

REFERENCES

Abdulali, H. (1975) A catalogue of the birds in the collection of the Bombay Natural History Society- 18.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 72: 477-505.

Army Map Service (1944) Gazetteer to maps of Thailand. Washington, D.C.: Corps of Engineers, U.S.

Army.

Army Map Service (1965) World 1:250,000. NC47- 15. Changwat Nakhon Si Thammarat. L509 Edition

1-AMS. Washington, D.C.: Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army.

Army Map Service (1966) World 1:250,000. NC47-6. Amphoe Kra Buri. L509 (U542) Third AMS

edition. Washington, D.C.: Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.

Bagge, A. H. (1897) Map of Tenasserim, scale of 4 miles to the inch. Calcutta: Survey of India Offices.

50

N. J. COLLAR, P. D. ROUND and D. R. WELLS

Forktail 1

Bain, J. R. and Humphrey, S. R. (1982) A profile of the endangered species of Thailand, I. Through birds.

Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida (Report no. 4, Office of Ecological Services, Florida State

Museum).

Baker, E. C. S. (1919a) Notes on a collection of bird-skins formed by Mr E. G. Herbert, C.M.Z.S.,

M.B.O.U. J. Nat. Hist. Soc. Siam 3: 177-216.

Baker, E. C. S. (1919b) Notes on a collection of bird-skins formed by Mr E. G. Herbert, C.M.Z.S.,

M.B.O.U. J. Nat. Hist. Soc. Siam 3: 409-443.

Baker, E. C. S. (1926) The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds, 3. 2nd edition.

London: Taylor and Francis.

Baker, E. C. S. (1934) The nidification of birds of the Indian Empire, 3. London: Taylor and Francis.

Blower, J. (1985a) Species conservation priorities in Burma. Pp. 53-58 in R. A. Mittermeier and W. R.

Konstant, eds. Species conservation priorities in the tropical forests of Southeast Asia. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN SSC Occ. Pap. 1.

Blower, J. (1985b) Conservation priorities in Burma. Oryx 19: 79-85.

Chasen, F. N. (1939) The birds of the Malay Peninsula, 4. London: H. F. and G. Witherby.

Deignan, H. G. (1963) Checklist of the birds of Thailand. U. S. Natn. Mus. Bull. 226.

Fisher, C. T. (1980) Specimens of extinct, endangered or rare birds in the Merseyside County Museums,

Liverpool. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 101: 276-285.

Gibson-Hill, C. A. (1949) An annotated checklist of the birds of Malaya. Bull. Raffles Mus. 20.

Glenister, A. G. (1951) The birds of the Malay Peninsula, Singapore, and Penang. London: Oxford

University Press.

Gyldenstolpe, N. (1916) Zoological results of the Swedish zoological expeditions to Siam 1911-1912 &

1914-1915. IV. Birds II. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapakad. Hand l. 56(2).

Herbert, E. G. (1924) Nests and eggs of birds in central Siam. J. Nat. Hist. Soc. Siam 6: 293-311.

Holmes, D. R. (1973) Bird notes from southernmost Thailand, 1972. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 25:

39-66.

Hume, A. O. (1875) Novelties? Stray Feathers 3: 296-303.

Hume, A. O. (1879) The birds of the western half of the Malay Peninsula. Second notice. Stray Feathers 8:

151-163.

Hume, A. O. and Davison, W. (1877) A revised list of the birds of Tenasserim. Stray Feathers 6: 7-524.

Jintanugool, J., Eudey, A. A. and Brockelman, W. Y. (1985) Species conservation priorities in Thailand.

Pp. 41-51 in R. A. Mittermeier and W. R. Konstant, eds. Species conservation priorities in the tropical

forests of Southeast Asia. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN SCC Occ. Pap. 1.

King, B. (1966) List of bird skins and specimens collected in Thailand from I March 1964 to 30 June 1966

under MAPS Program. Bangkok: Centre for Thai National Reference Collections.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia.

London: Collins.

King, W. B. (1978-1979) Red data book, 2. Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland: International

Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Lekagul, B. and Cronin, E. W. (1974) Bird guide of Thailand. Second (revised) edition. Bangkok:

Association for the Conservation of Wildlife.

Lekagul, B., Round P. D. and Komolphalin, K. (1985) Birdwatching for Palearctic migrants in Thailand.

Brit. Birds 78: 2-39.

McClure, H. E. and Chaiyaphun, S. (1971) The sale of birds at the Bangkok ‘Sunday Market’, Thailand.

Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 24: 41-78.

McClure, H. E. and Leelavit, P. (1972) Birds banded in Asia during the MAPS Program, by locality, from

1963 through 1971. San Francisco: U. S. Army Research and Development Group.

Medway, Lord and Wells, D. R. (1976) The birds of the Malay Peninsula, 5. London and Kuala Lumpur:

H. F. and G. Witherby in association with Penerbit Universiti Malaya.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1946) On Siamese birds. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 98: 1-82.

Oates, E. W. (1883) A handbook to the birds of British Burmah, including those found in the adjoining state of

Karennee, 1. London: R. H. Porter and Messrs Dalau and Co.

Office of Geography (1966a) Gazetteer no. 96. Burma. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.

Office of Geography (1966b) Gazetteer no. 97. Thailand. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.

Riley, J. H. (1938) Birds from Siam and the Malay peninsula in the United States National Museum

collected by Drs Hugh M. Smith and William L. Abbott. U. S. Natn. Mus. Bull. 172.

Robinson, H. C. (1915) On a collection of birds from the Siamese province of Bandon, N. E. Malay

Peninsula. J. Fed. Malay States Mus. 5(3): 83- 1 10.

Robinson, H. C. (1927) The birds of the Malay Peninsula, 1. London: H. F. and G. Witherby.

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

51

Robinson, H. C. and Kloss, W. B. (1910) On birds from the northern portion of the Malay Peninsula,

including the islands of Langkawi and Terutau; with notes on other rare Malayan species from the

southern districts. Ibis (9)4: 659-675.

Robinson, H. C. and Kloss, W. B. (1911) On birds from the northern portion of the Malay Peninsula,

including the islands of Langkawi and Terutau; with notes on other rare Malayan species from the

southern districts. Ibis (9)5: 10-80.

Robinson, H. C. and Kloss, W. B. (1919) On a collection ofbirds from the province of Puket, peninsular

Siam. J. Nat. Hist. Soc. Siam 3: 87-119.

Robinson, H. C. and Kloss, W. B. (1921) The birds of south-west and peninsular Siam. J. Nat. Hist. Soc.

Siam 5: 1-87.

Robinson, H. C. and Kloss, W. B. (1924) The birds of south-west and peninsula Siam. J. Nat. Hist. Soc.

Siam 5: 219-397.

Round, P. D. (in press) The status and conservation of forest birds in Thailand. Cambridge, U.K.:

International Council for Bird Preservation.

Round, P. D. and Treesucon, U. (1983) Observations on the breeding of the Blue Pitta (Pitta cyanea) in

Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 31: 93-98.

Round, P. D. and Treesucon, U. (1986) Gurney’s Pitta: an object lesson in forest preservation. World

Birdwatch 8(1): 1-2.

Royal Survey Department (1930) Carte internationall Lie] du monde au 1,000,000 (International map of

the world). Provisional edition NC-47, Nagorn-Sridharmraj. Bangkok, Siam: Royal Survey

Department.

Royal Thai Forest Survey Department (1983) Forest types map. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.

Royal Thai Survey Department (1972) Thailand national resources atlas. RTSD: Supreme Command

Headquarters.

Royal Thai Survey Department (1973) Thailand, 1:250,000, Series 1501S. Bangkok: Military Maps

Division.

Salter, R. E. (1983) Summary of currently available information on internationally threatened wildlife

species in Burma. Rangoon: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (Working

People’s Settlement Board: Nature Conservation and National Parks Project, Burma, FO:

BUR/80/006 Field Document 7/83).

Sclater, P. L. (1888) Catalogue of the Passeriformes or perching birds, in the collection of the British Museum.

Oligomyodae (etc.) [Catalogue of birds in the British Museum 14]. London: Trustees of the British

Museum.

Smitinand, T., Anan Na Lamphun and Vanek, D. (1967) Map of Thailand showing types of forests. (Map

supplement to Neal, D. G. Statistical description of the forests of Thailand.) Bangkok: Joint Thai-U.S.

Military Research and Development Centre.

The Times atlas of the world (1980) Comprehensive (sixth) edition. London: Times Books.

Vince, C. (1980) Keeping soft-billed birds. London: Stanley Paul.

Wells, D. R. (1985) The forest avifauna of western Malesia and its conservation. Pp. 213-232 in A. W.

Diamond and T. E. Lovejoy, eds. Conservation of tropical forest birds. Cambridge, U. K.:

International Council for Bird Preservation (Techn. Publ. no. 4).

Whitmore, T. C. (1984) Tropical rain forests of the Far East. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

N. J. Collar, International Council for Bird Preservation, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL,

U.K.

P. D. Round, Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, 4 Old Custom House Lane, Bangrak, Bangkok

10500, Thailand

D. R. Wells, Zoology Department, University of Malaya, 59100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

FORKTAJL 1 (1986): 53-64

Some important birds

and forests in Nepal

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

A table is provided of 122 bird species with restricted breeding distributions and for which Nepal

may hold significant populations. Habitat threats and population changes are detailed for 33 species

for which Nepal may be especially important. Threats to some upland forests which are particularly

species-rich are described. The vital importance of forests to Nepal’s avifauna is emphasised.

Nepal is a small country, only about 800 km long and covering roughly the same

land area as Greece. About 830 bird species - including 609 which breed or

probably breed - have been recorded there, almost a tenth of the total known

worldwide.

The exceptional diversity of Nepal’s avifauna can partly be attributed to the wide

ranges of altitude, climate and vegetation in the country. There are dramatic changes

in topography within short distances, Nepal having a unique altitudinal range from

the lowlands at 75 m above sea level to the summit of Sagarmatha (Mount Everest)

at 8,848 m only 145 km away. There are tropical lowland forests with rainfall up to

4,000 mm per year, mixed temperate broad-leaved and coniferous forests higher up,

almost treeless steppe vegetation in the rainshadow of the Himalayas where rainfall

is less than 500 mm per year, and alpine flora in the high altitude zone. The other

major factor contributing to Nepal’s species richness is its position of overlap

between the Palearctic realm to the north and the Oriental realm to the south,

encompassing ranges of species which originate in both realms.

Nepal is land-locked and largely situated in the Himalayan range and associated

foothills, with only a narrow lowland strip in the south and a small high plateau area

in the north-west immediately north of the range. It lies in the centre of the

Himalayas and can be conveniently divided at the Kali Gandaki valley into a wetter

eastern section and a drier western section (Figure 1). Approximately 584 bird

species have been found in the west, and 774 species in the east, with 545 species

common to both sections. Although the west is comparatively less studied at

present, it is nevertheless poorer in species than the east (Inskipp and Inskipp 1985).

There are 122 bird species whose breeding distribution is restricted to an area

encompassing the Himalayas, north-east India, northern South-East Asia and south¬

west China (Figure 2) and for which Nepal may hold significant populations (these

are listed in the Appendix). The boundaries of this area are to some extent arbitrary

but do coincide roughly with the mountain ranges contiguous with the Himalayas

and their neighbouring lowlands. In the following discussion, every mention of

status in Nepal refers to Inskipp and Inskipp (1985) and every mention of status in

the Indian subcontinent refers to Ali and Ripley (1984).

Two species, Imperial Heron Ardea imperialis and Green Cochoa Cochoa viridis,

are restricted to the area defined above but have not been recorded in Nepal since

last century and are therefore omitted. Nepal is probably important for other more

54

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

Forktail 1

widely distributed species which are rare wherever they occur, e.g. the Dark-sided

Thrush Zoothera marginata , which occurs south-east to south Viet Nam. There are

other species whose breeding is unknown, so their true status is difficult to

determine. The White-vented Needletail Hirundapus cochmchtnensis is present

during its presumed breeding season in south-central Nepal, Meghalaya, south-east

Thailand, Kampuchea, southern Laos, south-east Viet Nam, Hainan and Taiwan:

its disjunct Nepalese population was described as a separate subspecies rupchandi

(Biswas 1951) but the variation shown by Indonesian wintering birds suggests that

the species may be monotypic (Mees 1973). Some species are endemic to the Indian

subcontinent but occur fairly widely in lowland areas, thus reducing the likelihood

that Nepal is important for them. The White-rumped Needletail Zoonavena

sylvatica, for instance, is ‘patchy and local, though quite abundant in certain

localities’ in the Indian peninsula; it has been found in a number of localities in

Nepal in recent years. Species in these categories fall outside the scope of this

review.

Nearly all the significant species are passerines (106 species, 86.9%), with babblers

Timaliidae (32 species, 26.2%), thrushes Turdidae (20 species, 16.4%) and warblers

Sylviidae (12 species, 9.8%) the best represented families. Of the non-passerines the

Galliformes (6 species, 4.9%) and woodpeckers and allies (5 species, 4.1%) are

dominant in the list.

The species may be divided into three groups: (1) 24 entirely confined to the

Himalayas, or extending marginally into the hills of Afghanistan in the west (one

species just reaches the USSR, where it is rare), into neighbouring Xizang Zizhiqu

(Tibet) to the north, or, in the case of two species, also into the hills of north-eastern

India; (2) 88 with distributions as above but extending either south-east in the

uplands through northern Burma to, in the case of some species, northern Viet

Nam, or north-east further into China (four species have disjunct populations in

Taiwan and one other has a tiny isolated pocket in south-east China); (3) ten that

occur in lowland areas adjacent to the hills referred to in the first two groups.

Most of the species breed in forest habitats (74, 61%), 20 (16%) in forest and

scrub, 15 in scrub, five in grassland, three in bamboo, two in forest and bamboo,

two in rocky habitats and one in rock and grassland habitats. Many of them are

threatened in Nepal by forest damage or destruction. The areas which have suffered

the most lie between 1,000 and 2,000 m in the central and eastern parts of the

country. Much of west Nepal and other areas above 2,745 m are currently much less

affected.

Nepal may be especially important for the 33 species described below. They either

have particularly restricted ranges within the general area considered or have been

described as uncommon or rare in the Indian subcontinent. Possible habitat threats

and any known population changes are detailed for each species; however, there is

little information available for many of them. The great majority of species (28)

occur in the uplands and only five in the lowlands and foothills. There are 18 forest

species and another four of forest and scrub (see Appendix). Nine inhabit dense

forests with thick undergrowth: Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola, Purple Cochoa

Cochoa purpurea, Long -billed Thrush Zoothera monticola, Rufous-throated Wren-

Babbler Spelaeornis caudatus, Black-headed Shrike-Babbler Pteruthius rufiventer,

1986

Birds and forests in Nepal

55

Golden-breasted Fulvetta Alcippe chrysotis, Hoary-throated Barwing Actinodura

nipalensis , Fire-tailed Myzornis Myzornis pyrrhoura and Gould’s Shortwing

Brachypteryx stellata. Of these the first six also require damp conditions.

SPECIES RESTRICTED TO THE HIMALAYAS

The Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichi has been listed as ‘Endangered’ in the Red

Data Book (King 1978- 1979). Its status in Nepal is uncertain but populations there

are likely to be significant. Elsewhere in its range, which once extended west to

Hazara in Pakistan, there have been local extinctions, mainly due to persecution

(King 1978-1979). However, as the species is extremely shy and secretive it is

easily overlooked and may be more frequent than assumed. The birds are usually

only evident in the early morning when they are heard calling briefly and

sporadically. At present there are still large areas of forest within its Nepalese range,

which lies in the west between 1,800 and 3,050 m. Small-scale felling does not affect

the Cheer Pheasant as it is a bird of scrub and stunted trees or secondary growth;

clear-felling would, however, eliminate the species and may already have affected it

in some areas (Lelliott 1981).

The Wood Snipe is a montane species inhabiting swampy areas among thick

vegetation in woods. Last century it was apparently more frequent in Nepal, being

described as not uncommon in the Kathmandu valley (Hodgson 1831), but it has

not been reported there since about 1948 (Ripley 1950).

The Rufous-breasted Bush-Robin Tarsiger hyperythrus is a rather enigmatic bird.

There had only been four Nepalese records up to 1978 but since then, for reasons

unknown, it has apparently increased and spread to west-central areas. The only

breeding records for the species come from Nepal since 1979, but the nest and eggs

are still undescribed.

The Pied Thrush Zoothera wardii can withstand some tree-felling as it occurs in

well-wooded ravines and small patches of forest in open country. However, it is

likely to have been affected by some habitat loss as its summer altitudinal range,

between 1,500 and 2,400 m, mainly lies within the most severely deforested areas of

Nepal.

In contrast, the breeding habitat of the Smoky Warbler Phylloscopus fuligiventer is

not threatened as it summers between 3,900 and 5,000 m in rocky alpine pastures

and low scrub. The total range of this species is, however, very small: from central

Nepal east to Bhutan and south-east Xizang Zizhiqu.

The apparently local Spiny Babbler Turdoides nipalensis has the distinction of

being the only bird species endemic to Nepal. It is probably under-recorded,

however, because of its skulking nature, and may well occur over the western border

in India. It is one of the few species which has probably benefited from deforestation

as it inhabits secondary growth, being commonest in the thickest scrub which

mainly grows well away from cultivation (Proud 1959).

Although described as common, the Hoary-throated Barwing seems worthy of

mention because of its very limited range, which extends from west Nepal (82°E) to

Bhutan (92 °E) and in Pome district, south-east Xizang Zizhiqu (Meyer de

56

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

Forktail 1

Schauensee 1984). It frequents forests of oak or of mixed oak, conifer and

rhododendron, and like the other eight species found in forests with thick

undergrowth it is presumably affected adversely by loss of or damage to the

understorey. Degradation of forests has taken place in many parts of Nepal, owing

to local people collecting foliage for their animals or allowing their stock to graze

under the trees.

The Rufous-throated Wren-Babbler occurs in dense forests from east Nepal

(88° E), where it is limited to the upper Mai valley, to western Arunachal Pradesh

(92°30'E). Along with the other five species of damp forests it is probably affected

by the selective removal of trees and other vegetation, which has resulted in forests

gradually drying out. Its breeding habits are unknown.

The White-throated Tit Aegithalns niveogularis occurs from the Kagan valley

(74°E) east to central Nepal (85°E). The overlap in range with the Black-browed Tit

A. iouschistos (Inskipp and Inskipp 1985), although sympatric breeding has not been

proved, tends to support treatment of the two forms as separate species (Ali and

Ripley 1984) not one, as in Vaurie (1959).

MORE WIDESPREAD UPLAND SPECIES

The distribution of the little-known Orange-rumped Honeyguide Indicator

xanthonotus is linked to nests of wild bees as one of its main food items is beeswax.

The males are largely sedentary, polygynous, and defend a territory around a

particular nest against other individuals of the species (Cronin and Sherman 1976).

The bird may be overlooked as it is drab and unobtrusive.

Three representatives of the thrush family could be suffering from deforestation.

The very local Gould’s Shortwing summers in dense undergrowth at about

3,500 m, the only breeding record being from the upper Arun valley in Nepal

(Cronin 1979). The Purple Cochoa breeds in dense humid evergreen forests at

about 2,150 m, a habitat much reduced now in Nepal. The only recent records are

from the Mai valley in the far east. The Long-billed Thrush frequents damp dense

forests from 2,285 to 3,850 m in summer.

Although the Chestnut-crowned Bush-Warbler Cettia major is described as scarce

in both Nepal and the rest of the subcontinent, it could easily be under-recorded

because of its secretive behaviour. As it summers at forest edges over 3,550 m it is

probably not threatened by habitat loss within its breeding range.

There are three species of parrotbill in this group: Great Conostoma aemodium ,

Fulvous Paradoxornis fulvifrons and Brown P. unicolor. The scarcity of all three can

probably be attributed to the disappearance of their favoured bamboo habitat.

Bamboo is extensively cut as it is a useful material for building, making baskets and

various other purposes.

Two babblers, the Golden-breasted Fulvetta and Black-headed Shrike-Babbler,

are likely also to have suffered from loss of their preferred forest habitat, the former

frequenting ringal bamboo and other thick undergrowth and the latter occurring in

dense, damp, mossy forests. The Nepalese distribution of the Golden-breasted

Fulvetta is limited to the southern slopes of Annapurna and the upper Mai valley.

1986

Birds and forests in Nepal

57

The Fire-tailed Myzornis, Rusty-flanked Treecreeper Certhia nipalensis and

Yellow-bellied Flowerpecker Dicaeum melanoxanthum all occur at fairly high

altitudes which must be affected to some degree by the deterioration of forests. The

Myzornis, a vivid green and red bird of uncertain affinities that is partly dependent

on nectar, summers locally in mossy forests of juniper or rhododendron and

bamboo thickets between 2,135 and 3,950 m. The Treecreeper inhabits oak and

mixed forests between 2,550 and 3,660 m and the Flowerpecker, whose behaviour,

calls and seasonal movements are poorly known, is found locally in tall trees in open

forest between 2,400 and 3,000 m.

Although the Crimson Rosefinch Carpodacus rubescens has not been recorded in

Nepal since 1949, it could be overlooked and its presence there could be significant,

as it has a very restricted range. The Vinaceous Rosefinch C. vinaceus is interesting

as it has an unusual and disjunct distribution. It occurs in Taiwan, where it is

common (Severinghaus and Blackshaw 1976), in a limited area in southern China

(Meyer de Schauensee 1984) and locally in Burma (Smythies 1953), but has only

been recorded once in the Himalayas outside Nepal. It was first noted in Nepal in

1952 and has been seen there more frequently in recent years. The reason for this

increase in sightings is unknown, but is unlikely to be merely better observer

coverage, as the areas where the species has been seen have been frequently visited

since about 1950. The Spot-winged Rosefinch C. rhodopeplus is probably more

frequent and widespread in Nepal than elsewhere in its range. Its habitat is probably

still intact as it occurs in scrub near the tree-line, as does the Crimson-browed Finch

Pinicola subhimachala. The latter is partial to juniper and occurs locally from central

Nepal east to Arunachal Pradesh, in Xizang Zizhiqu and north to Sichuan.

Finally the Scarlet Finch Haematospiza sipahi and Spot-winged Grosbeak

Mycerobas melanozanthos may suffer to some degree from deforestation as they

occur in forests over 2,400 m. They are locally distributed in Nepal, the former in

conifers and the latter in mixed coniferous and broad-leaved forests.

With the exceptions of the Purple Cochoa and the Long-billed Thrush breeding

of all the species mentioned in this group is little or poorly known.

LOWLAND SPECIES

The Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis is the rarest and most threatened of all

bustard species (Inskipp and Collar 1984). It has a limited and disjunct distribution

and if it survives at all outside northern India and Nepal it can only be in tiny

numbers. The spread of agriculture into its grassland habitat has reduced its

Nepalese population almost entirely to protected areas. Even there it is threatened

by the deterioration of the grasslands through an increase of coarse grasses and the

colonization of saplings (Inskipp and Inskipp 1983).

Another species suffering from agricultural encroachment is the Swamp Francolin

Francolinus gularis, which frequents tall grasses, swamps and other wet areas. Apart

from a record of a single bird in the Kosi marshes, the only recent records are from

the Royal Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve.

The Pale-footed Bush- Warbler Cettia pallidipes and Grey-crowned Prinia Prinia

58

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

Forktail 1

cinereocapilla both have fairly limited distributions and have probably suffered from

habitat loss. Both are fairly common in the Royal Chirwan National Park, which

holds abundant scrub and thick undergrowth, but only a few reports exist from

elsewhere in Nepal where conditions are generally much less favourable. However,

the former is probably under-recorded as it is shy and skulking.

The Spot-winged Starling Saroglossa spiloptera is known with certainty only from

Kangra (76°E) to east Sikkim (89°E), but may also breed somewhat further east. It

has an unusual east-west post-breeding migration along the base of the Himalayas.

SOME IMPORTANT FORESTS

Some upland forests which are particularly species-rich and therefore of national

importance can be identified. These areas have exceptionally high rainfall as a result

of local topographical features. The following have been studied ornithologically:

the Mai valley; the southern slopes of Annapurna, including the Modi Khola valley,

Pipar and Ghorepani; the south-east corner of the Kathmandu valley, especially

Phulchowki; and the upper Arun valley. Bioclimate and annual rainfall maps

indicate other little-known areas with similar rainfall which may also be of

importance if topographical features are favourable (Figure 1).

None of these species-rich forests is protected as a national park or wildlife

reserve, although there are proposals for an Annapurna Conservation Area (Sherpa

et al. 1985) and a wildlife reserve at Pipar (Forster and Lelliott 1982).

Seventeen of the 33 bird species for which Nepal may hold significant breeding

populations are recorded from these forests (14 from the upper Mai valley, 13 south

of Annapurna and 12 from the upper Arun). Three of these, the Purple Cochoa,

Rufous-throated Wren-Babbler and Golden-breasted Fulvetta, only occur in these

Figure 1. Some important forests in Nepal.

1986

Birds and forests in Nepal

59

forests within their Nepalese ranges. The latter could therefore be of international

importance to the future of these species.

The best known forest, on the northern slopes of Phulchowki (1,525-2,760 m) is

famous for its varied fauna and flora. A total of 219 bird species have been recorded

there and 165 of these breed or probably breed. As many as 79% of the total are

forest-dependent. This area is the most severely threatened of all the species-rich

forests mentioned here. Its importance and plight have been well described by

Martens (1982). Local wood-cutting parties daily remove large quantities of

firewood either for their own use or for sale in Kathmandu. Large amounts of

foliage are also collected for animal fodder. In 1982 the track which runs to the

summit was surfaced. As a result vehicles can now easily be used to remove timber

and the upper slopes are being increasingly threatened. Since about 1975 the lower

slopes have been extensively quarried for stone and only bare rock remains over

large sections. Many workers’ homes have been erected below the quarry on land

which was forest only a few years ago.

If Phulchowki’s forests are to survive, the quarry must be closed and protection of

the forest enforced. Visits to the mountain could become a tourist attraction and

bring an additional income to the people of Godaveri, a village at the base of the

mountain. This could provide an incentive to the villagers not to cut down the

forest; alternative sources of fuel and animal fodder would then be necessary.

A list of 190 bird species has been recorded at Pipar (N. Picozzi in litt. to M.

Green), most of which are listed by Forster and Lelliott (1982). A species list is not

available, however, for the Modi Khola valley nor for the whole species-rich forest

area south of Annapurna. Good habitat still remains but the cutting of trees to

supply tourist trekkers with fuel is causing concern in the Modi Khola valley, near

Ghorepani and along the Ghandrung ridge. The number of trekkers in the

proposed Annapurna Conservation Area has markedly increased in the last eight

years. The use of kerosene by trekkers as an alternative to wood has been

recommended (Sherpa et al. 1985). There is little or no tourist activity at Pipar but

adjacent to settlements and summer pastures the forest floor is intensively grazed

and timber is collected. The harvesting of bamboo, which grows abundantly in the

area, may now be exceeding regeneration (Forster and Lelliott 1982).

Present threats in the upper Mai and upper Arun valleys are less well

documented. A total of 222 bird species so far reported in the upper Mai valley

(1,990-3,050 m) is similar to that found on Phulchowki, and a similar percentage

(77%) is forest-dependent. In 1981 local people appeared to be detrimentally

affecting the forests by removing wood and foliage and allowing their stock to graze

the understorey (pers. obs.). In about 1974 the forests of the upper Arun valley were

little affected by human interference; the most damaging impact came from

shepherds who used the forests for grazing sheep en route to and from the alpine

pastures (Cronin 1979). Good forests still remained in 1981 (Krabbe 1981). About

200 bird species have been recorded there (Inskipp and Inskipp 1985). A more exact

figure cannot be given as an unknown number of these species were found outside

the forests.

By 1980 less than a third of Nepal was still forested. Wood provides 87% of the

nation’s energy requirements, and as the population is increasing rapidly so are the

60

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

Forktail 1

pressures on remaining forests in both protected and unprotected areas (Anon.

1983).

More work is urgently needed in the species-rich forests described above and in

other forests which are likely to be of similar importance. There are undoubtedly

other species-rich forests which need to be identified, especially in the lowlands.

Present threats must be determined and the extent of their effects assessed. Up-to-

date lists of bird species need to be compiled within each species-rich forest. The

conservation status of all species for which Nepal may be important needs to be

determined. All species which appear to be at risk must be identified.

About 65% of all Nepal’s breeding birds (Inskipp and Inskipp 1985) and 79% of

those for which the country may hold significant breeding populations utilise

forests. Therefore to ensure the future of the Nepalese avifauna, including those

species for which the country may be important, conservation of the country’s

forests is vital. Nepal now has a National Conservation Strategy for the rational use

of resources, aiming to strike a balance between the needs of the growing population

and those of nature conservation (Anon. 1983).

REFERENCES

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1984) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan. Compact edition. Bombay:

Oxford University Press.

Anon. (1983) National conservation strategy for Nepal: a prospectus. Gland, Switzerland: International

Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and His Majesty’s Government of Nepal.

Biswas, B. (1951) On some larger spine-tailed swifts, with the description of a new subspecies from Nepal.

Ardea 59: 318-321.

Cronin, E. W. (1979) The Arun, a natural history of the world’s deepest valley. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company.

Cronin, E. W. and Sherman, P. (1976) A resource-based mating system: the Orange-rumped Honeyguide.

Living Bird 15: 5-32.

Forster, J. A. and Lelliott, A. D. (1982) Pipar Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: management proposals.

Unpublished report.

Hodgson, B. H. (1831) On some of the Scolopacidae of Nepal. Gleanings in Science 3: 233-243.

Hume, A. O. (1888) The birds of Manipur, Assam, Sylhet and Cachar. Stray Feathers 11: 1-353.

Inskipp, C. and Collar, N. J. (1984) The Bengal Florican: its conservation in Nepal. Oryx 18: 30-35.

Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. P. (1983) Report on a survey of Bengal Floricans Houbaropsis bengalensis in

Nepal and India, 1982. ICPB Study Report no. 2.

Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. P. (1985) A guide to the birds of Nepal. London: Croom Helm.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia.

London: Collins.

King, W. B. (1978-1979) Red data book, 2: Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland: International

Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Krabbe, N. (1981) India and Nepal, 1981, ornithological report. Unpublished.

Lekagul, B. and Cronin, E. W. (1974) Bird guide of Thailand. Second edition. Bangkok: Association for

the Conservation of Wildlife.

Lelliott, A. D. (1981) Report on 1981 field season in Nepal. Unpublished.

Li Dehao, Wang Zuxiang and Jiang Zhihua (1978) Studies on the birds of south-eastern Xizang, with

notes on their vertical distribution. Acta Zoologica Sinica 24: 231-250. (In Chinese.)

Ludlow, F. (1944) The birds of south-eastern Tibet. Ibis 86: 43-86, 176-208, 348-389.

Ludlow, F. (1951) The birds of the Kongbo and Pome, south-east Tibet. Ibis 93: 547-578.

Ludlow, F. and Kinnear, N. B. (1937) The birds of Bhutan and adjacent territories ofSikkim and Tibet.

Ibis 14(1): 1-46, 249-293, 467-504.

Martens, J. (1982) Forests and their destruction in the Himalayas of Nepal. Plant Research and

Development 15: 66-96.

1986

Birds and forests in Nepal

61

Mees, G. F. (1973) The status of two species of migrant swifts in Java and Sumatra (Aves, Apodidae).

Zool. Meded. 46: 197-207.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peng Yan-zhang el al. (1979) New records of Chinese birds from Yunnan. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 4:

95-96. (In Chinese).

Proud, D. (1959) Notes on the Spiny Babbler Acanthopdla nipalensis (Hodgson) in the Nepal valley. J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 56: 330-332.

Ripley, S. D. (1950) Birds from Nepal, 1947-49. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 49: 355-417.

Round, P. D. (in press) The status and conservation of forest birds in Thailand. Cambridge, U.K.:

International Council for Bird Preservation.

Severinghaus, S. R. and Blackshaw, K. T. (1976) A new guide to the birds of Taiwan. Taipei: Mei Ya.

Sherpa, M. N., Coburn, B. and Gurung, C. P. (1985) Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Operational

plan. Kathmandu: King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation.

Smythies, B. E. (1953) The birds of Burma. Second edition. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Vaurie, C. (1959) The birds of the Palearctic fauna, Passeriformes. London: Witherby.

Zheng Zuoxin (1976) Distributional list of Chinese birds. Second edition. Peking: Science Press. (In

Chinese).

Zheng Zuoxin, Jiang Zhihau, Wang Zuxiang and Li Dehao (1980) New records of Chinese birds from

Xizang (Tibet). Acta Zoologica Sinica 26: 286-287. (In Chinese).

C. Inskipp and T. P. Inskipp, 65 Swaynes Lane, Comberton, Cambridgeshire CB3 7EF, U.K.

•Figure 2. The distribution of birds under review (represented by shading).

62

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

Forkiail 1

APPENDIX

122 BIRD SPECIES FOR WHICH NEPAL MAY HOLD SIGNIFICANT POPULATIONS.

Status

+ Occurs as a breeding bird but

abundance unknown

C Common

FC Fairly common

LC Locally common

LFC Locally fairly common

O Occasional

Habitat

References

Nepal = Inskipp and Inskipp (1985). Western Himalayas (east to Kumaon)=Ali and Ripley (1984).

Eastern Himalayas (Sikkim to Arunachal Pradesh) = Ludlow and Kinnear (1937), Ali and Ripley (1984).

North-eastern India (Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura) = Hume (1888), Ah and

Ripley (1984). Bangladesh = Khan (1982), Ali and Ripley (1984). Northern Burma = Smythies (1953).

Northern Thailand = Lekagul and Cronin (1974), Round (in press). Northern Laos = King et al. (1975).

Northern Viet Nam = King et al. (1975). Xizang Zizhiqu = Ludlow (1944, 1951), Zheng (1976), Li et al.

(1978), Zheng et al. (1980). Southern China (Yunnan, Sichuan, north to eastern Qinghai and southern

Neimenggu, east to Hunan)=Zheng (1976), Peng et al. (1979). Taiwan = Severinghaus and Blackshaw

(1976).

Snow Panridge

Swamp Franco Un

Blood Pheasant

Satyr Tragopan

Himalayan Monal

Cheer Pheasant

Bengal Florican

Wood Snipe

Speckled Wood-Pigeon

Ashy Wood-Pigeon

Slaty-headed Parakeet

Orange- rum ped Honeyguide

Brown-fronted Woodpecker

Himalayan Woodpecker

Darjeeling Woodpecker

Crimson-breasted Woodpecker

Blue-naped Pitta

Nepal House-Martin

Striated Bulbul

Rufous-breasted Accentor

Robin Accentor

Gould’s Shortwing

Indian Blue Robin

Golden Bush-Robin

White-browed Bush-Robin

Rufous-breasted Bush-Robin

Blue-fronted Redstart

White-throated Redstart

White-bellied Redstart

Grandala

Purple Cochoa

White-tailed Stonechat

Blue-capped Rockthrush

Pied Thrush

Plain-backed Thrush

Long-tailed Thrush

Long-billed Thrush

Tickell’s Thrush

White-collared Blackbird

Grey-winged Blackbird

Lerwa lerwa

Franco linns gulans

Ithagims cruenius

Tragopan satyra

Lophophorus tmpejanus

Cal reus wallichi

Houbarcrpsis bengalensis

Gal Imago nemoncola

Columba hodgsonn

Columba pulchncollis

Psiltacula hxmalayana

Indicator xanthonotus

Picoides aunceps

Picoides himalayensis

Picoides darjellensis

Picoides cathpharius

Pitta nipalensis

Delichon nipalensis

Pycnonotus s mat us

Prunella strophiata

Prunella rubeculoides

Brachypteryx stellata

Erithacus brunneus

Tarsiger chrysaeus

Tarsiger indicus

Tarsiger hyperythrus

Phoenicurus frontalis

Phoenicurus schisticeps

Hodgsonius phoentcuroides

Grandala coehcolor

Cochoa purpurea

Saxicola leucura

Monticola anclorhyncha

Zoo t her a wardu

Zoothera mollissima

Zoo t her a dixoni

Zoothera monticola

Turdus unicolor

T urdus alboanctus

Turdus boulboul

R

G*

F

S

G*

F

R

F

F/S

S

F/S

F

S

R JG

F

G*

F/S

F

1986

Birds and forests in Nepal

63

F*

F

F*

S

F/S

F/S*

F

S

F/S

F

F'

F

F/B

F

F/S

B

S

G*

F/S

F

F/S

F

F/S

F

F*

F

F/S

F

F/B

S

F

F/S

F

F/S

F

S

F

F*

G*

F

F/S

64

C. INSKIPP and T. P. INSKIPP

Forktail 1

Habitat

FORKTAIL 1 (1986): 65-79

Effects of selective logging on the

ecological organization of a peninsular

Malaysian rainforest avifauna

ANDREW D. JOHNS

Selective timber logging affects the avifauna in a variety of ways. There is a significant overall

decrease in species richness. Families such as Alcedinidae, Trogonidae, Timaliidae, Muscicapidae

and Dicaeidae were much reduced, both in species richness and overall abundance. Many species of

the Pycnonotidae, and migrant insectivores such as Hirundo ruslica and Merops viridis were

observed far more frequently in logged (i.e. selectively logged) forest.

Species that possess a highly specialized diet or foraging behaviour, those exploiting resources that

are evenly dispersed and predictable, and those that are physiologically intolerant of microclimatic

changes were most often absent from logged forest. Terrestrial and sallying insectivores appear

particularly susceptible. These birds tend to be replaced by more robust species, often those able to

feed opportunistically on a variety of foods. The presence of some colonizing birds is highly

ephemeral, but long-term changes in patterns of species abundance are to be expected in logged

forest consistent with long-term changes in habitat parameters.

INTRODUCTION

Tropical rainforests support a high species richness among bird communities. This

is partly due to historical factors (Pearson 1982) and partly due to environmental

and habitat conditions promoting sympatry through specialization (Karr 1976);

other factors may be involved.

Mean abundance per species may be very low in tropical compared to temperate

forests (Karr 1971). Species may be rare for a number of reasons, usually because

their food resources are rare or because their optimal living space along

microclimatic gradients or within the habitat structure is small. Species which exist

at very low densities are likely to be susceptible to any form of disturbance that

alters features of their environment (Willis 1974, 1979): it is clear that species-rich

rainforest communities are less constant ( sensu Putman and Wratten 1984) in the

face of environmental change than are simpler communities (e.g. Michael and

Thornburgh 1971, Webb et al. 1977). Depending on the form of the disturbance,

however, common species can be as seriously affected as rare ones. Abundance alone

is not a reliable predictor of susceptibility to disturbance (Karr 1982a,b).

This paper examines the response of a species-rich avifauna to selective timber

logging, a prevailing form of habitat disturbance in tropical rainforest. Logging

operations in peninsular Malaysia rarely cut more than 5% of total stems for their

timber, but incidental damage is considerable; destruction of less than 40% of the

stand is unusual. The remnant is often left to regenerate, either naturally or with

certain management procedures designed to promote the re-establishment of

commercially important trees (see UNESCO 1978). The level of damage is

sufficient to cause considerable change in patterns of resource abundance,

66

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

microhabitat diversity, predator/prey relationships and other controlling factors.

The differing responses of species may be used as a basis to examine broad

ecological attributes which permit or prohibit survival following habitat

disturbance.

STUDY AREA

Data were collected in tropical dipterocarp forest (for a description of this vegetation

type, see Whitmore 1984) in the Sungai Tekam Forestry Concession, Pahang, West

Malaysia (4°10'N 102°40'E). This area is part of a large block of, until recently,

entirely undisturbed primary rainforest. Observations were made in one

compartment (C13C) before, during and after selective logging, and in 1 - 2 year-old

(C5A), 3-4 year-old (CIA) and 5-6 year-old logged forests (C2). The period of

study was from April 1979 until June 1981.

Study sites (Figure 1) ranged from around 80 m (C2) to 400 m above sea level

(C5A), were of undulating to steep terrain and of a uniform vegetation type. None of

the higher areas possessed the stands of the common dipterocarp Shorea curtisii ,

which does not occur below the hill-foot boundary and could have been a cause of

variation between sites. The different altitudes of the study sites may be a cause of

some variation (Wells 1985), but it will later be shown that this is a minor influence.

Site C13C remained adjacent to primary forest throughout the study; the older

logged forests were progressively further from primary forest (see Figure 1). Birds

would be expected to move freely between primary and logged forest in contiguous

areas, unless constrained in some way, but (because of isolation) not between

primary and older logged forests, at least on a regular basis.

Observations at C13C showed that 3.3% of trees were cut for their timber, but a

Figure 1. Location of study areas in the

Sungai Tekam Forestry Concession.

Shaded areas are clear-felled forest, now

under plantation crops. All remaining

areas are forested. Compartments logged

at the time of the study are numbered.

Boxed areas represent the study sites.

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

67

total of 51% was destroyed during the operation to fell and remove them. The high

level of indiscriminate damage counteracts preferences shown by loggers for large

specimens of selected tree taxa: the loss of most taxa and all size classes of tree is

proportional to their abundance. Selective logging is not selective at all.

In addition to the loss of food resources, there are considerable changes in forest

microclimate. Loss of a high proportion of canopy cover causes increased

temperature, increased insolation, and decreased humidity in the understorey. Wind

damage through dessication and treefalls is also increased.

Extraction levels, and subsequent damage levels, were uniform between all sites

studied. Environmental effects of the selective logging operation at Sungai Tekam

have been discussed in detail elsewhere (Johns 1983).

METHODS

Data were collected in the form of spot observations; notes were made on first

observing an individual bird and not subsequently. In most cases, however,

individual birds did not remain visible for more than a few seconds. The majority of

species were seen only rarely and many exhibited cryptic behaviour, which probably

gives rise to under-representation in the population sample. Many species associated

in mixed-species flocks, and in these there would be a bias towards recording the

most conspicuous flock members. Cryptic species may, in some cases, be more

effectively sampled by mist-netting programmes, but this is only really feasible in

the understorey of rainforest and introduces a new set of biases (e.g. Lovejoy 1974).

The importance of differential detectability is reduced since analyses compare

relative abundances of the same sets of species between habitats.

Results presented for C13C were collected for five months (February to June

1980) prior to logging and six months (January to June 1981) after its completion

(data collected during the six-month logging period are not here considered). Birds

were observed by walking at random along a 100x 100 m trail grid cut through an

area of approximately 1km2. Observation times varied, but were generally between

06h00 and 18h00, and 19h30 and 22h00 daily. Between two and three weeks were

spent at the study site each calendar month.

Results from C5A, CIA and C2 were collected by walking along three 3 km trails.

Only the first kilometre was walked during the night. The entire length of the trail

was covered at least once per day. Observation times were as at the main study site.

Between 12 and 16 full days were spent at each site, but no more than six in any

30-day period.

The local abundance of some bird species may be a reaction to seasonal

fluctuations of food abundance (e.g. Leighton 1982), thus comparative analyses are

between matched monthly samples, unless indicated otherwise.

Before the onset of data collection, nine months were spent learning to recognize

individual species. Not all vocalizations were reliably distinguished and all such data

are dropped from the analyses. The use of these data would, in any case,

overestimate the abundance of very vocal species such as hornbills Bucerotidae and

barbets Capitonidae.

68

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

RESULTS

Species richness

Owing to the preponderance of rarity (i.e. of species living at very low densities), it

may take a considerable time to record the full avifauna of an area of rainforest. In

fact, owing to the dynamic nature of such an avifauna, it may be impossible to do so.

Species accumulation curves (Figure 2) do not reach asymptotes. The differences in

curve shape between primary and recently logged forests at C13C on the one hand,

and the older logged forests on the other, indicate a greater abundance of birds in the

latter. More species are recorded per day because more birds are recorded per day;

the actual number of common species (i.e. those making up >1% of records) is in

fact similar between sites (27 and 26 at C13C before and after logging, and a mean of

25.7 for the three older logged forests: see Appendix). The initial similarity of

curves at C13C before and after logging indicates that results may not be

significantly biased by differences in habitat-influenced observational ability (i.e.

that the greater abundance of birds in the older logged forest is real).

Logged forests appear to support a lesser species richness than primary forest,

however. Many species vacate the area as soon as logging begins and subsequently

avoid it (pers. obs.). Others may be present in much reduced numbers and remain

undetected. Significantly fewer species were observed per month following logging

at C13C (Mann-Whitney U test: U=l, n,=n2=4, p<0.05). Species abundance

curves indicate that logged forests accumulate species fairly quickly following an

initial period of destabilization and loss of many species, but they do not necessarily

regain species typical of primary rainforest (see Appendix).

The use of diversity indices to examine these data is inadvisable. Examining the

whole avifauna by a single index ignores the fact that different subsets react to

environmental disturbance in different ways (see Karr and Roth 1971).

Figure 2. Cumulative number of bird

species in primary and selectively logged

forests. Results from C13C are separated

into those made before logging (P) and

those made directly after logging (L).

C13CIPI

C2

CIA

C13CILI

C5A

No. days observation

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

69

Species composition

Degradation of forest habitat is certain to cause alterations in the composition of the

avifauna. Such alterations may be temporary if the gene pool remains accessible and

the forest is allowed to regenerate, or permanent if the logged area is isolated.

Logging may be followed by the loss of some species, but will also be followed by

the appearance of previously unrecorded species from secondary or edge habitat,

many of which follow logging roads into forested areas (see Appendix).

The assemblages may first be examined in terms of sets of species (i.e. feeding

guilds: Table 1). The number of species is a feature of sample size.

The primary forest avifauna is dissimilar to those of the older logged areas, but

they are remarkably similar amongst themselves (Table 2). It should be noted that

Table 1. Comparison of feeding guild membership within primary and logged forest species assemblages. Feeding

guild definitions follow those of Karr (1980), with the addition of the following: faunivore/frugivores (hornbills,

which incorporate significant quantities of reptiles, etc., as well as fruit), sallying insectivores (birds that sally forth

from a perch to capture flying insects) and sweeping insectivores (birds that fly swiftly in straight lines in open

areas, normally above the canopy).

Table 2. Pairwise comparison of the distribution of species between feeding guilds in different forests surveyed.

Results are for chi-squared tests (the following groups are combined in the analyses: both frugivore guilds, both

insectivore/frugivore guilds, raptors and piscivores). No areas are significantly different at the level p<0.05.

Similarity is indicated: * = p>0.95, ** = p>0.99. It should be noted that effects of differential altitude of the study

area appears inconsequential.

70

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

the avifauna of C13C after logging was still in a state of change. This is also

demonstrated by the shape of the species accumulation curve, which falls midway

between that of undisturbed forest and that of the older logged forests (Figure 2). In

effect, it was still losing species of primary forest but had not yet gained the edge

species that were present in older logged areas. It should also be noted, however,

that the areas with similar avifaunas were usually located close to each other.

The point should be emphasized that overall similarity of organization masks

many changes of species composition, particularly between primary and older

logged areas. If a correcting factor is applied to take into account the difference in

time spent in unlogged and the old logged forests, i.e.:

n

where n = number of observations of species in unlogged forest,

1 1 = number of days observation in unlogged forest,

t2 = number of days observation in the three old logged forests combined.

If species with a value of d<1.0 are discounted, 22 species in total were judged to

avoid logged forests (Table 3). On the other hand, 20 species were observed only in

older logged forests or along logging roads.

Table 3. Intolerant and colonizing bird species at Sungai Tekam. Intolerant species are defined as those that

occurred at C13C but not in older logged forests, taking the correction factor into account. Colonizing species are

those occurring only at C5A, CIA and/or C2, and those associated with open logging roads (marked with an

asterisk). Feeding guild codes are explained in the Appendix.

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

71

In general terms, there would appear to be less species of certain groups of

insectivores in logged forests, notably terrestrial, foliage-gleaning and sallying

species. Terrestrial species were uncommonly observed, but the lack of observations

of almost all such species in old logged forests suggests they were avoiding such

areas. A number of foliage-gleaners (e.g. babblers of genus Stachyris) and flycatchers

(e.g. Mugimaki Flycatcher Ficedula mugimaki and Spotted Fantail Rhipidura

perlata) were observed commonly in primary but never in logged forest. They may

have been replaced to some extent by colonizing insectivore/frugivores (e.g. Yellow-

vented Bulbuls Pycnonotus goiavier and Everett’s White-eyes Zosterops everetti), but

these species are present in large numbers only in very recently logged forest. There

is some change in the species of frugivore present, although absolute numbers of

frugivorous species are similar between study sites. For example, flower peckers

Dicaeidae, which specialize on mistletoe (Loranthaceae) berries, are entirely absent

from older logged forests.

Individual species abundances

Pairwise comparisons of the distribution of individuals between feeding guilds in all

combinations of the different forest types give no conclusive results. Using chi-

squared tests, all sites are significantly different from all others (p<0.001 in every

case) regardless of proximity or altitude. This is probably a reflection upon vagaries

of small sample sizes: the older logged forests would have been expected to be more

similar to each other than to primary forest.

The response of particular species (see Appendix) may in some cases be attributed

to particular effects of logging. For example, logging causes blockage and

eutrophication of forest streams, and this adversely effects piscivorous kingfishers

Alcedinidae and stream-feeding passerines, such as White-crowned Forktails

Enicurus leschenaulti. Concentration of logging activity on ridgetops destroys a high

proportion of traditional dancing-grounds of Great Argus Pheasants Argusianus

argus, which are preferentially established in such areas (G. W. H. Davison

verbally); their reproductive success, although not their immediate population

density, is likely to be affected as a result.

Logging causes contrasting shifts in the abundance of certain species groups

(Figure 3), which often reflects the dominance or demise of particular species.

Babblers Timaliidae of such genera as Malacopteron and Stachyris were observed

commonly in primary forest but far less so following logging. Comparing

observations before and after logging at C13C, a significant drop in numbers was

evident (Mann-Whitney U test: U = 0, n,=n2=4, p<0.05). There was also a

significant drop in the numbers of understorey flycatchers Muscicapidae in logged

forests (comparing primary forest at C13C with the three logged forest sites: U = 0,

n j = 4, n2 =3, p<0.05). By contrast, significantly higher numbers of bulbuls

Pycnonotidae were recorded (comparing primary with older logged forest sites:

U = 0, n, = 4, n2 =3, p<0.05). This was largely due to the appearance in the sample

of large numbers of the colonizing Cream-vented and Yellow-vented Bulbuls

Pycnonotus simplex and P. goiavier. The opening-up of the canopy by logging

allowed invasion of lower levels by large numbers of sweeping insectivores, notably

72

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

by migrant Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica. Migrant Blue-throated Bee-eaters

Merops viridis were also commonly observed in the lower levels of logged forest.

It should be noted that although species are here classified into discrete feeding

guilds, some may alter foraging strategies in response to changes in the resource

profile. For example, bark gleaners such as Crimson-winged and Banded

Woodpeckers Picus puniceus and P. miniaceus switch to foliage-gleaning when faced

with a shortage of bark insects. In view of the predominance of specialized feeders in

rainforest, however, major changes in food chosen or feeding behaviour are unlikely

to be widespread.

DISCUSSION

Rarity

There is no pattern in the abundance of species in the sample at C13C before

logging in relation to their abundance in logged forests. Many species rarely

observed in primary forest were equally infrequent in logged areas while others

were encountered regularly (e.g. Crested Jay Platylophus galericulatus). Some

species that were observed frequently in primary forest survive well in logged forest

(e.g. Bushy-crested Hornbill Anorrhinus galeritus) whereas others do not (e.g.

Spotted Fantail Rhipidura perlata).

Figure 3. Changes in the relative abun¬

dance of selected families of birds in

primary and logged forests. Results

from C13C are separated into those

made before logging (P) and those made

directly after logging (L).

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

73

Furthermore, there is no pattern in the survival of sets of species of different body

weight: some large-bodied species survive successfully (e.g. hornbills Bucerotidae)

whereas others do not (e.g. partridges Phasianidae). Responses are more likely to be

due to changes in habitat parameters than due to body weight per se, although it

should be noted that large-bodied species are often more specialized feeders (cf.

Cope’s Law: Ricklefs 1979).

No direct conclusions can be drawn concerning patterns of rarity since samples

are limited and serendipity would be a major influence. Seasonal or periodic

fluctuations cannot be taken into account, and it is clear that there are high

proportions of itinerants among many bird populations, some species (e.g. green

pigeons Treron and some hornbills Rhyticeros ) being entirely nomadic (Leighton

1982, Wells 1985). It is necessary to examine features of the environment that are

likely to affect patterns of bird distribution.

Food resources

Frugivorous birds may be divided into two main groups: those that feed primarily

on small fruits (e.g. bulbuls Pycnonotidae) and those that feed primarily on large

fruits (e.g. hornbills Bucerotidae). Both types of fruit are distributed patchily in

dipterocarp forest, largely because very few of the tree species produce fruit that is

edible to birds (McClure 1966, Fogden 1972).

Small fruits are characteristically produced by small and early-maturing trees,

which are often commoner in early successional patches or in riparian habitat, and

thus show a highly clumped distribution (Fogden 1972). Large bird-edible fruit are

usually produced by rare and widely dispersed canopy trees, and are exploited by

large-bodied species capable of travelling long distances and which frequently form

cohesive flocking units (e.g. green pigeons Treron and Mountain Imperial Pigeon

Ducula badia).

Specialization towards exploiting a resource that is both patchily distributed and

erratic in its seasonality is, to a certain extent, preadaptive to survival in conditions

of habitat disturbance. In logged forest, dispersion of large fruit sources will become

increasingly irregular, but those species which are physiologically and anatomically

adapted for extensive ranging are likely to persist. Less wide-ranging species which

feed on sugar-rich fruits are often able to exploit colonizing trees and shrubs

(Fogden 1972) and may be less vulnerable than those species which specialize on

large fruits produced by trees which are eliminated by logging; for example,

disproportionate loss of strangling fig trees Ficus subgenus Urostigma may adversely

affect large hornbills (Leighton and Leighton 1983).

Among the most susceptible frugivores may be small species which feed on lipid-

rich fruit (e.g. Green Broadbill Calyptomena viridis). Lipid-rich fruit are not often

borne by colonizing trees. Flowerpeckers Dicaeidae would appear to be severely

restricted in logged forest for similar reasons: in this case, a reliance on a single

group of plants (Loranthaceae) which are parasites of canopy trees.

Insectivore/nectarivores, which feed in association with flowers to a major extent,

share many behavioural traits with frugivores. Although not well adapted for flying

long distances, the species in question typically show considerable local population

74

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

shifts, even in primary forests, consistent with the spatial and temporal patterning of

food resources. This feature would enable species to exploit patchy food resources

in logged forest, and most appear to persist at Sungai Tekam. The more open

habitat in recently logged forest contains higher densities of many flowering plants

visited by sunbirds of the genera Anthreptes and Hypogramma, and supports the

thick, tangled pioneer community of bananas Musaceae and gingers Zingiberaceae

that is occupied by many spiderhunters Arachnothera.

Foliage insects are a largely predictable resource in primary forest, but become

less so following logging. The overall abundance of insects is less in logged forest,

and periods when they are a scarce resource are longer (Wong 1982). Such periods

of low abundance of foliage insects are marked by shifts in the feeding habits of

some species; bulbuls Pycnonotidae and malkohas Phaenicophaeus add fruit or

increase the proportion of fruit in their diet. Species which are obligate insectivores

will not remain in habitat where shortages of insea prey occur. For example, a

severe reduction in the numbers of large foliage insects favoured by trogons

Harpactes may account for the low numbers of these birds in logged forests.

Babblers Timaliidae are extremely abundant in primary forest and may make up a

major portion of the biomass (Wong 1985). They are mostly gleaning inseaivores

and may find less food in regenerating vegetation. Certain understorey flycatchers,

in such genera as Muscicapa and Philentoma , were also observed far less frequently

in logged forests. This is not likely to be correlated with food abundance since the

numbers of some flying inseas (notably mosquitos Culicidae) increases

considerably. There are, however, two ways in which the inseas may be less

accessible to flycatchers in logged forests. First, sallying species might be limited in

their feeding by an absence of suitable perches in the vicinity of food resources, for

example, along logging roads and in cleared areas where the inseas congregate to

breed in water-filled ruts. Second, in such open areas, flying inseas become

increasingly exploited by sweeping insectivores such as swifts Apodidae and Barn

Swallows Hirundo rustica, which are restricted to foraging above the canopy in

primary forest. These birds, and especially migrant Blue-throated Bee-eaters Merops

viridis, occupy foraging volume normally used by understorey flycatchers.

Their position at the top of the food chain might be expeaed to render carnivores

susceptible to disturbances affeaing the food web, but most appear to exploit a

variety of prey species opportunistically and are able to move over very large areas.

Many species take advantage of the faa that prey have to cross open areas more

frequently in logged forest and are thus more easily seen and captured. Patrolling or

scanning of roadways was observed in many species, such as Collared Scops Owls

Otus bakkamoena, which catch beetles, and hawk eagles Spizaetus and Crested

Serpent Eagles Spilornis cheela, which catch mostly reptiles.

Microhabitat gradients

Karr and Freemark (1983) suggest that seleaion of optimal microhabitats is a

primary determinant of aaivity, particularly among understorey species. Optimal

microhabitats will be seleaed on the basis of foraging volume (habitat structure) and

conditions of temperature and humidity. The aaivity of many small birds is limited

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

75

by temperature fluctuations; some are known never to cross sunlit patches (Bell

1982). Microclimatic changes associated with logging probably limit populations of

understorey groups such as babblers Timaliidae more than do alterations of food

supply. Babblers are known to become heat-stressed very easily outside of their

preferred environment (M. Wong verbally). Species which normally follow the

outer surface (‘skin’) of the forest searching for food (e.g. drongos Dicrurus,

malkohas Phaenicophaeus, leafbirds Chloropsis) do not show such physiological

limitations and are more likely to respond to features of resource abundance than to

microclimatic gradients. As the canopy is broken up by logging, these species will

also occupy foraging volume normally exploited by (but now rendered unsuitable

for) understorey species.

Logging acts directly to eliminate or reduce certain parts of the microhabitat

mosaic. The bark of some forest trees is scorched by sunlight, which also kills the

covering of mosses and epiphytes. This change causes a reduction in the numbers of

some bark-gleaning insectivores and those that probe among moss and epiphytes for

their food. Drying and hardening of the soil severely reduces the availability of soil

arthropods and has a marked effect upon litter-gleaning birds: this group may be the

most vulnerable to elimination by logging. Terrestrial babblers (e.g. Black-capped

Babbler Pellorneum capistratum. Large Wren-Babbler Napothera macrodactyla, and

Trichastoma species) were rarely observed in logged forest at Sungai Tekam, and no

species of pitta Pittidae was encountered (these birds are normally easily detected

because of their characteristic calls).

Nest sites

Loss of suitable nest sites is another factor that may restrict the populations of

certain birds in logged forest (e.g. cavity nesters: McClure 1968). Reproductive

success of birds has been reported to be depressed even in forest logged 25 years

previously (Wong 1985), although it is not clear whether a lack of nest sites or other

factors give rise to this difference. No data are provided by this study (see Johns

1985).

Cautionary note

Many large-bodied forest birds travel over large distances and may range between

logged and primary forests at Sungai Tekam, although in the case of areas CIA and

C2 this would require travelling at least 6 km. Their exploitation of logged forest

indicates that it is not wholly unsuitable habitat, but they may not be able to persist

solely within it. Most small-bodied itinerant birds would not range so far on less

than a seasonal basis, however. Differences in species composition between sites

may to some extent be due to the limited observation time, the patchy distribution of

birds, the serendipity of encounters, and slight differences caused by altitude, but a

consideration of microhabitat parameters suggests that avoidance of logged forest by

some species is likely.

The persistence of a large number of bird species in logged areas some distance

from primary forest might be taken to indicate resilience to disturbance. It should be

borne in mind, however, that following logging the land was left to regenerate

76

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

naturally, apart from some replanting in heavily damaged areas: there was no further

disturbance. This is atypical of many regions, where logged forests are invaded by

hunters and agriculturalists (Johns 1985).

Furthermore, the study considers only short-term results. It would be expected

that the most critical period of resident birds is immediately following logging; it is

at this time that the species assemblage shows characteristics of instability (notably a

predominance of generalist species: see Pimm and Lawton 1978). Itinerant birds

may not be stressed at this time, however, because of the proximity of primary

forest. While many species persist in the primaryAogged forest mosaic at Sungai

Tekam, it has yet to be proven that forest avifaunas can be maintained in discrete

areas that are completely logged (i.e. selectively logged throughout).

As logging continues at Sungai Tekam, primary forest will become increasingly

remote from the older regenerating forests and their use by nomadic and perhaps by

itinerant birds may thus fall off over time (unless they regenerate quickly to a stage

whereby they can support these birds). In time, primary forest may remain only on

steeper land. Many species’ distributions are limited by slope (i.e. the hill-foot

boundary: Wells 1985) and the source of colonists may thus be curtailed (unless

older logged forests support the susceptible species by this time). It is hoped that

longer-term observations at Sungai Tekam will provide answers to some of these

outstanding questions.

Sponsorship for this study was kindly provided by the Dean and Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and

Animal Sciences, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. Logistical help was given by the Forest Department of

Peninsular Malaysia and by the Forest Research Institute, Kepong. I am grateful to Syarikat Jengka Sdn.

Bhd. for permission to work at Sungai Tekam. The study was funded primarily through contract no.

NO1-CO-85409, U. S. National Institutes of Health, with the University of Cambridge, England.

I thank R. I. Thorpe for field assistance. A. G. Davies, G. W. H. Davison, J. R. Karr, D. C. Oren, J. P.

Skorupa, D. R. Wells, E. O. Willis and M. Wong kindly commented on various drafts of this paper. I am

particularly grateful to D. R. Wells for help at all stages of this project, and to N. J. Collar for providing

the impetus to prepare the typescript.

REFERENCES

Bell, H. L. (1982) A bird community of lowland rainforest in New Guinea. III. Vertical distribution of the

avifauna. Emu 82: 143-162.

Fogden, M. P. L. (1972) The seasonality and population dynamics of equatorial forest birds in Sarawak.

Ibis 114: 307-343.

Johns, A. D. (1983) Ecological effects of selective logging in a West Malaysian rain-forest. Unpublished

dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Johns, A. D. (1985) Selective logging and wildlife conservation in tropical rainforest: problems and

recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 31: 355-375.

Karr, J. R. (1971) Structure of avian communities in selected Panama and Illinois habitats. Ecol. Monogr.

41: 207-233.

Karr, J. R. (1976) Seasonality, resource availability and community diversity in tropical bird communities.

Amer. Nat. 110: 973-994.

Karr, J. R. (1980) Geographical variation in the avifaunas of tropical forest undergrowth. Auk 97:

283-298.

Karr, J. R. (1982a) Population variability and extinction in the avifauna of a tropical landbridge island.

Ecology 63: 1975-1978.

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

77

Karr, J. R. (1982b) Avian extinction on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: a reassessment Amer Nat 119'

220-239.

Karr, J. R. and Freemark, K. E. (1983) Habitat selection and environmental gradients: dynamics in the

‘stable’ tropics. Ecology 64: 1481-1494.

Karr, J. R. and Roth, R. R. (1971) Vegetation structure and avian diversity in several New World areas

Amer. Nat. 105: 423-435.

Leighton, M. (1982) Fruit resources and patterns of feeding, spacing and grouping among sympatric

Bornean hornbills (Bucerotidae). Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Leighton, M. and Leighton, D. R. (1983) Vertebrate responses to fruiting seasonality within a Bornean

rainforest. Pp. 181 — 196 in S. L. Sutton, T. C. Whitmore and A. C. Chadwick, eds. Tropical rain

forest: ecology and management. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Lovejoy, T.^E. (1974) Bird diversity and abundance in Amazon forest communities. Living Bird 13:

McClure, H. E. (1966) Flowering, fruiting and animals in the canopy of a tropical rain forest Malay

Forester 29: 182-203.

McClure, H. E. (1968) Some problems concerning endangered birds in South Eastern Asia. Pp. 307-311

in L. M. Talbot and M. H. Talbot, eds. Conservation in tropical South East Asia. Montes,

Switzerland: IUCN Publications (NS) 10.

Michael, E. D. and Thornburgh, P. I. (1971) Immediate effects of hardwood removal and prescribed

burning on bird populations. Southwest. Nat. 15: 359-370.

Pearson, D. L. (1982) Historical factors and bird species richness. Pp. 441-452 in G. T. Prance, ed.

Biological diversification in the Tropics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pimm, S. L. and Lawton, J. H. (1978) On feeding on more than one trophic level. Nature 275: 542-544.

Putman, R. J. and Wratten, S. D. (1984) Principles of ecology. London: Croom Helm.

Ricklefs, R. E. (1979) Ecology. New York: Chiron Press.

UNESCO (1978) Tropical forest ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO-UNEP.

Webb, W. L., Behrend, D. F. and Saisorn, B. (1977) Effects of logging on songbird populations in a

northern hardwood forest. Wildl. Monogr. 55.

Wells, D. R. (1985) The forest avifauna of western Malesia and its conservation. Pp. 213-232 in A. W.

Diamond and T. E. Lovejoy, eds. Conservation of tropical forest birds. Cambridge, U. K.:

International Council for Bird Preservation (Techn. Publ. no. 4).

Whitmore. T. C. (1984) Tropical rain forests of the Far East. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Willis, E. O. (1974) Populations and local extinctions of birds on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecol.

Monogr. 44: 153-169.

Willis, E. O. (1979) The composition of avian communities in remanescent woodlots in southern Brazil.

Papeis Avulsos Zool., S. Paulo 33: 1-25.

Wong, M. (1982) Patterns of food availability and understory bird community structure in a Malaysian

rain forest. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan.

Wong, M. (1985) Understory birds as indicators of regeneration in a patch of selectively logged West

Malaysian rainforest. Pp. 249-263 in A. W. Diamond and T. E. Lovejoy, eds. Conservation of

tropical forest birds. Cambridge, U. K: International Council for Bird Preservation (Techn. Publ.

no. 4).

Andrew D. Johns, Sub-department of Veterinary Anatomy, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road,

Cambridge CB2 IQS, U. K.

78

A. D. JOHNS

Forktail 1

APPENDIX

BIRD SPECIES RECORDED IN PRIMARY AND SELECTIVELY LOGGED FORESTS AT

SUNGAI TEKAM.

Migrant species are marked (Mig); montane species, probably accidental at Sungai Tekam, are marked

(Mont).

Feeding guild data are from D. R. Wells {in lice.) and my own personal observations. Feeding guild

codes are as follows: TF, terrestrial frugivore; AF, arboreal frugivore; FF, arboreal faumvore/frugivore;

TIF, terrestrial insectivore/frugivore; AIF, arboreal insectivore/frugivore; IN, insectivore/nectanvore; TI,

terrestrial insectivore; BGI, bark-gleaning insectivore; FGI, foliage-gleaning insectivore; Sal, sallying

insectivore; SwI, sweeping insectivore; R, raptor; P, piscivore.

Observations made at C13C are divided into those made in primary forest (P) and those made directly

after logging (L). Species abundances are noted as follows: not observed; x, <0.5% of sample; xx,

between 0.5 and 1.0% of the sample; xxx, >1.0% of the sample; p, present (these species were not

included in the population sample since they are above-canopy feeders and would thus be underestimated

in primary forest where the canopy is closed). Species which follow logging roads, and may thus occur

along open roads even within otherwise primary forest, are marked with an asterisk (*).

Nomenclature follows Wells (1985), with minor additions.

1986

Rainforest birds and logging

79

Feeding C13C CI3C

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

81

A re-assessment of the

affinities of some small

Oriental babblers Timaliidae

COLIN J. O. HARRISON

For some time I have been studying the babblers Timaliidae (or Timaliinae). They

are generally rather sedentary birds that have diversified to produce a number of

disparate forms, and this was reflected in their earlier classification which contained

an unusually large number of genera with only one or two species (Sharpe 1883,

Baker 1922). To some extent this situation still applies but in recent decades

monotypic genera have been taxonomically unfashionable and there has been a

tendency to lump them into larger groupings (Ali and Ripley 1971 - 1972). At times

this appears to have been done by linking those nearest each other in published lists

of the species.

I find myself in disagreement with some of these larger groupings and in addition

a study of museum skins shows that some species should be re-assigned to more

appropriate genera. While ultimately I hope to discuss these views in more detail

elsewhere (Harrison in press, and in prep.), their summary here may stimulate

fieldwork to confirm or refute them.

In order to define the various genera I have found it necessary to pay particular

attention to aspects such as bill-structure, tail shape and the general pattern of

plumage, but not necessarily the finer details of pattern or colour. It is possible that

those who are fortunate enough to watch the living birds in the wild might be able to

consider these ideas of relationship more critically or gain some further clues to

affinities. They will not, of course, be in a position to review the scattered specimens

from different parts of the ranges of widespread species which can justify

conclusions that may not be obvious if only a single specimen is seen. However,

because so many of these species are furtive by nature, the general behaviour of most

babblers as living birds is very poorly known, and further study is needed. Even the

appearance of young birds has not yet been recorded for some species. Admittedly

young babblers tend to resemble the adults, but there may be differences in the

plumage markings and in colour of iris and bill, and these usually more generalised

characters may at times provide clues to possible origin and affinity.

WHITE-BELLIED BABBLER Currently known as the White-bellied Yuhina

Yuhina zantholeuca, this occurs from the Himalayas to Sumatra and Borneo

(Deignan 1964). Unlike yuhinas it is uniform olive-green or yellowish-green on the

upperparts and head, and greyish-white on the underparts. The crown feathers are

moderately elongated but not so markedly as in typical yuhinas. The key feature is

the bill. This is stout (dorsoventrally deep) at the base and tapers evenly on both

mandibles to a sharp tip. It differs distinctly from those of Yuhina species but

matches those of the small babblers of the genus Stachyris. The other features of

82

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 1

structure and plumage pattern and colour would not be out of place in the letter

genus, and I propose to transfer this babbler to it as the White-bellied Babbler

Stachyris zantholeuca.

CHESTNUT-EARED BABBLER This species usually appears under the name of

White-browed Yuhina or Striated Yuhina Yuhina castaniceps, and was earlier called

the Chestnut-headed Staphida or Chestnut-headed Staphidia, the latter being a mis¬

spelling. In the past it has been lumped as constituting five species, now lumped as

subspecies, in the genus Staphida , with a range from Bengal to Borneo (Deignan

1964). It lacks a distinct crest, and has a small blunt-tipped bill more like those of

some fulvettas Alcippe. The tail is distinctly rounded with most of its feathers having

bold white tips. It does not show any obvious affinities with the yuhinas; nor, for

that matter, does it appear to fit satisfactorily into another existing genus, and I

propose to return it to its monotypic genus. Plumage pattern and colour vary

considerably between the various subspecies, and since the chestnut ear-coverts are

one of the few consistent features I suggest that these would provide a more suitable

name - the Chestnut-eared Babbler Staphida castaniceps.

CHESTNUT-BACKED MINLA This species is generally known as the

Chestnut-backed Sibia (Rufous-backed Sibia in King el al. 1975) Heterophasia

annectans, and occurs from the Himalayas to northern Thailand and Viet Nam

(Deignan 1964). It does not resemble the other sibia species, which are reasonably

consistent in their plumage patterns and generally slender build. Although larger,

the Chestnut-backed Sibia resembles the Red-tailed Minla Minla ignotincta in bill-

shape, general proportions and various aspects of plumage pattern. It appears to

belong to this genus and I propose to re-assign it as the Chestnut-backed Minla M.

annectans.

BLUE-WINGED SIVA This species occurs from the Himalayas to Malaya and

Viet Nam (Deignan 1964). Formerly placed in the now unused genus Siva, it has in

recent times been assigned to the genus Minla and the English name changed

accordingly. If one discounts the extensive blue of the plumage as a purely specific

character, it is closest in general appearance, and in aspects of head pattern and tail-

feather shape, to the two species in the genus Leiothrix - the Pekin Robin or Red¬

billed Leiothrix L. lutea , and the Silver-eared Mesia L. argentauris. It differs from

the minlas in almost all details. Its most appropriate place would appear to be either

in the genus Leiothrix as L. cyanouroptera, or possibly retained in the monotypic

genus Siva.

In listing these proposals I would add a comment based on my personal view that

an English name should be no longer than is necessary to identify a species. The

scientific name is the one that defines the taxonomic relationships. Since both the

names Siva and Minla now apply to single species only, it would be reasonable to

discard the adjectival appendages ‘blue-winged’ and ‘silver-eared’ and refer to these

birds by the shorter name which adequately identifies them. Such rationalisation of

names would be appropriate for a number of species not discussed here. Since I do

not believe that the English name should be of the same hierarchical type as the

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

83

scientific one I do not see a problem in later taxonomic changes. I would prefer to

see a series of short varied vernacular names as exemplified by the English names of

European ducks and finches.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1971 - 1972). Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, 6-7. Bombay: Oxford

University Press.

Baker, E. C. S. (1922) Fauna of British India , including Ceylon and Burma. Birds , 1. Second edition.

London: Taylor and Francis.

Deignan, H. G. (1964) Timaliinae. Pp. 240-442 in E. Mayr and R. A. Paynter, Jr, eds. Check-list of birds

of the world: a continuation of the work of James L. Peters, 10. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of

Comparative Zoology.

Harrison, C. J. O. (in press) A re-assignment of two small babblers at present in the genus Yuhina. J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia.

London: Collins.

Sharpe, R. B. (1883) Catalogue of the birds of the British Museum, 7. London: Trustees of the British

Museum.

C. J. O. Harrison, Sub-department of Ornithology, British Museum (Natural History), Tring, Hertfordshire

HP 23 SAP, U.K.

Nepal House Martin Delichon nipalensis

new to Thailand

ALAN TYE and HILARY TYE

The observations described below were made at Phu Kradeung National Park in

Loei Province, northern Thailand. The main topographical feature of the park is a

60 km2 plateau rising from the surrounding lowlands at c. 300 m to a maximum of

1,360 m. Much of the perimeter of the gently undulating plateau is made up of a

series of sandstone cliffs, which fall vertically c. 10-50 m to meet the steep slopes

which in turn form the lower part of the plateau’s sides.

On 30 November 1984, we watched a large mixed flock of hirundines and swifts

at one of the cliffs, Pa Makduk, feeding over and out from the cliff edge. Brown

Needletails Hirundapus giganteus, White-rumped Swifts Apus pacificus and Barn

Swallows Hirundo rustica all fed singly or in small groups above the grassland and

open pine woodland of the plateau itself and occasionally joined or flew through the

main flock: hence the numbers of these species in the main flock were variable. The

main flock fed primarily above the broadleaved forest on the slopes of the plateau’s

sides, just out from the cliff, and comprised about 40 Dusky Crag Martins Hirundo

concolor, 50-60 Red-rumped Swallows H. daurica and 30 small house martins

Delichon sp. Our field description of the house martins was as follows: ‘Small

84

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 1

martin. Black throat, undertail-coverts and tail; black/blue upperside; underside

white, not dusky; white rump fairly narrow; tail more or less square; looks “neater”

than European House Martin Delichon urbica; noticeably smaller than Dusky Crag

Martin.’ We watched these birds for over 30 minutes, while they flew in front of us,

above and below our own elevation, often passing within 20 m.

The above description seems diagnostic of Nepal House Martin Delichon

nipalensis, which has not been previously recorded from Thailand (P. D. Round in

litt.). In particular, the combination of square tail with black throat and undertail-

coverts eliminates the other Delichon species. Our description fits well with that in

Ali and Ripley (1972) except that we did not see the ‘broken white collar on hind-

neck’. This is shown in Ali (1977) as a very fine broken line, and examination of

museum specimens suggests that it would be visible in the field in less than 10% of

individuals (less than three birds in our flock).

The avifauna of Phu Kradeung has been poorly studied to date (P. D. Round in

litt.). The Nepal House Martin may occur there regularly but has perhaps been

overlooked hitherto. Although not recorded before in Thailand, it is known from

northern Burma and northern Viet Nam (Ali and Ripley 1972). In Burma it breeds

in the Arakan range in the west (subspecies nipalensis) and occurs in the north-east

(subspecies cuttingi) where its status is uncertain (Smythies 1953) and from where it

may extend into Yunnan (Meyer de Schauensee 1984). It is recorded as resident in

Viet Nam, in north-west Tonkin (King et al. 1975), although the subspecies there

has not been determined (Vaurie 1959). We were not able to determine the

subspecies of the Thai birds.

The records from north-east Burma, Yunnan, north-west Tonkin, and our record

from north-central Thailand, all fall along the margins of the Yunnan range of

mountains, which reach their southernmost extent in Burma, Thailand, Laos and

Viet Nam. Possibly, the race cuttingi breeds widely within these mountains, moving

to lower altitudes and latitudes in winter. Along the margins of the Himalayas, the

Nepal House Martin’s altitudinal breeding range is 2,000-4,000 m, descending to

c. 350 m in winter (Ali and Ripley 1972). We saw it, in winter but further south, at

c. 1,300 m.

The species is highly gregarious and subject to sporadic winter movements (Ali

and Ripley 1972), suggesting that it might well be expected to occur in the

ornithologically little-known areas of northern Thailand, east Burma (Shan States)

and Laos. The status of the Nepal House Martin in Thailand remains uncertain:

our record was from the non-breeding season. The large flock seen, rather than one

or two birds, suggests it is not a vagrant but may be (at least) an irregular or regular

winter visitor. If it is a migrant, it presumably comes from further north in Laos,

Burma or Yunnan, whereas the known populations to date seem to undertake only

short-distance, altitudinal migrations (Ali and Ripley 1972). Hence, either the birds

we saw come from a migratory population or, possibly, they breed locally in

northern Thailand. Suitable breeding habitat is present at Phu Kradeung and other

mountainous areas in north-west Thailand, where rock overhangs occur on vertical

cliff faces (its preferred nest site: Ali and Ripley 1972), some at over 2,000 m.

We thank P. D. Round for helpful discussion and T. P. Inskipp for commenting on the manuscript.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

85

REFERENCES

Ali, S. (1977) Birds of the eastern Himalayas. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1972) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan , 5. Bombay: Oxford

University Press.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia.

London: Collins.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. London: Oxford University Press.

Smythies B. E. (1953) The birds of Burma. Second edition. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Vaurie, C. (1959) The birds of the Palaearctic fauna , 1. London: H. F. and G. Witherby.

Alan Tye and Hilary Tye, 2 School Lane, King’s Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2NL, U. K.

Does the Pied Harrier

Circus melanoleucos

breed in the Philippines?

EDWARD C. DICKINSON

On 5 July 1975 I saw a pair of Pied Harriers Circus melanoleucos in the rolling cogon

grasslands ( Imperata sp.) east of Laguna de Bay along the road from Tanay, Rizal,

to Siniloan, Laguna Province, Luzon. The male was in full adult plumage and the

two birds executed an apparent aerial food-pass, though no actual prey exchange

could be confirmed. After the birds separated neither landed within view. All my

other records of this species from the Philippines are from October to February

inclusive.

Parkes (1973) considered an August record of Lint and Stott (1948) to be

unusually early, citing Brown and Amadon (1968). The timetable of migration given

by the latter authors agreed with that of Smythies (1953) for Burma and with my

own experience in Thailand, but adequate data on the seasonal occurrence of the

species in the Philippines has not been published.

The species has nested in Burma - in April/May in a grassy plain south of

Myitkyina - and may do so regularly in small numbers (Smythies 1953). Brown

and Amadon (1968) underlined that breeding in Burma, in the south of its range, is

six to eight weeks earlier than in the north. Hence one might expect records in the

Philippines as late as May to be northern migrants, and for these to have returned

by August would indeed be unusually early.

M. LeCroy (in litt.) has revealed the existence of a skin from Mindoro collected on

30 July 1963, and additional evidence of ‘oversummering’ is to be found in the

manuscript notes of E. A. Mearns held by the United States National Museum

(USNM). Much of his information was gathered in Mindanao and he found C.

melanoleucos there in every month except July and December. Many of his records

were from ‘the broad sweep of cogonal country extending from the Serenaya Marsh

86

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 1

to the upper Libungan River east of Cotabato’ and the Lake Lanao basin, and here

in 1904 there were ‘many’ on 12 and 13 March, the species was ‘noted’ from 3 to 10

April and ‘some were seen’ on 28 and 29 May. His notes also say: At Tagulaya, on

the west shore of the Gulf of Davao, June 14, 1904, I noted “The black and gray

harrier is here in abundance upon the cogonals; but I saw none to-day” ’. This

implies sightings within the preceding few days since a chronological review of his

collecting places him in that area only after 11 or 12 June. He also recorded the

species from the ‘base of Mt. Mayon, Tobaco side, Albay Province, Luzon’ on 4

and 5 June 1907.

In summary there seems to be good evidence of occurrence throughout the year

(although no doubt northern migrants augment the population in winter) and in

habitat entirely suitable for breeding. The apparent food-pass described above is

suggestive, but obviously formal evidence of breeding has yet to be found.

Dr. George Watson (USNM) was good enough to provide copies of Mearns’s notes and Mary LeCroy

details of the July specimen in the American Museum of Natural History.

REFERENCES

Brown, L. and Amadon, D. (1968) Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. Feltham, Middlesex: Country

Life Books.

Lint, K. C. and Stott, K. (1948) Notes on birds of the Philippines. Auk 65: 41-46.

Parkes, K. C. (1973) Annotated list of the birds of Leyte Island, Philippines. Nemouria 11.

Smythies, B. E. (1953) The birds of Burma. Second edition. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Edward C. Dickinson, Chemin du Chano 8, 1802 Corseaux, Switzerland.

1986

87

Guidelines for contributors

Forktail publishes original papers in the English language (also, in certain cases, English translations

of papers in Oriental languages) treating any aspect of the ornithology (e.g. distribution, biology,

conservation, identification) of the Oriental region, i.e. the region bounded by the Indus River to the

west, Lydekker’s Line to the east, the Chang Jiang (Yangtze Kiang) basin to the north and the

Lesser Sundas, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands to the south; the Japanese Ryukyu

archipelago is included, and indeed material concerning any part of China or Pakistan may be

published. Submissions are considered on the understanding that they are being offered solely for

publication by the Oriental Bird Club, which will retain copyright. Referees are used where

appropriate; all submissions are reviewed by the Forktail Editorial Committee, and those accepted

are normally published in order of receipt. (Some further indication of the type of material

appropriate for the journal is provided in the inaugural editorial, ‘The scope of Forktail, Forktail 1:

3-5.)

Submissions should be in duplicate, typewritten on one side of the paper only, and double-spaced.

The approximate position of figures and tables should be indicated in the margin. Papers should be

concise and factual, take full account of previous relevant literature but avoid repetition of

established information as much as possible; opinions expressed should be based on adequate

evidence. Titles of papers must be accurate and concise, and (for the benefit of abstraction services)

include any relevant scientific (taxonomic) name.

Whenever possible, authors should consult an issue of Forktail for style and layout. Spelling

follows The shorter Oxford English dictionary, except that external features of birds are spelt and

hyphenated in accordance with the entry under ‘Topography’ in A dictionary of birds (1985).

Spelling of place-names accords (unless another source is specified) with the most recent edition

(currently seventh, 1985) of The Times atlas of the world', we use ‘South-East Asia’ and ‘Viet Nam’.

Localities with well-known other spellings or older names should have these placed in parentheses

after their first mention. For localities too small to be in the Times atlas a source of the spelling

adopted should preferably be indicated and the precise geographical coordinates provided (these

should be double-checked where possible). It is appreciated that authors will not always have access

to the above sources; in such cases the editor will seek to introduce conformity.

English and scientific names of birds should preferably follow those provided by King etal. inaA

field guide to the birds of South-East Asia (e.g. Black-winged Cuckoo-shrike, White-browed Bush-

Robin). Birds not mentioned there should be named in accordance with a recent standard work, e.g.

White and Bruce’s The birds of Wallacea. On first mention of a bird both English and scientific

name should be given, thereafter only one, preferably the English. Scientific trinomials need be used

only if subspecific nomenclature is relevant to the topic under discussion. These recommendations

also apply for any other animal or plant species mentioned.

Underlining ( = italics) is used for all words of foreign languages, including generic and specific

scientific names. Metric units and their international symbols should be used; if it is necessary to cite

other systems of measurement, these can be added in parentheses. Temperatures should be given in

the Centigrade (Celsius) scale. Numbers one to ten are written in full except when linked with a

measurement abbreviation or higher number, thus ‘five birds’ but ‘5 km’ and ‘5-12 birds’;

numerals are used for all numbers above ten, four-figure numbers and above using the comma thus:

‘1,234’, ‘12,345’. Details of experimental technique, extensive tabulations of results, etc., are best

presented as appendices. Authors of papers containing statistical analysis should observe the

provisions of the relevant section of ‘Notice to contributors’ in a recent Ibis. Dates should be written

1 January 1985, times of day as 08h30, 17h55 (24-hour clock), etc. When citing a conversation

(‘verbally’) or letter (‘in litt.’), the contact’s name and initials should be included, preferably with the

year of communication. A full-length paper must include a summary not exceeding 5% of the total

length.

Any figure, diagram, fine-drawing or map should preferably be in black ink on strong white or

translucent paper; it should be called a Figure, numbered appropriately, and fully captioned. Maps

88

Forktail 1

must be marked with a scale and north arrow. Lettering on figures should be very neat, although the

publishers will re-draw figures and typeset lettering. Good photographs are also considered.

Captions for figures and photographs should be typed on a separate sheet.

Authors of papers are encouraged to offer their work to one or more ornithologist or biologist for

critical assessment prior to submission to Forktail. Such help as is received should naturally be

mentioned in an acknowledgement section before the full references are presented.

References in the text should follow the form ‘(Campbell and Lack 1985)’ and ‘King et al. (1975)

suggest . . .’. More than one within the same parentheses should be chronologically listed,

alphabetically if of the same year. Papers by the same authors in the same year may be distinguished

by ‘a’, ‘b’, etc., after the date. Full references must be listed alphabetically at the end in the form:

Campbell, B. and Lack, E. eds. (1985) ^4 dictionary of birds. Calton (Staffordshire, U.K.): T. and

A. D. Poyser.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East

Asia. London: Collins.

Somadikarta, S. (1986) Collocalia linchi Horsfield & Moore-a revision. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 106:

32-40.

White, C. M. N. and Bruce, M. D. (1986) The birds of Wallacea (Sulawesi, the Moluccas and Lesser

Sunda Islands, Indonesia): an annotated check-list. London: British Ornithologists’ Union

(Check-list no. 7).

The author’s name and postal address should appear at the end of the article.

Authors will receive proofs for checking which they are required to return within one week of

receipt (no more than four weeks can be allowed between posting out and taking return of proofs).

All joint communications must indicate the name and full postal address of the author to whom

proofs should be sent. Textual changes in proof cannot normally be countenanced. Ten reprints of

full-length articles, and five of short communications, will be made available irrespective of number

of authors, and sent to the senior author.

rvrwn-w

EMBER 1986 ISSN 0950-1746

OBC Council

Sally Allport

Mark Cocker (Bulletin Editor)

Jon Eames

Paul Goriup

Richard Grimmett (Chairman)

Carol Inskipp (Secretary)

Tim Inskipp

Paul Jepson (Sales Officer)

Rod Martins (Membership Secretary)

Nigel Redman (Treasurer)

Craig Robson (Information Officer)

Helen Taylor (Publicity Officer)

Editorial Committee

Mark Cocker, N. J. Collar (Editor), Richard Grimmett, Tim Inskipp, Rod Martins,

Nigel Redman.

OBC Representatives

Murray Bruce (Australia), K. Z. Hussain (Bangladesh), Tan Yao Kuang (China),

David Melville (Hong Kong), S. A. Hussain (India), Derek Holmes (Indonesia), Chris

Murphy (Ireland), Mark Brazil (Japan), Frank Lambert and David Wells (Malaysia),

Arnoud van den Berg (Netherlands), Terje Axelsen (Norway), Edgar Buensuceso

(Philippines), Chris Hails (Singapore), Sareth Kotegama (Sri Lanka), Per Alstrom

(Sweden), Philip Round (Thailand), Robert Kennedy (USA).

The Oriental Bird Club has been established for ornithologists throughout the

world, both amateur and professional, who share a common interest in the

region’s birds and wish to assist in their conservation.

The Club aims to:

• Encourage an interest in the birds of the Oriental Region and their conservation

• Liaise with, and promote the work of, existing regional societies

• Collate and publish material on Oriental birds

Membership

Member (individual): £6 p.a.

Reduced rate member: £5 p.a.

For residents in the Orient belonging to other Oriental ornithological or natural history societies

Corporate Member: £12 p.a.

Libraries and institutions

For further information please write to:

The Oriental Bird Club

c/o The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, U.K.

Cover: Swallow with features of a White-eyed River-Martin (sec Dickinson, within). Photo: Didi Brandt.

FORKTAIL

Number 2, December 1986

CONTENTS

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY.

On the bird migration at Beidaihe, Hebei province, China, during spring 1985 . . 3

P. R. HOLMES. The avifauna of the Suru River Valley, Ladakh . 21

]. BOSWALL. Notes on the current status of ornithology in the People’s Republic

of China . 43

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON. The rediscovery of Gurney’s Pitta

Pitta gumeyi . 53

C. R. ROBSON. Recent observations of birds in Xizang and Qinghai provinces,

China . 67

P. HAUGE, J. TERBORGH, B. WINTER and J. PARKINSON. Conservation

priorities in the Philippine Archipelago . 83

Short communications

R. G. BIJLSMA and F. E. DE RODER. Notes on Nordmann’s Greenshank

Tringa guttifer in Thailand . 92

E. C. DICKINSON. Does the White-eyed River-Martin Pseudochelidon sirintarae

breed in China? . 95

M. A. R. KHAN. The threatened White-winged Wood Duck Cairina scutulata

in Bangladesh . 97

J. SERIOT, O. PINEAU, R. DE SCHATZEN and Ph. J. DUBOIS. Black-tailed

Crake Porzana bicolor : a new species for Thailand . 101

F. A. CLEMENTS and N. J. BRADBEAR. Status of wintering Black-necked

Cranes Grus nigricollis in Bhutan . 103

Guidelines for contributors . 109

ISSN 0950-1746

Published for the Oriental Bird Club by

O

Pisces

PUBLICATIONS

Brasenose Farm, Eastern By-pass, Oxford, England.

Typeset by Dentset, Oxford, England.

Printed by Information Printing, Oxford, England.

2

Forktail 2

Production of this second issue of Forktail has proceeded as rapidly as

possible in order to bring it to 1986 Oriental Bird Club members before the

year is out. Regrettably the pressure of time means that the circulation of

texts amongst the Editorial Committee has been incomplete. The editor

always takes final responsibility, but should there be any complaint over this

issue the Editorial Committee can in no way be held to account. On the other

hand, I have to thank R. F. Grimmett and T. P. Inskipp who, through their

proximity at work, have kindly reviewed most of the papers in this issue at

short notice and high speed. Tim Inskipp’s help has been of particular

importance: the combination of his voluminous knowledge and meticulous

attention to detail has been vital to the entire editorial process. I must also

thank T. H. Johnson and T. M. Reed for acting as referees of certain

contributions, and P. Creed and D. Steel of Pisces Publications for their

painstaking commitment to Forktail over the past six months.

It will be observed that the paper on Philippine conservation priorities is

not strictly ornithological. However, birds form a component of the analysis,

and the interest and value of this analysis appear very obvious; early

publication such as Forktail could provide was therefore considered entirely

justified. We expect to continue to carry a proportion of such important,

more general papers. In this particular case, the Oriental Bird Club was

requested by the authors to waive copyright, so that the paper can be

reproduced in journals in the Philippines without delay. We have willingly

complied, but hope that those who subsequently publish it will at least be

ready to indicate that it first appeared in Forktail.

Finally as we go to press, two of ornithology’s most distinguished leaders,

Salim Ali and Zheng Zuoxin, prepare to turn 90 and 80 respectively. The

Oriental Bird Club most respectfully salutes them.

22 October 1986

N. J.C.

FORKTAIL 2 (1986): 3-20

On the bird migration at Beidaihe,

Hebei province, China, during spring 1985

MARTIN D. WILLIAMS, DAVID N. BAKEWELL,

GEOFFREY J. CAREY and STEPHEN J. HOLLOWAY

We wish to dedicate this paper to the memory of the late Axel Hemmingsen.

A survey of the bird migration at Beidaihe, Hebei province, China, was conducted during

spring 1985. Changes in habitats since 1945, when bird migration was last studied at the

town, are briefly described. Short-term effects of weather on migration are noted. Records

which may be considered to be of interest are summarised, or given in full, for 18 species.

These include totals of 244 Red-crowned Cranes Grus japonensis, 309 Hooded Cranes G.

monacha, 652 Siberian Cranes G. leucogeranus and 132 Great Bustards Otis tarda and two

sightings of a swift which may be of a species new to science.

A Danish scientist, Axel Hemmingsen, studied birds at Beidaihe from

1942 to 1945. The two papers which are based on his studies (Hemmingsen

1951, Hemmingsen and Guildal 1968) present a wealth of information on the

birds in the area. The first of these (Hemmingsen 1951) is of a general nature

and discusses topics such as the habitats at Beidaihe, the effects of weather on

bird migration and factors affecting the timing of the migrations of birds.

The second paper (Hemmingsen and Guildal 1968) gives accounts of the

occurrence of each of the species which Hemmingsen recorded in Hebei

province, particularly at Beidaihe. There are also notes on the identification

of many of the species he recorded. Together, the two papers form a superb

reference work which is, perhaps, yet to receive the attention it deserves.

In spring 1985 the eight-member Cambridge Ornithological Expedition to

China 1985 surveyed bird migration at Beidaihe from 15 March to 1 June.

The survey was primarily intended to produce data which could be of value

in present and future assessments of population changes.

This paper is, in large part, an attempt to update the material in the papers

by Hemmingsen and by Hemmingsen and Guildal, so repetition of their

information has largely been avoided. A full account of the expedition is now

available (Williams 1986).

In this paper, the Chinese names for localities at Beidaihe are, as in the

papers by Hemmingsen (1951) and Hemmingsen and Guildal (1968), in the

form given by the Wade-Giles system for romanisation of Chinese characters.

Beidaihe, however, is the form of the town name given by the recently

introduced pinyin system (it was written Peitaiho by Hemmingsen).

BEIDAIHE AS A LOCALITY FOR A MIGRATION SURVEY

Beidaihe (strictly Beidaihe Haibin - North Dai River Beach) is a seaside

4

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

resort, lying approximately 280km to the east of Beijing (Peking). The town

is on the northern part of a plain which occupies much of Hebei province.

Approximately 15 km inland of Beidaihe is the south-eastern extent of a

mountain range, the southern flank of which extends westwards for over

300 km. The eastern flank of the range runs roughly parallel to the coast and

bounds a northward extension of the plain (see Figure 1); the resultant

coastal strip runs approximately north-east -south-west and acts as a ‘funnel’

for many of the birds whose migration routes are believed to cross in the area

(Tugarinov 1931, Zheng 1976). This, together with the wide variety of

habitats in the environs of the town, makes Beidaihe an excellent place for

studying migration. (Additionally, the small hills at Beidaihe contrast with

the flat land around, and especially to the south of, the town and probably act

as good landmarks for migrating birds.)

Previous studies - by La Touche (1920, 1921) at nearby Qinhuangdao from

1910 to 1917 and by Axel Hemmingsen (Hemmingsen 1951, Hemmingsen and

Guildal 1968) at Beidaihe from 1942 to 1945 - together with occasional

observations by Wilder and Hubbard between 1894 and 1940 (Wilder 1924,

1940, Wilder and Hubbard 1924) have yielded a considerable amount of

information on bird migration in the area and have shown that certain rare

species (notably the Oriental White Stork Ciconia ( cicoma ) boyciana and the

Shanhaiguan

Qinhuangdao.*''

] / Beidaihe

Beijing

Tianjin

Shandong

MILES 50

w*™. Great Wall

Mountainous areas

Figure 1. Map of Hebei Province

(after Wilder and Hubbard 1924).

114"30' 115 30 116*30' ^li7*30' / 118'30 ll19 30J

NGimongOl (Inner Mongolia) ‘ '

Liaoning

1986

Migration in eastern China

5

Siberian Crane Grus leucogeranus ) passed through in large numbers. More

recent visits - by A. Galsworthy (in litt.), W. W. Thomas (in lilt.) and

J. Boswall (1983)- between 1976 and 1983 indicated that development had not

drastically affected the habitats and good numbers of migrants were still to be

found. It appears that there has been little work on bird migration in China

since Hemmingsen’s study, Chinese ornithologists having, until recently,

tended to study landbirds at their breeding and wintering grounds; some

attention is now being paid to migration studies (Wei-shu Hsu verbally,

Chang Fuyuen verbally, Zhang et. al. 1985, Mao 1985). Hence, prior to

spring 1985, Hemmingsen’s study provided the most recent information on

the numbers of those species (other than raptors: Zhang et. al. 1985) which

pass through the area.

HABITATS AND LOCALITIES: DIFFERENCES SINCE

HEMMINGSEN

The considerable expansion of Beidaihe since the time of Hemmingsen

seemed to have had little detrimental impact on the range and types of

habitats available. However, the Heng-Ho mudflats (the ‘Sandflats’ of

Hemmingsen, described by him as the area ‘par exellence’ for waders) held

disappointingly few birds - perhaps because the damming of the Heng-Ho

had reduced the supply of nutrients and the area was more prone to

disturbance than before; and the ‘Grassy Sands’ of Hemmingsen (formerly

used as a resting area by birds such as storks, cranes and Great Bustards Otis

tarda ) had been planted with trees. Moreover, development was continuing

apace (for example, an area of open fields in mid-March had become a small

housing estate by the end of May) and may well lead to the damage or

destruction of certain areas; the Tai-Ho (Daihe) estuary, Tai-Ho pool and

Yang-Ho estuary appeared to be particularly at risk.

A reservoir, which we named the Heng-Ho reservoir, had been created since

Hemmingsen’s study. This is a narrow reservoir (c. lkm long) formed

by the damming of the Heng-Ho just upstream of the mudflats. During late

May good numbers of herons, crakes, and Acrocephalus and Locustella

warblers occurred in the dense vegetation on the margins of the reservoir and

in adjacent, disused paddyfields.

The following three localities were rarely, or never, visited by

Hemmingsen.

The Tai-Ho estuary attracted waders such as Whimbrels Numenius

phaeopus, Rufous-necked Stints Calidris ruficollis and Terek Sandpipers

Xenus cinereus, usually in lower numbers than occurred at the larger and less

disturbed Yang-Ho estuary.

The Tai-Ho pool was partially tidal, and connected to the Tai-Ho by a

narrow channel. Considering its size (< 70m across at its widest point), this

was an excellent area for waders, including several, largely freshwater species

6

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

such as Wood Sandpipers Tnnga glareola, Marsh Sandpipers T. stagnatilis ,

Black-winged Stilts Himantopus himantopus and Long-toed Stints Calidris

subminuta.

The Yang-Ho estuary lay approximately 4 km to the south-west of Beidaihe

and attracted the largest numbers of waders (e.g. up to 78 Grey Plovers

Pluvialis squatarola, 54 Eastern Curlews Numenius madagascariensis and 154

Whimbrels).

The Lotus Hills, which are at the western edge of Beidaihe, were found to

be an excellent vantage point for recording diurnal migration (it appears that

Hemmingsen made only a few casual observations of passing migrants from

this locality, despite his notes on grounded migrants there).

The positions of the main localities at which we recorded migrants are

indicated in Figure 2.

METHODS

Observation (using binoculars and telescopes) provided the means of data

Figure 2. Sketch map of the area surveyed by the Cambridge Ornithological Expedition to China 1985

(after Hemmingsen 1951).

1986

Migration in eastern China

7

collection. The most useful sources of information on the identification of the

species recorded were Sonobe (1982) and Meyer de Schauensee (1984) (we

did not have Etchecopar and Hue 1978-1983). The survey techniques may

be broadly categorised into those used to record passing (i.e. overflying)

migrants and those used to record migrants present (i.e. grounded) in the

area.

Methods used to record passing migrants

The great majority of passing migrants noted during the survey were

recorded during periods of prolonged observation from suitable vantage

points. The main migration watchpoint was the top of one of the Lotus Hills:

a total of 453 hours (not man-hours) observation was made from this locality.

Observers counting waders at the Yang-Ho estuary frequently noted passing

birds such as raptors and waders: comparison of flock sizes and times of

passage of species seen from more than one locality allowed the

discrimination of individuals which had been recorded from two or more

places and hence prevented erroneously high counts being entered in the

daily log.

Initially, counts from the Lotus Hills were made daily (weather

permitting) and, at minimum, covered the periods from 08h00 to 15h30 (the

majority of the cranes passed at around 12h00- 15h00). From mid-April

these counts were found to produce little information considered pertinent to

population dynamics and the duration of the minimum daily coverage was

accordingly shortened, observations typically beginning by 07h00 and, if few

birds were noted, ending by 14h00, until the daily observations were

curtailed on 20 May. The majority of the birds were located by scanning the

horizon with binoculars, attention concentrating on the region south-west of

Beidaihe since this proved to be the most productive sector for initial

detection of passing birds.

Temple Beach was the main locality from which offshore movements were

recorded.

Methods used to record migrants present in the area

Daily counts of migrants present at areas representing the various habitats in

and around Beidaihe were made. Particular attention was paid to recording

waders at the Yang-Ho estuary and the Tai-Ho pool, since the resultant data

would be of value to Interwader (a project concerned with the migrations and

wintering areas of waders in South-East Asia).

Variation in the degree of daily coverage

At least three factors influenced the degree of daily coverage.

Number of observers. Four observers were present from 15 March to 8

April. Five to seven observers were present from 9 April to 23 May. There

were four observers on 24 and 25 May and three observers from 26 May to 1

June.

8

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

Discovery of ‘new’ areas. Initial recording areas were largely selected on the

basis of information given in Hemmingsen (1951). As the survey progressed

we discovered several localities which attracted good numbers of migrants -

most notably Tai-Ho Pool and the Yang-Ho estuary. These were included

among the recording areas. Hence, even disregarding changes in the number

of observers, the coverage of the area tended to improve as the survey

progressed.

Variation in weather and numbers of birds grounded or passing. The weather

was rather rarely solely responsible for affecting the degree of coverage of the

area: counts from the Lotus Hills were sometimes precluded or curtailed by

fog, rain or excessively strong winds, and similar weather reduced or

prevented observations of grounded birds. The extent and nature of coverage

was also influenced by the numbers of birds grounded or passing: on days

when visible migration was very evident we concentrated on counting birds

from observation points such as the Lotus Hills watchpoint; similarly on

days when there were influxes of migrants we concentrated on counting birds

at the various recording areas.

Time-independent factors affecting comparability of results between studies

At least four factors, excluding changes in habitats and numbers of birds

occurring, led to the expedition’s results differing from those of

Hemmingsen.

Number of observers. Hemmingsen worked mainly alone (he notes a few

records by other observers).

Optical equipment. Hemmingsen first used ‘not too good field glasses’.

From June 1943 he used his 18x and 8x binoculars. Each expedition

member had binoculars and a telescope.

Watchpoint used for, and degree of concentration on, passing bird counts.

Hemmingsen made most of his observations in the eastern part of Beidaihe:

we found that many of the birds following the coastal plain northwards

passed to the west of the town, and hence relatively few would have been

readily visible from eastern Beidaihe. He appears to have relied heavily on

hearing calls in order to detect passing birds such as geese and cranes (though

to minimise the numbers missed he paid his servant or his servant’s children

for each flock which they pointed out) and to have made only rather casual

observations of passing (overflying) migrants from early April onwards.

Hence, even during periods in which Hemmingsen made a special effort to

record passing migrants, it is extremely likely that the proportion of the

passing birds he recorded will have been significantly lower than the

proportion recorded by the expedition.

Localities visited. Hemmingsen made most of his observations in the

eastern part of Beidaihe (particularly at Lighthouse Point, Eagle Rock and

the Sand Flats). He mentions visits to other localities such as the Lotus Hills

but makes no reference to birds in the Tai-Ho/Yang-Ho area. The greater

range of habitats covered during the survey led to several species which

1986

Migration in eastern China

9

Hemmingsen rarely or never recorded in spring being recorded in some

numbers: examples are Goldcrests Regulus regulus, Eurasian Siskins Carduelis

spinus and Chestnut Buntings Emberiza rutila (mainly noted in the West

Hill/Lotus Hills area) and Long-toed Stints, Marsh Sandpipers and Wood

Sandpipers (most were recorded at Tai-Ho Pool).

RESULTS

A total of 284 species was recorded. The results suggest that the abundances

and passage periods of most birds have altered little since Hemmingsen’s

time (certain of the species for which population changes are indicated are

given below).

The timing of migration

We arrived at Beidaihe on 15 March, by which date the sea-ice had largely

melted (ice was strewn along the tideline and over the mudflats). Winter

visitors such as Siberian Accentors Prunella montanella and Rustic Buntings

Emberiza rustica were departing (other winter visitors recorded by

Hemmingsen, such as Pine Buntings E. leucocephalos and Lapland Buntings

(Lapland Longspurs) Calcarius lapponicus, had presumably already gone), the

migrations of Bean Gees zAnserfabalis and Daurian Jackdaws Corvus dauuncus

were well underway and the passage periods of Hoopoes Upupa epops, Daurian

Redstarts Phoenicurus auroreus and Yellow-throated Buntings Emberiza

elegans were beginning. During the period to 3 April, 2,607 Bean Geese and

over 7,000 cranes of four species passed north, Common Goldeneye

Bucephala clangula numbers peaked and declined, the first rush of dabbling

ducks on 23 March closely followed the opening of ice-bound areas (thus

according with Hemmingsen’s observations), and there was a general

increase in the numbers of species recorded each day as birds such as Grey

Herons Ardea cinerea, Black Kites Milvus migrans , Kentish Plovers

Charadrius alexandrinus , White Wagtails Motacilla alba , Orange-flanked

Bush-Robins Erithacus (Tarsiger) cyanurus and Lemon-rumped (Pallas’s

Leaf) Warblers Phylloscopus proregulus appeared. Flocks of Bohemian

Waxwings Bombycilla garrulus and Pallas’s Reed Buntings Emberiza pallasi

lingered throughout much of April and, in the second week of the month,

there was the first wave of grounded migrants. The tide became higher than in

mid-March - presumably because of the retreat of the continental

anticyclone which lies over northern China in winter - and the resultant

deposition of silt at the Tai-Ho pool, in particular, led to there being rich

feeding areas for the waders which began to arrive in numbers from the middle

of April.

The overall migration peaked around the middle of April/early May, when

Pied Harriers Circus melanoleucos , Little Curlews Numemus minutus, Oriental

Pratincoles Glareola maldivarum, Olive Tree (Olive-backed) Pipits Anthus

10

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

hodgsoni, Stonechats Saxicola torquata, Inornate (Yellow-browed) Warblers

Phylloscopus inomatus and Little Buntings Emberiza pusilla were among the

common migrants. By mid-May, the numbers of migrating birds had

declined, though the numbers of some birds - notably Curlew Sandpipers

Calidns ferruginea, Brown Shrikes Lanius cristatus, Siberian Blue Robins

Erithacus cyane, Asian Brown Flycatchers Muscicapa latirostris, Chestnut-

flanked White-eyes Zosterops erythropleura and Chestnut Buntings - were at,

or approaching, their peaks. Schrenck’s Bitterns Ixobrychus eurhylhmus,

Baillon’s Crakes Porzana pusilla, Pallas’s Warblers Locustella certhiola and

Thick-billed Warblers Phragmaiicola ( Acrocephalus ) aedon were among the

freshwater marsh species which passed in the latter half of May - their late

migrations presumably timed to coincide with the fresh growth of emergent

vegetation.

Very little passage was evident at the end of May, when the most notable

observation was of two Streaked Reed-Warblers Acrocephalus sorgophilus at

the reservoir on 31 May (the species is known to breed in only one or two

provinces in China: Meyer de Schauensee 1984).

The routes used by migrants observed passing Beidaihe

The majority of the passing cormorants, herons, storks, geese, raptors,

cranes, Great Bustards, waders, swifts and hirundines were observed to

follow the coastal plain northwards. These birds appeared to show little

preference for the exact routes followed within the ‘corridor’ bounded by the

coastline and mountain flanks - hence many birds (> 70%) passed to the

west of the Lotus Hills and relatively few overflew the town.

On several occasions crane flocks were observed passing at distances which

precluded any plumage features being discerned, even with good visibility

and the use of telescopes (the flocks were probably over 6 km from the Lotus

Hills).

Birds were also observed to arrive from the sea and either head inland (a

re-orientation towards the north was sometimes evident) or make landfall.

Such arrivals/passages usually coincided with weather conditions which

hindered migration (e.g. strong winds, drizzle and rain) and presumably

involved birds which had been heading north over the Bay of Bohai before

encountering adverse weather. Passerines predominated among the birds

seen to arrive in this manner; there were also small numbers of herons,

raptors (many raptors pass over the Bay of Bohai in autumn: Zhang et. al.

1985), owls and hirundines.

Offshore movements, involving ducks and, on one occasion, waders

passing east along the south coast of Beidaihe, were sometimes recorded.

These movements were associated with inclement weather (low cloud and

mist) and may have involved birds which were following the coast in order to

avoid becoming disoriented.

Figure 3 indicates the routes which migrants passing Beidaihe were

observed to use.

1986

Migration in eastern China

11

Correlations between weather and migration

A strong correlation between the weather and the number of passing cranes is

apparent in the data, large numbers of these birds being associated with the

pressure starting to decrease as high pressure systems moved away to the east

of Beidaihe (this correlation is also evident in Hemmingsen’s data:

Hemmingsen 1951). The weather-dependence of the numbers of passing

geese seems to be similar (only one wave of goose migration was

recorded - this coincided with large movements of cranes - Hemmingsen

noted a similar association). For movements of other migrants, a

combination of factors seems to have been involved (including rain and,

probably, the weather elsewhere), though they are again associated with

decreasing pressure. The results are thus in broad agreement with studies of

the short-term effects of weather on spring bird migration on the east coast of

the U.S.A. (Nisbet and Drury 1968) and on the coast of Jiangsu Province

(Mao 1985).

We found, as had Hemmingsen (1951), that influxes (as opposed to

movements) of migrants were associated with low pressure. This accords

with the finding that spring bird migration on the east coast of the U.S.A. is

inhibited when the pressure is low (Nisbet and Drury 1968).

Species of interest

Our records of the following species may be considered to be particularly

Figure 3. The routes used by migrants observed passing Beidaihe: (a) followed by the majority of the

cormorants, herons, storks, geese, raptors, cranes, Great Bustards, waders, swifts and hirundines;

(b) followed by ducks and waders which passed offshore; (c) followed by migrants (predominantly

passerines) which arrived from over the sea (observations suggested that these birds tended to orient

towards, and pass over or near, the Lotus Hills).

12

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

noteworthy. Summaries of the spring records of La Touche and

Hemmingsen, augmented where appropriate by records of other observers

and by autumn records of La Touche and Hemmingsen, are given for those

species which have previously been recorded in the Beidaihe/Qinhuangdao

district.

Abbreviations used are as follows: H - Hemmingsen and Guidal (1968);

LT - La Touche (1920, 1921); WH - Wilder and Hubbard (1924); Wa -

Wilder (1924); Wb - Wilder (1940).

ORIENTAL WHITE STORK Ciconia ( cicoma ) boyciana LT - no spring

records. Wb - a flock of 50 flew north on 18 March 1940 and was followed by

a single bird four days later. H - only two spring records (six on 6 March 1940

and nine on 12 March 1943) in marked contrast to the large flocks noted in

autumn (Hemmingsen recorded over 1,000 birds in three of the four

autumns which he spent at Beidaihe: Hemmingsen 1951). The species has

suffered a severe decline in recent years (Archibald and Luthin 1985) and is

listed as Endangered in the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978-1979).

A total of 12 flew north, the records being as follows: four on 18 March,

four on 28 March, one on 29 March, two on 16 April and a late individual on

17 May.

Evidently a scarce spring migrant at Beidaihe, with passage predominantly

occurring from early March to the end of the month.

BAIKAL TEAL Anas formosa LT - extremely abundant on passage. WH -

erratic spring migrant in Hebei. Wb - large flocks 16 - 25 March 1940. H -

dense flocks (once probably 1,000 - 2,000) spring 1944; otherwise one in

May 1945 and no records 1943.

Despite the erratic nature of the species’s occurrence in spring, it seems

surprising that the intensive coverage at Beidaihe during spring 1985

produced only one record (five on 20 March).

STELLER’S EIDER Polysticta stellen A male flew north on 16 April. This

may be only the second record for China, the species having previously

occurred in Heilongjiang (Meyer de Schauensee 1984).

EIDER Somateria Four females on 5 April were either Common Eiders A.

mollissima or King Eiders S. spectabilis. Neither species is listed by Meyer de

Schauensee (1984); both winter on the Kamchatka Peninsula (Cramp and

Simmons 1977).

MANDARIN DUCK Aix galenculata LT - one record. H - 24 birds

recorded in spring. We recommend this as a candidate species for the third

edition of the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book.

Approximately 22 - 23 Mandarin Ducks were recorded from 9 April to 3

May. Fourteen flew north on 9 April (a large passage of ducks and waders

occurred on this date); otherwise birds were noted at small pools or the

reservoir, with records as follows: a pair on 10 April, a male on 18 and 19

April, a female on 22 April, probably remaining until 3 May, and two pairs

1986

Migration in eastern China

13

on 28 April.

WHITE- TAILED EAGLE Haliaeetus albicilla LT - common spring and

autumn migrant at Qinhuangdao. H - no spring records. Listed as

Vulnerable in the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978 - 1979).

The only record, despite the relatively intensive coverage, was an

immature which flew north on 31 March.

MOUNTAIN HAWK-EAGLE Spizaetus nipalensis LT and H - no records.

Those breeding in Heilongjiang and, presumably, adjacent U.S.S.R. winter

in Taiwan (Meyer de Schauensee 1984).

A total of 85 was recorded from 27 April to 25 May. All birds passed north.

It is surprising that the species has not previously been recorded in the

Beidaihe/Qinhuangdao district.

COMMON CRANE Grus grus LT - ‘immense flocks pass over during March

and early in April’. H - main passage in March; spring totals of 1,028 (1943),

426 (1944) and 2,796 (1945).

A total of 4,409 passed north from 15 March to 7 May. The majority

(4,321) passed from 21 March to 5 April, with the highest day total being

1,424 on 31 March (see below under ‘Cranes’).

RED-CROWNED CRANE Grus japonensis H - noted from 12 - 25 March,

with a total of 90 (additionally, 125 probable Red-crowned Cranes seen by

another observer) recorded in three springs (at the time, Hemmingsen’s

Beidaihe records constituted the only field observations for north China).

Listed as Vulnerable in the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978 - 1979).

A total of 244 - almost half of those known to winter in China (G. W.

Archibald in litt.) - was recorded flying north from 15-31 March. The

highest day total was 128 on 21 March; 50 on 22nd and 21 on 23 March were

other notable day totals. Since the species is an early migrant (13 were

recorded on our first day at Beidaihe) it is possible that some passed prior to

our arrival at Beidaihe.

HOODED CRANE Grus monacha WH - three cranes with white necks on

21 April 1923 seem likely to have been this species. H - 10, plus 50 - 100

probable, in 1943 were the only spring records. Listed as Vulnerable in the

ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978 - 1979).

This is the latest of the migrant cranes, with 309 birds recorded from 25

March to 20 April (representing a majority of the known Chinese wintering

population: G. W. Archibald in litt.). Two hundred and fifty-seven flew

north on 2 April.

SIBERIAN CRANE Grus leucogeranus LT - great numbers March, April.

WH - large flocks of from 50 to 300 were flying north-east on 6 April 1916.

Despite later doubt (Wilder 1924) these were surely Siberian Cranes (Wilder

described them as ‘great white birds with black tipped wings and necks

straight out in the characteristic crane fashion . . . too high in the haze for

certain identification’. The description does not fit the Red-crowned Crane,

14

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

which has mainly white wings, and it seems very unlikely that Wilder would

have mistaken flocks of storks, which do not fly in V-formation or soar in a

coordinated manner, for flocks of cranes). H - possible on 17 March 1943,

none spring 1944 and 628 - 728 spring 1945. Listed as Endangered in the

ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978 - 1979).

Between 20 March and 1 April, 652 birds - approximately 44% of the

known Chinese wintering population (Archibald 1985) - flew north, with all

except 12 passing from 20 - 26 March.

The records of La Touche, Wilder and Hemmingsen suggest that the

species declined from 1917 to 1942. A further, less marked decline is

suggested by the total we recorded (as indicated above, we believe that the

proportion of passing birds recorded during the 1985 study exceeded the

proportion which was recorded by Hemmingsen).

The inferred decline over the course of this century accords with the

change in known status and distribution of wintering birds in China - from

common in the lower valley of the Chang Jiang (Yangtze Kiang) River (Styan

1891) to 1,482 birds (in winter 1984 - 1985: Archibald 1985) restricted to

Lake Poyang, Jiangxi province.

CRANES Grus Approximately 1,785 unidentified cranes were recorded from

22 March to 2 April; two late birds passed north on 20 April. It is probable

that the overwhelming majority of these birds were Common Cranes (which,

in addition to being the most abundant of the cranes, appears featureless at a

distance). Hence the total number of Common Cranes observed passing

north probably exceeded 6,000.

GREAT BUSTARD Otis tarda LT - passes from early March to the

beginning of May. H - largest flying flock of 60 birds; a flock of 210 was

present on 12 April 1944.

A total of 132 flew north from 17 March to 23 April; the largest flying flock

numbered 15 birds. There were two slight peaks of passage around the

beginning and middle of April. This strongly suggests a sharp decline in the

species since the time of Hemmingsen (who did not give spring or autumn

passage totals).

ASIAN DOWITCHER Limnodromus semipalmatus LT and H - no records.

WH - one 30 July 1923; they cite seven specimens taken at Tientsin

(c. 200 km south of Beidaihe) end of April - May. Listed as Rare in the

ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978 - 1979).

We had only three records of this species: two at the Yang-Ho estuary on

18 April and a single flew north on 28 April.

EASTERN CURLEW Numenius madagascariensis LT - passes 12 April to 3

May. WH — recorded 1 1 April 1916 and 21 April 1923. H — no spring records

but as common as the Eurasian Curlew N. arquata in autumn.

Recorded from 26 March to 16 May, with a total of 661 bird-days

(compared to 280 bird-days for the Eurasian Curlew). Most birds occurred at

the Yang-Ho estuary, with numbers reaching a peak of 54 on 19 April and

1986

Migration in eastern China

15

declining gradually thereafter.

Given that the world population of the species is estimated to be c. 12,000

(Parish 1985), and that the estuaries at Beidaihe are too small to hold major

concentrations of waders, it appears that a good proportion of the world

population migrates through the Beidaihe area.

SAUNDERS’S GULL Larus saundersi LT, WH and H - no records. A little

known species (the breeding grounds have yet to be discovered) which

favours estuarine areas in winter when it is regularly recorded from Hong

Kong and Japan (B. F. King in litt. to J. Boswall); there are a few recent

records from the coast of China (Melville 1984).

A total of 23 bird-days was logged from 2 April to 22 May, with records as

follows: 2 April - two (one adult summer, one 1st winter); 16 and 17 April -

two (both 1st winter); 18 April - seven (two adult, three 2nd summer and

two 1st winter); 19 April - one (1st winter); 20 April - one (1st summer); 21

April - three (two adult winter and one 1st summer); 22 April - one (1st

summer); 27 April - one (1st winter); 1 May - one (1st summer); 7 May -one

(1st summer) and 22 May - one (1st summer).

A maximum of 19 and a minimum of 10 birds seem to have been involved;

the actual figure was probably 14 or 15. The main passage occurred during

the period 16-22 April.

SWIFT Apodidae On 26 April, after a day of above average migration, a

swift showing characteristics associated with the genus Collocalia was

watched by D.N.B., G.J.C. and M.D.W. over c.l7h00 - 17h30. It

approached the Lotus Hills watchpoint from the south and fed over the

north-facing slope before moving off northwards with numerous hirundines,

Common Swifts Apus apus and Pacific Swifts A. pacificus. This, or a second

bird, was seen on 29 April, again flying north, by G.J.C.

The following description was compiled from field notes taken on 26th.

Size slightly larger than House Martin Delichon urbica or similar to Chimney

Swift Chaeiura pelagica. Body: upperparts dark brown, except for pale

brown squarish rump patch; prominent dark-capped appearance; underbody

pale brown, throat possibly palest. Flight weak and fast-flapping, rather

reminiscent of Chimney Swift, but perhaps not as flickery and bat-like.

Wings short, broad-based and triangular but not quite as short and rounded

as Chimney Swift; held almost at rightangles to body and when gliding

appeared to be pressed slightly forward; uniform in colour - looked dark

brown above and below, contrasting with pale brown underbody. Tail short

and almost square, but at times appeared to have a slight notch.

This description agrees to some extent with the descriptions of Himalayan

Swiftlet Collocalia brevirostris, Black-nest Swiftlet C. maxima and Edible-nest

Swiftlet C. fuciphaga (King et. al. 1975). However, many Himalayan

Swiftlets were watched by D.N.B., G.J.C. and M.D.W. over 7-9 June at

the summit of Emei Shan, in central Sichuan province (the birds were

identified on range - the Himalayan Swiftlet is the only Collocalia to have

occurred on Emei Shan: Meyer de Schauensee 1984). The species showed

16

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

similarities to the bird(s) seen at Beidaihe (hereafter referred to as ‘Beidaihe

Swift’), but clearly differed from it on several counts (see below and Figure).

Size larger than Beidaihe Swift - though without a size comparison it is

difficult to say to what extent. Upperparts smoky grey with paler rump and a

less dark-capped appearance than Beidaihe Swift. Underbody pale grey-

brown, some birds having pale throats, others darker - the latter

characteristic leading to a less contrasing head pattern; underbody contrasted

less with underside of wings than did the underbody of Beidaihe Swift.

Flight less flickery, more like Common Swift. Wings slightly ‘spade-ended’,

i.e. trailing edge of primaries slightly convex but overall longer and narrower

than Beidaihe Swift; not uniform in colour - underwing-coverts clearly

1986

Migration in eastern China

17

darker than remiges, while on upperside a pale trailing edge to the

secondaries and, on over 70% of birds, pale edges to some inner primaries.

Tail longer than that of Beidaihe Swift and the fork a noticeable feature at all

times.

We have not seen Black-nest or Edible-nest Swiftlets. They are,

apparently, very difficult to distinguish in the field from Himalayan Swiftlet

(King et. al. 1975). Of the two species, only the Black-nest Swiftlet has been

recorded in China (breeding in south-eastern Xizang at the Bhutan border -

over 2,500km from Beidaihe: Meyer de Schauensee 1984); the nearest to

Beidaihe that the Edible-nest Swiftlet occurs is northern Viet Nam and the

Philippines (King et. al. 1975). Neither of these species is known to be a long

distance migrant. Hence, we do not believe that the bird (or birds - the

records may well involve two individuals) seen at Beidaihe was a Himalayan

Swiftlet and it is perhaps unlikely that it was a Black-nest or Edible-nest

Swiftlet. It must, therefore, be possible that it (or they) belonged to a

previously undescribed species.

PECHORA PIPIT Anthus gustavi LT - passes in May. H - no records.

Two on 10 May and a single on 11 May were the only definite passage

individuals. Six at disused paddyfields by the reservoir on 20 May were

probably the first sighting of up to four pairs which, from 29 May to 1 June

(our last day at Beidaihe), were holding territories (birds were observed in

song-flight and, on one occasion, a bird flew around an observer, calling

anxiously, when intrusion into a territory occurred). The nearest known

breeding grounds would seem to be well to the north of Beidaihe, at Lake

Khanka, south-eastern U.S.S.R. (J. Boswall verbally).

PENDULINE TIT Remiz pendulinus L.T - passes in spring, but not

common. H - three spring records (26 April, 6 and 10 May).

With just over 1,000 bird-days recorded from 28 April to 28 May, the

numbers were substantially higher than might have been expected from the

records of previous observers (Hemmingsen’s records, together with his

analysis of the literature, suggest that the species was rather uncommon in

Hebei). This may indicate that the range expansion currently being

undertaken by western populations (Anon. 1982, 1983, 1984) is also taking

place in the east. The main passage was over 6-11 May, with 274 birds being

recorded on the 8th and 276 on the 9th.

BRAMBLING Fringilla montifringilla We found, as had previous observers,

that the species was a common to abundant migrant; however a flock of

c. 33,700 in fields by the Tai-Ho on 4 April was exceptional.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We believe that bird migration has been studied more in the Beidaihe/

Qinhuangdao district than in any other area in China. For many species, the

18

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY Forktail 2

data yielded by the studies of La Touche and, particularly, of Hemmingsen

are among the most accurate information available on their previous

abundance in China. Hence there exists an excellent, and probably

unparalleled, opportunity for further studies of bird migration in the area to

be carried out and enable population changes over the course of the last 60

years to be inferred.

The results of the survey in spring 1985 are of some value in such

inferences of population changes. Given that, since Hemmingsen’s study,

China has suffered widespread environmental damage (Vermeer 1984) and

there was a campaign to eradicate the Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus

in China, which led to many passerines being killed (Boswall in prep, and

Forktail, this issue), it is heartening that our results generally indicated that

the populations of most of the species recorded seem to have changed little

(Williams 1986). Those species for which the difference in abundance noted

by Hemmingsen and by the expedition appear to reflect a change in

population are noted above under ‘Species of interest’.

Ideally, however, the migration studies will cover several years, since

year-to-year fluctuations in numbers which are due to factors such as

variations in the weather, rather than to population changes, may then be

assessed. It is likely that counts of passing birds will prove to be of most value

to population studies. Counts of this nature can provide useful information

on the populations of large diurnal migrants which regularly overfly a

recording area in relatively high numbers, since they are usually scattered

over breeding and wintering areas. The Bean Goose, the four species of crane

recorded during the survey and the Great Bustard are examples of such

migrants which pass Beidaihe in spring.

The studies should also help elucidate the effects of weather on migration.

Hemmingsen believed Beidaihe to be a particularly good locality for such

work, as successive air masses pass eastwards over the area at fairly regular

intervals and lead to the weather exhibiting a periodic nature. The waves of

migration which occur at Beidaihe (particularly the waves of cranes and

geese) show strong correlations with the nature and movements of these air

masses.

Additionally, the town has the potential to become a centre for promoting

birds and bird conservation since it is a popular resort within easy reach of

Beijing and many birds may be seen during spring and autumn.

A follow-up study will take place during autumn 1986. This will again

concentrate on recording diurnal migration. The British and Chinese

ornithologists who will co-operate in the venture will assess the possibilities

for establishing Beidaihe as a centre for the study of bird migration and for

the promotion of conservation.

Axel Hemmingsen’s excellent work on the birds at Beidaihe formed the basis for the

expedition. Without this, together with advice and encouragement from Roger Balsom,

Operations Manager of SCT-China, and Jeffery Boswall, the expedition would not have

1986

Migration in eastern China

19

taken place. We also wish to thank Dr Joseph Needham, and Dr Christopher Perrins and

Dr Derek Ratcliffe, who acted as Patron, and Scientific Advisers, respectively. The

encouragement of Dr George Archibald was timely, and boosted a somewhat battered

morale.

Ron Appleby, Roger Beecroft, Simon Stirrup and Andrew Webb joined the survey for

short periods. Their visits to Beidaihe, which lasted between three and four weeks, added

substantially to the coverage of the area (timed as they were to the peak of overall

migration).

Many thanks are owed to the following for their assistance to the expedition (through

donations, discounts on equipment/services etc.): The Ancient House Bookshop, The

British Ornithologists’ Union, The Cambridge Photographers, Chang Fuyuen, Charles

Frank Ltd., Darwin College (Cambridge), Norman Elkins, Ed Keeble, The Ernest

Kleinwort Charitable Trust, Fagus Anstruther Memorial Trust, The Fauna and Flora

Preservation Society, Field and Trek (Equipment) Ltd., Anthony Galsworthy, Gilchrist

Educational Trust, I.C.I. Plant Protection Ltd., Interwader, Jessop of Leicester Ltd., John

Swire Charitable Trust, Kodak Ltd., The Meteorological Office, Oxford University Press,

Pakistan International Airlines, The Percy Sladen Memorial Fund, The Royal

Geographical Society, Royal Insurance, St. Regis International, The Scientific Exploration

Society Ltd., SCT-China, Tan Yaokuang, Wei-shu Hsu, William Thomas Jr. and the West

Hill Hotel, Beidaihe.

REFERENCES

Anon. (1982) European news. Bnt. Birds 75: 573.

Anon. (1983) European news. Brit. Birds 76: 570.

Anon. (1984) European news. Brit. Birds 77: 242.

Archibald, G. W. (1985) The cranes at Poyang Lake. ICF Bugle 11(2): 1-3. Unpublished.

Archibald, K. and Luthin, C. S. (1985) Final report: Eastern White Stork ( Ciconia boyciana)

working group. International stork conservation symposium 14-17 October Walsrode, W.

Germany. Unpublished.

Bakewell, D. N., Carey, G. J. and Williams, M. D. (1986) Notes on a swift of undertermined

species. Pp. 111-113 in M. D. Williams ed. Report on the Cambridge Ornithological Expedition

to China 1985. Unpublished.

Boswall, J. (1983) Some observations on the birds of north-east China, April/May 1983. Copy

deposited in the Alexander Library, Oxford.

Boswall, J. (in prep.) Bird conservation in the People’s Republic of China.

Cramp, S. and Simmons, K. E. L., eds. (1977) The birds of the western Palearctic, 1. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Etchecopar, R. D. and Hue, F. (1978- 1983) Les oiseaux de Chine, de Mongolie el de Coree, 1-2.

Paris: Boubee.

Hemmingsen, A. M. (1951) Observations on birds in north eastern China, I. Spolia Zoologica

Musei Hauniensis 11: 1-227.

Hemmingsen, A. M. and Guildal, J. A. (1968) Observauons on birds in north eastern China, II.

Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis 28: 1-326.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East

Asia, London: Collins.

King, W. B. (1978-1979) Red data book, 2: Aves. Second ediuon, Morges, Switzerland:

Internauonal Union for Conservauon of Nature and Natural Resources.

La Touche, J. D. D. (1920) Notes on the birds of north-east Chihli (Hebei) in north China. Ibis

(11)2: 629-671, 880-920.

La Touche, J. D. D. (1921) Notes on the birds of north-east Chihli in north China. Ibis (11)3:

3-48.

Mao Ying (1985) Wader migradon in Haizhou Bay, eastern China. Interwader Newsletter 6:

10-11.

20

M. D. WILLIAMS, D. N. BAKEWELL, G. J. CAREY and S. J. HOLLOWAY ForktaiJ 2

Melville, D. S. (1984) Seabirds of China and the surrounding seas. Pp. 501-511 in J. P. Croxall,

P. G. H. Evans and R. W. Schreiber, eds. Status and conservation of the world’s seabirds.

Cambridge, U. K.: ICBP Techn. Publ. no. 2.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nisbet, I. C. T. and Drury Jr., W. H. (1968) Short term effects of weather on bird migration: a

field study using multivariate statistics. Animal Behaviour 16: 496-526.

Parish, D. (1985) Southeast Asia. World Birdwatch 7(3): 8-9.

Sonobe, K. (1982) A field guide to the birds of Japan. Tokyo: Wild Bird Society of Japan.

Styan, F. W. (1891) On the birds of the lower Yangtze basin-part II. Ibis (6)3: 481-510.

Tugarinov, A. J. (1931) Die Wanderungen der nordasiatischen Vogel. Vogelzug 2: 55-56.

Vermeer, E. B. (1984) Agriculture in China-a deteriorating situation. Ecologist 14(1): 6-13.

Wilder. G. D. (1924) Migration notes. China J. Sci. Arts 2: 61-63.

Wilder, G. D. (1940) Migration notes. China J. 32: 199-204.

Wilder, G. D. and Hubbard, H. W. (1924) List of the birds of Chihli province. J. North China

Branch Royal Asiatic Soc. 55: 156-239.

Williams, M. D., ed. (1986) Report on the Cambridge Ornithological Expedition to China 1985.

Unpublished.

Zhang, Y. S., Zhao, T. A. and Wang, S. J. (1985) Bird of prey migration in the Tangshan

district. Chinese J. Zool. 20(1): 17-21 (in Chinese).

Zheng, Z. (1976) A distributional list of Chinese birds. Beijing: Beijing Institute of Zoology. (In

Chinese).

Martin Williams, 398 Scalby Road, Scarborough, North Yorkshire.

David Bakewell, Cringle Cottage, Snow Street, Roydon, Diss, Norfolk.

Geoffrey Carey, 60 Sherborne Avenue, Ipswich, Suffolk.

Stephen Holloway, 4 Woolhams, Tupwood Lane, Caterham, Surrey.

FORKTAIL 2 (1986): 21-41

The avifauna of the

Suru River Valley, Ladakh

P. R. HOLMES

This paper presents a compilation of all bird records from the Suru Valley, Ladakh. The

list of 128 species is likely to be extended by further work. The avifauna is found to be

generally similar to that of the Upper Indus Valley around Tikse, approximately

100- 140km to the east, which has been intensively studied in recent years. Possible

migration routes of some species, in particular Inornate (Yellow-browed) Warbler

Phylloscopus inomatus, are discussed.

During the second half of the last century and the first part of this century, a

great deal of interest was expressed in the ornithology of Ladakh, in the

north-western Himalayas (Figure 1). This was largely because Ladakh was

Figure 1. Sketch map of Ladakh showing the main rivers and mountain ranges. The stippled area is the

dominant mountain range, the Karakoram.

22

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

the first part of the Tibetan Plateau to be opened to outsiders. Several bird

collecting expeditions were mounted. Most interest centred on the Indus

Valley, but a few parties also explored side valleys, including the Suru Valley

(Table 1). Several of the other Ladakh expeditions passed through Kargil in

the Suru Valley on the way to Leh on the Indus (Table 2). The list in Table 2

Table 1. Expeditions that have visited the Suru Valley

Table 2. Expeditions that have passed through Kargil or Kargil to the Wakka Nullah only.

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

23

is probably not complete. The two earliest works quoted (Henderson and

Hume 1873, Sharpe 1891) have not been examined; records of surviving

specimens will be in Vaurie (1972). Vaurie also lists specimens from

unpublished work, some of which (e.g. explorations by F. Ludlow) is likely

to have involved the Suru Valley.

The reports of these expeditions generally dealt with birds collected rather

than field observations. Vaurie (1972) describes in detail the ornithological

exploration of Ladakh and lists all records of birds collected that are now in

museum collections. However in many cases the specimens associated with

published records have been lost. Vaurie also includes some otherwise

unpublished records.

After the explorations of W. Koelz in the early 1930s interest in the region

waned, and no ornithologists published records for the Suru Valley until the

late 1970s when, after the opening of the road along the valley, several British

university expeditions went there (Table 1). The expeditions from Oxford

University were the first to adopt a widespread use of mist-nets in the Suru

Valley.

The Suru Valley is interesting for two main reasons; it has until recently

been little explored ornithologically, and its north -south orientation might

be expected to concentrate trans-Himalayan migrants.

This compilation of the birds of the Suru Valley has been prepared for

several reasons. It examines the numbers of trans-Himalayan migrants

observed in the Suru Valley. It is also intended as an aid to visiting

ornithologists; the opening of the road has already resulted in a large influx of

tourists in the summer months, which is likely to increase in the coming

years, so the area is now accessible to ornithologists. Finally it is intended as

a record of the avifauna before human pressure increases. A comparison is

made with the avifauna of the Tikse area in the nearby Indus Valley, which

has been intensively studied in recent years (Williams and Delaney 1985,

1986).

STUDY AREA

A map of the Suru River Valley is given in Figure 2. Detailed maps of the

area are difficult to obtain, although the area is covered by the U. S. Aerial

Survey (series U502, sheet NI 43-7, edition 2-AMS). The Suru River is

formed from the confluence of several streams in the Rangdum plain

(c.34°03'N 76°22'W) at 4,000m. It flows west for about 40km, and then

turns sharply north for about 70 km before joining the Dras River north of

Kargil (c.34°36'N 76°07'E) at 2,600m. The valley floor may be roughly

divided into four ecological areas (Williams and Delaney 1979). From Kargil

to Parkachik the valley is mostly utilised for agriculture. Between Parkachik

and Gulma Tongas the valley sides are much steeper, with the only

vegetation being occasional patches of willow scrub growing out of the scree.

24

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

From Gulma Tongas to Zuildo the valley opens out into a wide, marshy area,

which as one moves towards Rangdum and the source of the Suru, gives way

to a flat, stony desert. On both sides the valley is bordered by high peaks, the

highest being the Nun-Kun massif near Parkachik (7,135 m).

A major problem with compiling records for the Suru Valley is the

frequent alteration of the names of settlements, in part due to variation

in the romanisation of names. An example is present-day Parkachik,

which was called Parkachen by Koelz (1939) and on the aerial survey map

is split (perhaps correctly) into two villages called Parkaryan and Parkutse.

The village of Panikhar, visited by most ornithologists, has its place

taken on the map by a village called Suru, whereas the village known to

ornithologists as Suru (or Namsuru) is recorded as Nanshor. Vaurie (1972)

incorrectly makes Karpokhar (near Sanku) the same as Panikhar. Smaller

villages are not necessarily permanent, and some (e.g. Gulma Tongas) have

been abandoned. The names used on Figure 2 are not guaranteed as correct.

Most sites visited have been the major settlements - Kargil, Sanku,

Panikhar, Parkachik, Zuildo, etc. One site, studied by Holmes (1978) and

Holmes et al. (1983) was not in an inhabited area and is just referred to as

‘below Kun’ (see Figure 2). Many records for the eastern end of the valley

(Zuildo, Rangdum, Tazi Tonazas) have just been recorded as ‘Rangdum’;

Figure 2. The Suru River Valley.

Heights of the main study sites are

given in metres.

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

25

thus for some of the older records ‘Rangdum’ is best interpreted as the

Rangdum area.

SYSTEMATIC LIST

The systematic list follows the order of species in Vaurie (1965) for easy

comparison with Vaurie (1972). For each species, records are given starting

from Kargil and moving upstream towards Rangdum. Where a species has

been recorded by several observers in both the 1920s/1930s and recently, the

sources and years are omitted. Vaurie (1972) does not give the year for any

records.

The records presented here are for the main Suru Valley, with one or two

records of species recorded a short way up side valleys. Species recorded

along tributaries well away from the main valley are excluded, for example

records of Western Crowned Warbler Phylloscopus occipitalis (Ludlow 1920)

and Red-rumped Swallow Hirundo daunca (Williams and Delaney 1979)

along the Wakka Nullah.

The following status codes are used: B = Breeding confirmed, PB =

Probably breeding, M = Migrant, PM = Probable migrant, WV = Winter

visitor, V = Presumed vagrant, ? = Status uncertain. For many species listed

as PB breeding has probably been recorded, but this has not been published.

BAR-HEADED GOOSE Anser indicus (?) Parties of eight and ten recorded

by Osmaston (1930) from the Zuildo area in late June/early July 1928. These

were possibly from the nearby breeding lakes in Rupshu.

RUDDY SHELDUCK Tadoma ferruginea (PB) Records from the Rangdum

area of single adults on 14 and 20 July 1977, a juvenile from 28 July to 4

August 1980 (Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982) and one on

14-15 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986). The Suru

Valley around Zuildo would appear to be suitable breeding habitat for this

species.

COMMON TEAL Anas crecca (M) Singles recorded from Sanku on 31

August and 1 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983).

NORTHERN PINTAIL Anas acuta (M) A flock of eight observed in the

Rangdum area between 27 June and 3 July 1928 (Osmaston 1930) and a flock

of five seen on 12 September 1931 (Koelz 1939).

GARGANEY Anas querquedula (M) Two sightings at Sanku on 2 September

1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), three sightings each of two individuals in July

1980 at Rangdum (Delaney et al. 1982) and a single at Zuildo on 31 August

1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

NORTHERN SHOVELER Anas clypeata (M) Three birds recorded at

Sanku on 2-3 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983).

26

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

COMMON MERGANSER (GOOSANDER) Mergus merganser (PB)

Recorded in the Rangdum area by most visitors in June/July. According to

Ali and Ripley (1983) no nests have been found in Indian limits, but downy

young have been seen on Ladakh lakes in June.

BLACK KITE Milvus migrans (?) Three singles observed at Kargil and Baru

in August 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982), and two seen at Kargil on 27 August

1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986). In 1983 one recorded at Minji on 30 August

and two at Sanku on 2-3 September (Holmes et al. 1983). One was seen over

Rangdum Gompa on 17 July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979) and another

was at Zuildo on 31 August 1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

NORTHERN GOSHAWK Accipiter gentilis (?) One at Zuildo on 13 July

1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

EURASIAN SPARROWHAWK Accipiter msus (?) A female was recorded

north-west of Kargil on 9 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982), one was seen

between Kargil and Baru on 14 October 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979)

and a female was present at Minji over 22-24 August 1983 (Holmes et al.

1983).

BOOTED EAGLE Hieraaetus pennatus (PM) Recorded at Sanku on 25

August (three) and 8 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983).

GOLDEN EAGLE Aquila chrysaetos (PB) Two immatures were seen over

Panikhar on 16-17 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982). Several records of one or

two birds from the Rangdum area in August 1980, July 1982 and

August/September 1984 (Delaney et al. 1982, R. P. Martins, C. R. Robson

and P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986). There are also several records from side

valleys.

LAMMERGEIER Gypaetus barbatus (PB) From the north-south section of

the valley there are two records from Kargil on 7 and 1 1 July 1980, with two

birds on the latter date (Delaney et al. 1982), and a record from near Sanku

on 9 July 1928 (Osmaston 1930). There are several records in July and

August from Panikhar to Rangdum.

HIMALAYAN GRIFFON Gyps himalayensis (PB) Several sightings

(maximum five individuals) from Kargil in July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982),

and four seen there on 1 1 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt.

1986). There are several records (up to four individuals) from Panikhar,

Parkachik and the Rangdum area in July/early August 1977 and 1980

(Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982).

MARSH HARRIER Circus aeruginosas (M) Three records of possibly the

same individual at Sanku on 28 August and 8 and 9 September 1983 (Holmes

et al. 1983). Two present at Zuildo between 31 August and 2 September 1984

(P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

SAKER FALCON Falco cherrug (?) One recorded at Panikhar on 11 July

1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979).

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

27

PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregnnus (?) An immature was seen east of

Parkachik on 12 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

Two records in 1980, from Zuildo on 1 August and Tazi Tozanas on 5

August (Delaney et al. 1982).

NORTHERN HOBBY Falco subbuteo (B) Regular sightings between July

and September from Kargil to Panikhar, with nesting recorded at Kargil and

Sanku. One recorded in the Rangdum area on 14 July 1982 (R. P. Martins

and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

EURASIAN KESTREL Falco tinnunculus (B) Apparently common between

Kargil and Parkachik and in the Rangdum area. Records from July-

September.

HIMALAYAN SNOWCOCK Tetraogallus himalayensis (B) Recorded from

Kargil to the Rangdum area. Frequents mountainsides above the valley floor

(at least in summer/autumn).

CHUKAR Alectoris chukar (B) Recorded at several sites from Kargil to

Zuildo. Most records are from around cultivation. Delaney et al. (1982)

discuss the current status of this species in the Suru Valley and suggest it mav

have declined recently. Y

COMMON QUAIL Cotumix cotumix (?) Heard in crops at Minji on 12 July

1928 (Osmaston 1930) and Panikhar on 17-18 July 1980 (Delaney et al.

1982). Perhaps in good years this species reaches the Suru Valley to breed.

[RAIN QUAIL Cotumix coromandelica (?) Osmaston (1925) reported hearing

several calling in crops near Sanku on 6 August 1923, although Vaurie

considered the record doubtful. Perhaps Osmaston recorded C. cotumix as

C. coromandelica by mistake.]

PHEASANT-TAILED JACANA Hydrophasianus chirurgus (V) One

recorded near Panikhar on 14 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982) was

presumably a straggler from the Vale of Kashmir.

MONGOLIAN (LESSER SAND) PLOVER Charadrius mongolus (B) An

immature was seen at Kargil on 27 August 1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

Several pairs breed in the Rangdum area.

LITTLE STINT Calidris minuta (M) One was collected at Rangdum on 11

September 1931 by Koelz (1939).

TEMMINCK’S STINT Calidris temminckii (M) Eight recorded at Panikhar

on 27 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982). Several in the Rangdum area from

July- September, with a maximum of 20+ recorded on 30 July 1980 by

Delaney et al. (1982).

CURLEW SANDPIPER Calidris fenruginea (M) One recorded east of

Rangdum on 29 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982).

RUFF Philomachus pugnax (M) A flock of 33 seen east of Zuildo on 18 July

28

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979), and a pair recorded at Rangdum on 30

July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982).

COMMON REDSHANK Tringa totanus (B) Breeds in the Rangdum area.

Birds recorded there in August and September (Koelz 1939, P. M. Cocker in

litt. 1986) may be passage birds.

COMMON GREENSHANK Tringa nebulana (M) Records of singles from

Sanku on 3-4 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), Panikhar on 14 July 1980

(Delaney et al. 1982) and the Rangdum area from July and September

(Williams and Delaney 1979, R. P. Martins, C. R. Robson and P. M. Cocker

in litt. 1986).

GREEN SANDPIPER Tringa ochropus (M) Up to three seen on several dates

between Kargil and Panikhar in July/August 1977 and 1980 (Williams and

Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982). Many records of small numbers

(maximum three) from the Rangdum area between July and September.

WOOD SANDPIPER Tringa glareola (M) Two singles recorded from Sanku

on 3 and 5 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). One collected from near

Parkachik in July 1933 (Koelz 1939). Found to be the commonest wader in

the Rangdum area by Williams and Delaney (1979) and Delaney et al. (1982),

with a maximum of 40+ on 30 July 1980. There are further records in the

Rangdum area of two on 14 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in

litt. 1986) and singles on 31 August and 1 September 1984 (P. M. Cocker in

litt. 1986).

COMMON SANDPIPER Actitis hypoleucos (PB) Recorded from Sanku

(Williams and Delaney 1979, Holmes et al. 1983), Panikhar and Rangdum

(Delaney et al. 1982) from July-September. All sightings are of one or two

birds.

COMMON CURLEW Numemus arquata (M) One at Kargil on 27 August

1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

SOLITARY SNIPE Gallinago solitana (?) One at Zuildo on 31 August 1984

(P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986). This species may breed in Ladakh (Ali and

Ripley 1983).

BLACK-WINGED STILT Himantopus himantopus (PM) Two birds

recorded from Rangdum on 3-6 August 1980 (Delaney el al. 1982).

IBISBILL Ibidorhyncha struthersii (B) Several records between Kargil and

Parkachik. Osmaston (1926) recorded breeding near Sanku on 10 July 1925.

GREAT BLACK-HEADED GULL Larus ichthyaetus (?) An adult was seen

at Rangdum on 30 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982). Ludlow (1950) says this

species probably breeds on Tibetan lakes.

COMMON TERN Sterna hirundo (B) Recorded all along the valley over

July-September. Osmaston (1926) recorded breeding near Sanku in 1925;

surprisingly this is the only breeding record for the valley.

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

29

ARCTIC TERN Sterna paradisaea (V) A male was collected at Zuildo on 2

July 1928 (Whistler 1936). This is the only record for the Indian

subcontinent. It is not noted by Vaurie (1972), presumably an accidental

omission.

SNOW PIGEON Columba leuconota (B) Recorded from the whole length of

the valley over July- September.

ROCK PIGEON Columba livia (PB) Recorded from Kargil to Panikhar over

July- September. Koelz (1939) described it as ‘common in Purig’.

HILL PIGEON Columba rupestris (PB) Common throughout the Suru Valley

(Delaney el al. 1982), with records over July- September. All three Columba

species will feed in fields around settlements.

COLLARED DOVE Streptopelia decaocto (?) One recorded in the Baru

plantation on 6 July 1980 by Delaney et al. (1982).

ORIENTAL TURTLE DOVE Streptopelia orientalis (PB) Fairly common

around cultivation between Kargil and Panikhar over July- September.

COMMON CUCKOO Cuculus canorus (B) In July-September found quite

commonly from Kargil to Panikhar (Williams and Delaney 1979, Holmes et

al. 1983). Osmaston (1926) found nestlings between Parkachik and Gulma

Tongas on 18 July 1925, and heard adults calling at Zuildo between 27 June

and 3 July 1928 (Osmaston 1930).

LITTLE OWL Athene noctua (PB) Collected by Osmaston (1930) near

Panikhar on 7 July 1928, where it was also heard on 25 July 1980 (Delaney et

al. 1982). Vaurie (1972) has a record from Parkachik on 6 July which is

probably Osmaston’s specimen. A possible family party recorded at Zuildo

on 20 July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979) and a single seen in the same

site on 31 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982).

EURASIAN NIGHTJAR Caprimulgus europaeus (?) One was trapped in the

scrub below Kun on 12 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). This bird was

probably a migrant, but the range of the species in Kashmir is little known

and the Suru Valley may well be suitable breeding habitat.

COMMON SWIFT Apus apus (PB) Large flocks recorded between Kargil

and Panikhar between July and early September (Williams and Delaney

1979, Delaney et al. 1982, Holmes et al. 1983). Koelz (1939) records it as

common, especially in the lower valley.

ALPINE SWIFT Apus melba (?) One seen at Sanku on 3 September 1983

(Holmes et al. 1983).

EUROPEAN ROLLER Coracias garrulus (?) Singles recorded from Sanku

on 8 July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979) and 26 August 1983 (Holmes et

al. 1983). Koelz (1939) found one dead near Rangdum on 11 September

1931.

30

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

COMMON KINGFISHER Alcedo atthis (?) One recorded at Panikhar on 19

July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982). Four further records in the Upper Indus

Valley in 1980 and 1982 (Delaney el al. 1982, Southampton University

Ladakh Expedition, winter 1981/1982, provisional report) suggest there is no

reason to exclude the possibility of this species breeding in Ladakh.

HOOPOE Upupa epops (B) Common around villages between Kargil and

Parkachik. Single birds recorded east of Parkachik as far as the Rangdum

plain (Delaney et al. 1982, Holmes et al. 1983). Records over July-

September.

EURASIAN WRYNECK Jynx torquilla (PB) Several records in plantations

between Kargil and Panikhar from July and September.

SCALY-BELLIED GREEN WOODPECKER Picus squamatus (PB) Three

records from Kargil on 27 July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979) and 8 and

9 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982). The 1977 bird was probably a juvenile.

NORTHERN CRAG MARTIN Hirundo rupestris (B) Fairly common around

cliffs all along the valley.

BARN SWALLOW Hirundo rustica (?) Single records in 1980 from Panikhar

on 14 July and Zuildo on 2 August (Delaney et al. 1982). Ali and Ripley

(1983) suggest this species might breed in Ladakh.

HOUSE MARTIN Delichon urbica (B) Records are ascribed to this species

rather than Asian House Martin D. dasypus since Vaurie (1972) gives the

range of the latter as south-east Tibet eastwards. Recorded from Panikhar

(Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982), Kochak (Williams and

Delaney 1979), below Kun (Holmes et al. 1983) and Zuildo (Delaney et al.

1982). Koelz (1939) recorded the species as common from Kargiak

(Zanskar?) to Kargil. In the Suru Valley this species is often and perhaps

usually found in company with Hirundo rupestris.

SHORT-TOED LARK Calandrella cinerea (?) The only definite record is of

at least three in the Rangdum area on 13-14 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and

C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

HUME’S SHORT-TOED LARK Calendrella acutirostris (B) Apart from the

above, all definite records of Calandrella larks (including all specimens listed

in Vaurie 1972) are this species rather than C. cinerea. Recorded in small

numbers between May and July from the length of the valley. Frequents dry,

open areas on the valley floor, so is most numerous between Parkachik and

Rangdum.

HORNED LARK Eremophila alpestris (B) Recorded on scree slopes near

Kargil (Williams and Delaney 1979) and Panikhar (Vaurie 1972, Williams

and Delaney 1979). Abundant around Rangdum, and west to Tangola (Koelz

1939).

ORIENTAL SKYLARK Alauda gulgula (B) Common throughout the Suru

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

31

Valley in fields and grassland areas.

BROWN TREE PIPIT Anthus trivialis (?) Recorded from Kargil on 27

August 1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986), Sanku on 7 September (two) and 9

September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), near Zuildo on 19 July 1977 (Williams

and Delaney 1979) and Rangdum on 27 June (Vaurie 1972). Ali and Ripley

(1983) say that Meinertzhagen (1927) suggests this species (subspecies A. t.

hartingtom ) might breed in Ladakh, but this is not the impression gained

from the original paper.

ROSY PIPIT Anthus roseatus (PB) Two adults in heavy moult trapped in the

scrub below Kun on 26 August 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), with one

retrapped on 2 September. Several records from grass and marshy areas in

the Rangdum area in July/August.

FOREST WAGTAIL Dendronanthus indicus (?) A single record from ‘Suru

Valley in August’ (Stoliczka 1868, quoted by Vaurie 1972 and Ali and Ripley

1983) is thought unlikely by Vaurie (1972). However other stragglers have

been recorded in Simla and Kutch (Ali and Ripley 1983).

YELLOW WAGTAIL Motacilla flava (M) Koelz (1939) collected a single

M.f. beema at Rangdum on 12 September 1931. Ward (1906-1907) says this

subspecies breeds in Ladakh.

YELLOW-HOODED (CITRINE) WAGTAIL Motacilla citreola (B)

Common all along the valley over July- September, breeding along field

edges and in scrub patches.

GREY WAGTAIL Motacilla cinerea (PB) Recorded in April and July/August

from Kargil to Panikhar. One recorded at Zuildo on 1 August 1980 (Delaney

et al. 1982).

WHITE (PIED) WAGTAIL Motacilla alba (B) Common all along the valley

over July-September. The dominant Ladakh subspecies is M. a. alboides,

but M. a. personata may also breed sporadically (Ali and Ripley 1983). This

species is more a bird of stony river banks than M. citreola.

GREY-BACKED SHRIKE Lanius tephronotus (?) Vaurie (1972) lists a record

for this species at Sanku on 10 July. Biswas (1950) gives the range of L.

tephronotus as including Kargil and the Suru Valley and lists specimens from

Kargil and Sanku, the latter probably the same one as Vaurie’s.

LONG-TAILED SHRIKE Lanius schach (PB) Recorded at Kargil

(Osmaston 1925, Delaney et al. 1982, P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986), Minji

(Holmes el al. 1983) and Sanku (Williams and Delaney 1979, Holmes et al.

1983). A shrike (either L. schach or L. tephronotus ) was seen between Sanku

and Kargil on 16 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

Records are from July to September. Both tephronotus and schach were found

together at Padum in Zanskar in 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983) and it may be that

the species co-exist along the Suru Valley. However since all recent records

32

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

are for schach, an alternative possibility is that schach is displacing

tephronotus .

GOLDEN ORIOLE Onolus onolus (PB) Common at Kargil. Koelz (1939)

recorded one at Guntung on 27 July 1933, Holmes et al. (1983) recorded

several at Minji and Sanku in August 1983 and Williams and Delaney (1979)

saw one at Kochak in July 1977. All records are from plantations.

ROSY STARLING Stumus roseus (M) Three records of juveniles at Sanku

on 25 August (two) and 31 August 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), and an adult

recorded on 18 July 1980 at Panikhar (Delaney et al. 1982). Between four and

six immatures present at Zuildo from 31 August to 1 September 1984 (P. M.

Cocker in litt. 1986).

BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE Pica pica (B) Common around villages between

Kargil and Parkachik, with records from May to September.

RED-BILLED CHOUGH Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax (PB) Common all along

the valley. Many observers suggest that this species has a greater tendency to

feed at the valley bottom than P. graculus.

YELLOW-BILLED (ALPINE) CHOUGH Pyrrhocorax graculus (PB)

Common all along the valley.

COMMON JACKDAW Corvus monedula (?) A small flock was recorded at

Kargil in early May 1923 by Osmaston (1925).

LARGE-BILLED CROW Corvus macrorhynchus (B) Nests recorded at

Kargil on 18 April 1919 (Ludlow 1920) and early May 1923 (Osmaston 1925)

with other records at Kargil on 1 June (Vaurie 1972) and in July (Wathen

1924, Delaney et al. 1982). Two seen at Sanku on 23 August 1983 (Holmes et

al. 1983). Unidentified crows seen at Kargil, Sanku and Panikhar (Williams

and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982) were probably this species. Williams

and Delaney (1979) recorded 300+ crows over Kargil on 14 October 1977.

CARRION CROW Corvus corone (?) Meinertzhagen (1927) recorded two at

Kargil in April 1925. Recorded as common at Kargil in early June and Sanku

on 9 July 1928 (Osmaston 1930). Koelz (1939) recorded the species from

Tsaliko (c.lOkm south of Minji?) to Kargil in July 1933. There are also

records from Kargil on 20 April and 28 July (Vaurie 1972), the former

possibly Meinertzhagen’s record and the latter possibly taken by Koelz.

Some sight records, particularly those of Osmaston, may refer to C.

macrorhynchus.

COMMON RAVEN Corvus corax (B) Recorded at Kargil (Williams and

Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982), Tangola and Parkachik (Koelz 1939) and

Rangdum.

WHITE-THROATED DIPPER Cinclus cinclus (?) The only record from the

Suru Valley proper is of one on a small stream at Zuildo on 1 August 1980

(Delaney et al. 1982), but there are several records from tributaries of the

1986

Birds of Sum Valley, Ladakh

33

Suru. Ali and Ripley (1983) say this species prefers smaller streams to C.

pallasii, so it would not be expected on the main Suru River.

BROWN DIPPER Cinclus pallasii (B) Recorded from Kargil in April, July,

September and October, with further July records from Trazpone, Sanku

and Panikhar (Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982).

NORTHERN WREN Troglodytes troglodytes (B) One heard near Kargil on

1 1 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982), one recorded below Kun on 15 September

1983 (Holmes et al. 1983) and an adult feeding young at Zuildo on 6 August

1980 (Delaney et al. 1982) are the only records, all from rocky areas away

from habitation.

ROBIN ACCENTOR Prunella rubeculoides (B) Recorded as common in the

Rangdum area by all visitors between July and September. Osmaston (1930)

includes this species in a list of birds nesting at Suru Bridge (= Panikhar) on

6-8 July 1928, and Vaurie (1972) lists a record for this site (presumably

Osmaston’s) for 7 July. I find this record doubtful since it is below the

altitude range and in the wrong habitat: the species is found in wet and

swampy areas, usually between 3,600 and 5,300m (Ali and Ripley 1983).

The record may refer to P. strophiata.

RUFOUS-BREASTED ACCENTOR Prunella strophiata (B) Recorded from

the scrub below Kun in August/September 1983, where fairly common

(Holmes et al. 1983). Ludlow (1920) refers to a nest taken ‘near Suru’ on 6

July 1919; from Ludlow’s itinerary this was between Parkachik and Gulma

Tongas, and so may be ‘below Kun’.

BROWN ACCENTOR Prunella fulvescens (?) Two birds seen between

Parkachik and Gulma Tongas on 26 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982).

BLACK-THROATED ACCENTOR Prunella atrogularis (M/WV) At least

one was in the Baru plantation on 14 October 1977 (Williams and Delaney

1979).

LONG-BILLED BUSH WARBLER Bradypterus major (B) Recorded as

common between Kargil and Parkachik in July 1925 and 1928 by Osmaston

(1926, 1930). Koelz (1939) found several in crops at Guntung on 27 July

1933. The only recent record was of two at Sanku on 24 July 1977 (Williams

and Delaney 1979); none was recorded in 1980 by Delaney et al. (1982) or in

1983 by Holmes et al. (1983). Williams and Delaney (1979) suggest that the

decline of this species has been caused by the destruction of scrub and rank

grass. A detailed survey is required of the current status of this local species

in the Suru Valley.

BLYTH’S REED WARBLER Acrocephalus dumetorum (M) Singles recorded

from Sanku on 9 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), below Kun on 31

August 1978 (Holmes 1978) and 12 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983),

and Rangdum on 29 August 1978 (Holmes 1978). All records are of birds

trapped in scrub patches. A single Acrocephalus warbler (probably either

34

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

dumetorum or Paddyfield Warbler A. agricola ) was seen at Kargil on 27

August 1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

BARRED WARBLER Sylvia msoria (M) A juvenile was trapped in the scrub

below Kun on 2 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). This is only the fifth

record for India, but is the fourth for Ladakh, and the third there within

three years. This species may be a regular migrant through Ladakh.

[COMMON WHITETHROAT Sylvia communis (?) Williams and Delaney

(1979) noted four singing birds possibly of this species at Kargil on 7 July

1977. One individual was obtained in Ladakh on 1 June 1925 by

Meinertzhagen (1927).]

(HUME’S) LESSER WHITETHROAT Sylvia curruca (B) A. c. althaea has

been recorded as common in scrub areas between Kargil and Panikhar from

June to September. Osmaston (1926) found a nest between Parkachik and

Gulma Tongas on 18 July 1925. The species was noticeably absent in the

scrub below Kun in 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983).

EURASIAN CHIFFCHAFF Phylloscopus collybita (M) One trapped at Minji

on 30 August 1983 (Holmes el al. 1983).

MOUNTAIN CHIFFCHAFF Phylloscopus sindianus (B) Common in

plantations and tall and low scrub throughout the valley from April to

October, even at Rangdum (Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al.

1982). Newly fledged juveniles were caught below Kun on 2 and 3

September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). ‘Hundreds’ of presumed migrants

were in the plantation between Kargil and Baru on 14 October 1977

(Williams and Delaney 1979). Vaurie (1972) refers records of this species to

P. collybita tristis.

PLAIN LEAF WARBLER Phylloscopus neglectus (B) Ward (1908) records

that his collector C. H. Crump collected a pair plus their eggs at Kargil on 28

May 1906, and again on 22 June. These records are not in Vaurie (1972), and

there is the possibility of confusion with P. sindianus. However neglectus has

been recorded elsewhere in Ladakh (Vaurie 1972, Williams and Delaney

1979).

TICKELL’S LEAF-WARBLER Phylloscopus affims (B) Records from

Minji on 16 August (two) and 22 August 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). Recorded

from between Panikhar and Parkachik on 8 July (Vaurie 1972), below Kun

in August/September 1978 and 1983 (Holmes 1978; Holmes et al. 1983) and

in the Rangdum area in July. All records are from scrub patches.

SULPHUR-BELLIED WARBLER Phylloscopus gnseolus (B) Occurs widely

throughout the valley, with records from June to September. The species

breeds on rocky or stony hillsides or on scree slopes (Ali and Ripley 1983).

Six were trapped in the scrub below Kun on 12-13 September 1983 (Holmes

et al. 1983). These were probably altitude migrants.

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

35

INORNATE (YELLOW-BROWED) WARBLER Phylloscopus inomatus

(M) Found in late August/September at Kargil in 1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt.

1986), Minji, Sanku and Panikhar in 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983) and below

Kun in 1979 and 1983 (Holmes 1978, Holmes et al. 1983). By the second

week of September 1983 it was very common and increasing at Panikhar and

below Kun; several individuals were in the later stages of moult (last

primaries and secondaries almost fully grown, waxy sheaths present). Ali and

Ripley (1983) describe P. inomatus as breeding in coniferous or birch forest;

Ladakh is east and north of the known breeding areas in Indian limits, so

these birds may be migrants from for example the Tien Shan mountains

north of the Takla Makan desert in the Chinese province of Sinkiang (see

discussion).

LARGE-BILLED LEAF-WARBLER Phylloscopus magnirostris (?) and

GREENISH WARBLER P. trochiloides (B) Williamson (1976) suggests a

few distinguishing characters for these two species but in the hand they may

be practically indistinguishable, although magnirostris tends to be slightly

larger. Records in August/September 1983 by Holmes et al. (1983) of one

from Minji, two from Sanku, and several from Panikhar and below Kun

were provisionally recorded as magnirostris. The range of wing-lengths

recorded for the adults among these suggests at least some magnirostris. There

are no records for either species in the Suru Valley in Vaurie (1972). One

female with a brood-patch trapped below Kun on 26 August and 3 and 12

September 1983 had been ringed as a juvenile in the same site on 30 August

1978 (Holmes et al. 1983). An adult male definitely magnirostris was caught at

Panikhar on 30 August 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). Singles definitely

trochiloides were caught at Sanku on 29 August and at Panikhar on 1 1

September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). Delaney et al. (1982) report 2-3 pairs

of trochiloides breeding at Panikhar in July 1980, with other July records of

birds seen and heard (the call is distinctive) between Panikhar and Rangdum.

GOLDCREST Regulus regulus (?) Meinertzhagen (1927) collected three

males from a small party at Kargil on 20 April 1925. A record from Kargil on

30 April (Vaurie 1972) may refer to the same birds. Meinertzhagen referred

his specimens to R. r. tristis ; since this race breeds in Turkestan (Ali and

Ripley 1983) this would make them passage birds.

WHITE-BROWED (STOLICZKA’S) TIT-WARBLER Leptopoecile sophiae

(?) A pair seen on 14 October 1977 between Kargil and Baru by Williams and

Delaney (1979). Ali and Ripley (1983) say this species breeds in Ladakh

between 3,000 and 3,900m.

STONECHAT (COLLARED BUSH CHAT) Saxicola torquata (PB) Eight

birds seen at Baru on 6 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982), and one there on 18

August 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). Pairs were recorded at Sanku in July 1977

(Williams and Delaney 1979) and September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983), and

one was recorded at Zuildo on 31 August and 1 September 1984 (P. M.

Cocker in litt. 1986).

36

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

PIED WHEATEAR Oenanthe pleschanka (B) Several records from Kargil

and Baru over June-August. Juvenile wheatears probably this species were

trapped at Minji on 19 August and 4 September 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). A

family party was seen at Sanku in July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979).

Records are from around cultivated areas.

VARIABLE WHEATEAR Oenanthe picata (B) Recorded at Kargil on 16

July (Vaurie 1972). Three birds, including a female feeding a juvenile, were

on a scree slope above Kargil on 7 July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979).

DESERT WHEATEAR Oenanthe deserti (B) Recorded east of Kargil on 7

June (Vaurie 1972). An adult female and juvenile recorded in a boulder-

strewn area outside Panikhar on 31 August 1983 (Holmes et al. 1983). Koelz

(1939) described the species as generally distributed west to Parkachik as a

breeding bird.

BLUE ROCK THRUSH Monticola solitanus (B) Apparently relatively

common in boulder-strewn areas and on scree slopes all along the valley.

BLACK REDSTART Phoenicurus ochruros (B) Very common at all sites

along the valley. Found in the complete range of habitats, from plantations

and scrub to cultivated fields and wild rocky areas.

GULDENSTADT’S REDSTART Phoenicurus erythrogaster (?) Recorded at

Kargil on 20 April 1925 by Meinertzhagen (1927). Williams and Delaney

(1979) refer to this species as present in the Baru plantation on 14 October

1977 in their description of the ornithological fieldwork, although they omit

it from their systematic list. The species probably breeds in the hills above

the Suru, and would be expected to frequent the valley bottom in winter, as

in the Indus Valley (Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982).

RIVER CHAT Chaimarromis leucocephalus (B) Recorded in April and

July- September from Kargil to below Kun.

WHITE-TAILED RUBYTHROAT Enthacus ( Luscinia ) pectoralis (B) Koelz

(1939) recorded this species as common in July 1933 between the Pensi-La

and Rangdum. Osmaston (1926) found a nest between Parkachik and Gulma

Tongas on 18 July 1925, and found the species to be fairly common around

Zuildo between 27 June and 3 July 1928 (Osmaston 1930). The only recent

records are a juvenile trapped below Kun on 29 August 1978 (Holmes 1978)

and one male from near Panikhar over 21-24 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982).

Williams and Delaney (1979) discuss the apparent reduction in numbers of

this species, and suggest this is due to a reduction in scrub habitat. This may

be especially true in the Rangdum area, where scrub is cut for fuel for the

tourist tea stalls.

BLUETHROAT Erithacus ( Luscinia ) svecica (B) Very common in the

north- south section of the valley between April and September, especially at

Sanku (Holmes et al. 1983). Not recorded above Panikhar by Williams and

Delaney (1979) or Delaney et al. (1982), but Holmes et al. (1983) found them

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

37

to be common below Kun in August/September 1983. One was trapped at

Rangdum on 29 August 1978 (Holmes 1978), and singles were recorded there

on 31 August and 1 September 1984 (P. M. Cocker in iitt. 1986). Williams

and Delaney (1979) suggest that this species has declined like E. pectoralis.

The more recent survey of Holmes et al. (1983) found Bluethroats to be very

common but these may have been migrants rather than locally breeding

birds.

BLACK-THROATED THRUSH Turdus ruficollis atrogularis (M/WV)

Observed ‘between Dras and KargiP in April 1925 by Meinertzhagen (1927)

and a total of 12 recorded on 14 October 1977 from plantations at Kargil and

Baru (Williams and Delaney 1979).

BLUE WHISTLING THRUSH Myophonus caeruleus (PB) Recorded from

Kargil to Parkachik, mostly along side streams. Records over July-

September.

LITTLE FORKTAIL Enicurus scouleri (?) A pair were recorded in a gorge

above Sanku on 23 July 1977 (Williams and Delaney 1979). This is the only

record for Ladakh.

GREAT TIT Parus major (PB) Fairly common at Kargil and Minji.

Recorded less commonly as far as Panikhar (Williams and Delaney 1979,

Delaney et al. 1982, Holmes et al. 1983). All records are from willow or

poplar plantations.

WALLCREEPER Tichodroma muraria (PB) Singles recorded at Kargil on

11 July 1980 (Delaney et al. 1982) and Minji on 25 August 1983 (Holmes et

al. 1983). Several records between Parkachik and Rangdum in July/early

August (Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et al. 1982).

FIRE-CAPPED TIT Cephalopyrus flammiceps (B) Two recorded on 31 July

1977 at Kargil (Williams and Delaney 1979). Recorded at Sanku on several

dates in late August/early September 1983, with an adult feeding a juvenile

on 31 August (Holmes et al. 1983). Several records from below Kun in late

August/early September 1983 with at least four on 26 August (Holmes et al.

1983). All these records are from scrub patches. Koelz (1939) saw a flock east

of Rangdum in September 1931.

HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus (B) Fairly common around all human

habitation, more abundant between Kargil and Panikhar than around

Rangdum.

BLACKISH-WINGED (ADAMS’S) SNOWFINCH Montifringilla adamsi

(B) Flocks up to 40 recorded on rough grazing and boulder-strewn slopes in

the Rangdum area in July/August (Williams and Delaney 1979, Delaney et

al. 1982, R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

RED-FRONTED SERIN Serinus pusillus (B) Found quite commonly in

small flocks in cultivated areas and scrub patches along the whole length of

the valley.

38

P. R. HOLMES

ForktaiJ 2

EURASIAN GOLDFINCH Carduelis carduelis (B) Found fairly commonly

in scrub patches and cultivated areas between Kargil and Panikhar and in the

scrub below Kun.

TWITE Acanthis flavirostris (PB) Records in the Rangdum area of three to

five on 13-14 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in lilt. 1986) and

up to seven from 31 August to 1 September 1984 (P. M. Cocker in litt. 1986).

PLAIN MOUNTAIN FINCH Leucosticte nemoncola (PB) Common all along

the valley, generally in areas away from cultivation. Particularly numerous in

the Rangdum area where some were even found in Zuildo village (Williams

and Delaney 1979, Delaney el al. 1982).

BLACK-HEADED (BRANDT’S) MOUNTAIN FINCH Leucosticte brandn

(PB) Recorded in small groups on grassy areas and stony slopes from

Panikhar to Rangdum, often in association with L. nemoricola and

Monlifnngilla adamsi.

COMMON ROSEFINCH Carpodacus erythnnus (B) Abundant in cultivated

areas and scrub patches at most sites. Fewer at Rangdum, where they are

found on boulder-strewn slopes and in dwarf scrub (Delaney et al. 1982).

GREAT ROSEFINCH Carpodacus rubicilla (?) A pair recorded on 27 June

1928 near Rangdum by Osmaston (1930) and up to seven in the Rangdum

area on 13-14 July 1982 (R. P. Martins and C. R. Robson in litt. 1986).

RED-BREAS TED ROSEFINCH Carpodacus puniceus (PB) Records from

the Rangdum area in July and August (Osmaston 1926, Koelz 1939, Delaney

etal. 1982).

ROCK BUNTING Embenza cia (B) Common on rocky slopes all along the

valley, often entering scrub areas e.g. below Kun (Holmes et al. 1983).

DISCUSSION

If further intensive studies of the avifauna of the Suru Valley were carried out

in late autumn, winter and spring, as at Tikse in the Upper Indus Valley

(Delaney and Williams 1985, 1986), the species list would undoubtedly be

greatly extended from the 128 definitely recorded so far. The breeding

species along the Suru and Upper Indus Valleys are very similar. There is

evidence that the common wintering species from the Indus Valley also occur

in the Suru Valley: Guldenstadt’s Redstart, Brown Accentor, Black-throated

Thrush and Stoliczka’s Tit-warbler have all been observed, and only Eastern

Great Rosefinch Carpodacus rubicilloides has yet to be recorded from the Suru

Valley.

The number of migrant species so far recorded in the Suru Valley is

considerably less than in the Upper Indus Valley (Williams and Delaney

1979, Delaney et al. 1982, Southampton University Ladakh Expedition,

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

39

winter 1981/1982, provisional report). This is probably due to the smaller

amount of study in the Suru Valley, particularly in the use of mist-nets.

However, there are differences in the numbers of some migrant species

recorded in the two valleys. For example Inornate (Yellow-browed) Warblers

were first recorded in the Suru Valley in 1978 when 11 were trapped below

Kun in late August/early September (Holmes 1978). In 1983 this species was

very common in early-mid-September both at Panikhar and below Kun, and

numbers were perhaps increasing at other sites during the same period (102

trapped in total: Holmes et al. 1983). However in the Indus Valley this

species was not recorded until 1981, when only seven were trapped

(Southampton University Ladakh Expedition, winter 1981/1982, provisional

report).

The large difference in numbers may be explained by a migration route

that takes Inornate Warblers through the Suru Valley but not the Upper

Indus Valley. The Muztagh Pass, which is at a point where the main mass of

the Karakoram Range is almost divided in two, is directly north of the Suru

Valley (Figure 1), whereas Tikse is south of the eastern end of the main mass of

the Karakoram Range. It may be that Inornate Warblers from the Tien Shan

and other mountain ranges to the north move along the mountains and river

valleys on the western edge of the Takla Makan desert. Following such a

route, many would arrive at the Muztagh Pass and could move through; very

few would be likely to go right round to the eastern end of the Karakoram.

Having passed through the Muztagh, they could continue south-east along

the Indus Valley to its junction with the Dras/Suru Valley. Following the

Suru Valley they would be forced east by the Great Himalaya Range and

Nun-Kun and would move either out into Zanskar over the Pensi-La -

Inornate Warblers were found in Zanskar in autumn by Koelz (1939) and

Holmes et al. (1983) - or via a pass over the Great Himalaya into Punjab.

There is evidence of a difference between the Suru and Upper Indus

Valleys in some other species, although since these have Ladakh breeding

populations it is not easy to distinguish migrants from local birds. One

example concerns Common Rosefinch. The three Southampton University

expeditions, operating almost daily at Tikse from mid-August to mid-

October (all winter in 1981/1982), trapped 183, 164 and 212 Common

Rosefinches in 1977, 1980 and 1981 respectively, with birds caught into

October in all three years. Williams and Delaney (1979) say that there is no

evidence of passage birds in the 1977 total. In the Suru Valley in 1983, the

trapping totals for Common Rosefinches at the three main study sites

between mid-August and early to mid-September were Minji 140 (14 days

trapping), Sanku 139 (18 days) and below Kun 217 (13 days). On several

days there appeared to be arrivals of groups of birds, many of which were

carrying substantial levels of subcutaneous fat, which suggests that they were

migrants (Holmes et al. 1983).

Some of the other passerine species trapped at Tikse, for example Eurasian

Chiffchaff and Blyth’s Reed Warbler, as well as the rarer passerine migrants

recorded, may follow some other route to reach Tikse. These may come over

40

P. R. HOLMES

Forktail 2

the top ot the Karakoram, but it is perhaps more likely that they come

round the eastern end.

There is much scope for further study of the birds of the Suru Valley. The

winter avifauna needs to be studied to see if it is similar to that recorded at

1 ikse. Suitable sites for such long-term studies would be the Baru plantation

and the large areas of scrub around Sanku. The Muztagh Pass could also be

studied to examine its role as a migration route.

The members ot the 1983 Oxford University expedition all contributed to this study: Adam

Gretton, Ben Hatchwell, Hilary Holmes, Mark Hunter, Adrian Parr and Ian Sleigh. Mark

Cocker, Rod Martins and Craig Robson very kindly provided their unpublished records. I

would also like to thank Charlie Williams and Simon Delaney from the Southampton

University expeditions for their help. Rings for use by the Oxford University expeditions

were provided by the Bombay Natural History Society.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1983) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan. Compact edition.

Bombay: Oxford University Press.

Biswas, B. (1950) On the shrike Lamus tephronotus (Vigors), with remarks on the erythronotus and

tricolor groups of Lamus schach Linne, and their hybrids. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 49: 444 -

455.

Delaney, S. N., Denby, C. A. and Norton, J. A. (1982) Pp.5 - 47 in University of Southampton

Himalayan Expedition 1980 - Report. Unpublished.

Henderson, G. and Hume, A. O. (1873) Lahore to Yarkand. London: Reeve.

Holmes, P., ed. (1978) Report of the Oxford Ornithological Expedition to Kashmir, 1978.

Unpublished.

Holmes, P. R., Holmes, H. J. and Parr, A. J., eds. (1983) Oxford University Expedition to

Kashmir, 1983 - Report. Unpublished.

Koelz, W. (,1939) Notes on the birds of Zanskar and Purig, with appendices giving new records

for Ladakh, Rupshu and Kulu. Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 25: 297 - 322.

Ludlow , F. ( 1 920) Notes on the nidifkation of certain birds in Ladakh . J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc

27: 141 - 146.

Ludlow, F. (1950) The birds of Lhasa. Ibis 92: 34 - 45.

Meinertzhagen, R. (1927) Systematic results of birds collected at high altitudes in Ladakh and

Sikkim. Ibis (12)3: 363 - 422, 571 - 633.

Osmaston, B. B. (1925) The birds of Ladakh. Ibis (12)1: 663 - 719.

Osmaston, B . B . ( 1 926) Birds nesting in the Dras and Suru Valievs. J. Bombay Nat Hist Soc 31 •

186- 196.

Osmaston, B. B. (1930) A tour in further Kashmir. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 36: 108 - 134.

von Pelzeln, A. (1868) On the species of birds collected by Dr Stoliczka in Thibet and the

Himalayas. Ibis (2)4: 302 - 321.

Richmond, C. W. (1895) Catalogue of a collection of birds made by Doctor W. L. Abbott in

Kashmir, Baltistan and Ladakh, with notes on some of the species and a description of a new

species of Cyanecula. Proc. U. S. Natn. Mus. 18: 451 - 491.

Sharpe, R. B. (1891) Scientific results of the second Yarkand mission - Aves. London: Taylor and

Francis.

Sillem, J. A. (1934) Ornithological results of the Netherlands Karakorum expedition 1929/30.

Orgaan der Cl. Nederland Vogelk. 7: 1-48.

Stoliczka, F. (1868) Ornithological observations in the Sutlej Valley, N. W. Himalayas. 7. Asiatic

Soc. Bengal 37: 1 - 70.

Vaurie. C. (1972) Tibet and its birds. London: H. F. and G. Witherbv.

Vaurie, C. (1965) The birds of the Palaearctic fauna. London: H. F. and G. Witherby.

1986

Birds of Suru Valley, Ladakh

41

Ward, A. E. (1906 - 1907) Birds of the provinces of Kashmir and Jammu and adjacent districts.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 17: 108 - 113, 479 - 485, 723 - 729, 943 - 949,

Ward, A. E. (1908) Further notes on the birds of the provinces of Kashmir and Jammu and

adjacent districts. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 18: 461 - 464.

Wathen, M. L. (1924) Ornithological notes from a trip in Ladakh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist Soc 29-

694- 702.

Whistler, H. (1936) Arctic Tern in Kashmir. Ibis (13)6: 600 - 601.

Williams, C. T. and Delaney, S. N. (1979) Pp.104 - 229 in University of Southampton

Himalayan Expedition 1977 - Report. Unpublished.

Williams, C. and Delaney, S. (1985) Migration through the north-west Himalaya - some results

of the Southampton University Ladakh expeditions 1. Bull. Oriental Bird Club 2: 10 - 14.

Williams, C. and Delaney, S. (1986) Migration through the north-west Himalaya - some results

of the Southampton Universitv Ladakh expeditions. Part 2. Bull. Oriental Bird Club 3:11 —

16.

Williamson, K. (1976) Identification for ringers 2 - the genus Phylloscopus. Revised edition. Tring,

Hertfordshire: British Trust for Ornithology.

P. R. Holmes, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5 QA, U.K.

FORKTAIL 2 (1986): 43-51

Notes on the current status

of ornithology in the

People’s Republic of China

JEFFERY BOSWALL

This paper is respectfully dedicated to Professor Cheng Tso Hsin (= Zheng

Zuoxin) on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 18 November 1986.

As with science generally, ornithology was ‘held up’ for the ten years of the so-called

Cultural Revolution 1966-1976, but during the past decade it has re-emerged and is now

developing rapidly. Some indication is given of the scope of ornithology in China today,

including its recent history, ornithological society, vehicles of publication, and the role of

non-Chinese ornithologists in China.

RECENT HISTORY

The following notes expand and update earlier ones on the recent state of

ornithology in China (Grimm 1979, Cheng 1979a, b).

Before the Communist Party came to power in China in 1949, many

scientists were trained in the West and maintained their contacts in that

direction. For example, Cheng Tso Hsin (now known as Zheng Zuoxin), the

doyen of Chinese ornithology, received from the University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, an M.A. in 1928 and Sc.D. in 1930. He was a visiting professor

to the United States, 1945-1946, spending his time with bird collections in

Washington and New York.

After 1949, Chinese science looked more to the U.S.S.R. and many

Chinese scientists were trained there during the early 1950s. Zheng twice

visited the Soviet Union during this time, for three months on each occasion,

to work on Chinese birds in Soviet skin collections, particularly in

Leningrad. With strained Sino-Soviet relations developing in 1956, Russian

aid to China was withdrawn in 1960, and Chinese science entered a period of

isolation. During this time the political climate favoured economic

ornithology and for example Zheng worked on the Oriental Pratincole

Glareola maldivarum as a predator on locusts Acrididae (Cheng 1955).

‘Sparrows’ (which effectively meant any passerine birds), along with rats,

bugs and flies, were declared pests and in 1958 a ‘three-day war’ was declared

on the birds. The campaign was witnessed by Han Suyin (1959). Reputedly

800,000 birds were destroyed by hysterical crowds in three days in March.

The destruction, it was claimed, was followed by plagues of insects, and the

campaign was later officially admitted to have been a mistake (A. Galsworthy

in litt.). To a series of books on China’s ‘economic fauna’, Zheng contributed

at this time a large volume on birds (Cheng 1963) working as editor and

major contributor. The work was considered sufficiently important by the

44

J. BOSWALL

Forktail 2

Americans for it to be translated into English (Cheng 1964).

Mao Zedong’s (= Mao Tse-tung’s) Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) had a

strongly anti-intellectual bias. It was a serious setback for science, the worst

phase being 1966-1968. Many academics and other scientists were set to

menial work, imprisoned and even tortured (Needham 1978). Many also

died. Zheng was fortunate enough to be able to remain at the Institute of

Zoology. There he worked on, amongst other things, the revision (up to

1973) of his two-volume checklist which first appeared in 1955-1958; this

was published in 1976, and is still (1986) in print. It was soon translated into

English at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, but is not officially

published. During the revolutionary decade, 1966-1976, however, he

published only 15 books, papers and articles (0.7 per year), compared with

202 during the previous eleven years, 1955-1965 (18.4 per year) and at least

1 14 during the ten subsequent years, 1977- 1986 (1 1.4 per year) (Cheng 1982

and in litt.).

At the time of Chairman Mao’s death in September 1976, ten years’ virtual

stagnation of Chinese science had led to there being substantial gaps between

its development in China and the West. In 1978 a very senior Chinese

officer in the science field, Fang Yi, expressed the view that China was

lagging 15 to 20 years behind the rest of the world in many branches of

science and technology, even more in others (Needham 1978).

Since 1976, Chinese science had been allowed to develop more freely and

there has been an intensifying desire among Chinese academics to re¬

establish old contacts overseas and to make new ones. For example, Zheng’s

institute sent Lu Taichun to work for one year (till July 1981) at the

Sub-department of Ornithology of the British Museum (Natural History) at

Tring. Since 1976 Zheng himself has visited Japan (twice), the United States

(twice), Australia, Britain and France. In 1981 Zheng’s American university

honoured him with a regents’ citation. In May 1984 he visited the Mai Po

Marshes Reserve in Hong Kong. In 1986 he published a global list of bird

names in Chinese (Zheng 1986).

In June 1986, I found him in Beijing correcting the proofs of a further

update of his distributional list, and he expressed the hope that the book may

appear before his 80th birthday on 18 November 1986. The work is in

English and is entitled A synopsis of the birds of China, and will comprise

1,224 pages. It includes 20 species new to China, making the new total 1,186

species. The author’s name is printed in the old romanisation: Cheng Tso

Hsin. A further bird volume, on the babblers Timaliinae, in the Vertebrata

Series of Fauna Sinica, has been completed by Zheng and is also awaiting

publication. It is expected in 1987.

Some other Chinese ornithologists, since 1976, have also travelled abroad.

A scientist from the Kunming Zoological Institute in Yunnan province,

Zheng Baolai (Polly Cheng), spent twelve months during 1982-1983 at the

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama studying birds with

Martin Moynihan and Neal G. Smith. She later moved on to the Division of

Birds at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. to

1986

Ornithology in China

45

work on a proposed Chinese-language field guide to the birds of China. Hsu

Weishu of the Beijing Natural History Museum has visited Australia and

other countries. Although a number of Chinese were registered to attend the

18th International Ornithological Congress in Moscow in 1982, none came.

Five, however, were at the Ottawa IOC four years later (when Hsu Weishu

was elected a member of the IOC Permanent Executive Committee), and in

the same year the Chinese made four contributions to the Third International

Symposium on Pheasants in Asia, Chiang Mai, Thailand (see Ridley 1986).

Most professional ornithologists in China are found either in universities or

in appropriate national or provincial academies of science. For an account of

bird conservation in China see Boswall (in press, a) and of man-bird relations

see Boswall (in press, b).

SOCIETY

In 1980, an Ornithological Society of China was established. The secretary-

general is Tan Yaokuang and the address: Institute of Zoology, Academica

Sinica, 7 Zhongguancun Lu, Haitien, Beijing (Peking). Up to at least 1985 it

was not open to foreigners. In January 1985 there were 342 Chinese

members. They pay no subscriptions. Most members are in Beijing,

Shanghai, Guangzhou (Canton), Chengdu, Harbin and Kunming. Some are

academics; many are teachers. Zhang Zhi-yen of Lanzhou, Gansu province,

is one of the very few amateur ornithologists in China. He has studied, for

example, the roosting behaviour in winter of Black-necked Cranes Grus

mgricollis in Guizhou province. The society publishes a newsletter, Zhongguo

niaolei xuehui tongxun (Newsletter of the Ornithological Society of China);

the first issue appeared in April 1981. The editor-in-chief and vice secretary-

general of the society is Hsu Weishu, Peking Natural History Museum, 126

Tien Chiao Street, Beijing.

The inaugural meeting and first symposium of the O.S.C. was held at

Dalian in Liaoling province in 1980. The second symposium was at Xi-an

in Shanxi province in 1982, and the third at Yancheng in Jiangsu province,

20—25 November 1985. At this meeting Zheng Zuoxin was elevated to

president emeritus and Qian Yanwen was elected as the new president; 113

persons attended. Of the 133 papers submitted, eleven were read at plenary

meetings and the remainder at meetings of one of three groups: the ecology

group, the fauna group and the experimental biology group. At the ecology

group meetings progress was reported on studies of rare and endangered

birds such as Cabot’s Tragopan Tragopan caboti, Chinese Monal Lophophorus

Ihuysii, Blood Pheasant Ithaginis cruentus. Silver Pheasant Lophura

nycthemera, and Brown Eared Pheasant Crossoptilon mantchuricum. Progress

with the domestication and training of the Azure-winged Magpie Cyanopica

cyana and (it appears) the Great Spotted Woodpecker Picoides major as

predators on injurious insects was also reported. To the fauna group were

presented studies of cranes Gruidae mainly in north-east China, and

46

J. BOSWALL

Fork tail 2

avifaunal surveys of Tongbo Mountain in Henan province, Tianmu

Mountain in Zhejian province and Yuntai Mountain in Jiangsu province,

among others. Papers read to the third group included those on avian

chromosomes, the structure of the egg shells of three species of crane as

revealed by the scanning electron microscope, the bioenergetics of birds and

the diets of artificially raised nestling birds, e.g. of Black Stork Ciconia nigra

and Black-headed Ibis Threskiomis melanocephalus (Wang Qishan in litt.).

RECENT BOOKS

There should eventually be 14 volumes on birds within the Vertebrata Series

of Fauna Sinica (Wong 1982). Volume 4 (Cheng et al. 1978) dealt with the

Galliformes; volume 2 (sic) (Cheng et al. 1979) with the Anseriformes;

volume 13 (Li et al. 1982) with the Paridae and six other passerine families

and volume 8 (Zheng 1986) with the Eurylaimidae and five other passerine

families. Intending purchasers can try Guoji Shudian, China Publications

Centre, P. O. Box 399, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; or alternatively

Guanghua Bookshop Ltd., 9 Newport Place, London WC 2. A work on the

birds of Xizang (Tibet) summarising the results of fifteen expeditions to that

region made since 1959 appeared in 1983 (Zheng et al. 1983). Other recent

faunistic works include Birds of the Chanbaishan Mountains (Fu et al. 1984),

The avifauna of Changbai Mountain (sic) Zhao et al. 1985) and Sichuan fauna

economica, volume 3 (birds) edited by Li (1985).

An outline history of Chinese ornithology from the earliest times to

the 1960s appeared in 1980 by Meyer de Schauensee (1980) and his

comprehensive guide to the birds of China was published in 1984 (Meyer de

Schauensee 1984). The second of the two volumes of Oiseaux de Chine, de

Mongolie et de Coree by R. D. Etchecopar and F. Hue appeared in 1983. For

notes on Zheng Zuoxin’s forthcoming books, see under ‘Recent history’

above.

PERIODICALS

To date there is no journal devoted entirely to ornithology but papers on

birds appear in a number of national journals, prominent among them being

Acta Zoologica Sinica, Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, Acta Ecologica Sinica,

Zoological Research, Chinese Journal of Zoology, Chinese Wildlife and Sichuan

Journal of Zoology (Tan 1985a; see Table 1). Meyer de Schauensee (1984:523)

mentions that bird papers are published in Acta Geographica Sinica. The

occasional Memoirs of the Beijing Natural History Museum are worth noting;

see for example Xu and Purchase (1983). In English there are China

Reconstructs and China Pictorial ; both are very wide-ranging but regularly

carry bird and other natural history stories of significance. Iain C. Orr (1980)

1986

Ornithology in China

47

has compiled an immensely useful bibliography of nature reserves and

biology in China culled from a wide range of natural history journals in

Chinese and popular articles in English-language Chinese government

publications.

Tan (1985a) surveyed 190 published papers and two books on ornithology

which had appeared in China during 1983-1984 and 75 unpublished papers

on ornithology which were presented to the Eleventh Conference of the

Zoological Society of China in April 1984 (see Table 2). Just over one-third of

the 267 texts (265 papers and two books) are concerned with ecology. Of

these, the majority deal with reproduction, feeding and behaviour of

individual species. Only five concern population ecology, one of these being

Table 1. Numbers of ornithological

papers in seven important Chinese

scientific journals in 1983 and 1984

(after Tan 1985a).

Table 2. The subjects covered by

papers and books on ornithology

which were published, or presented

to a conference in China, during 1983

- 1984 (from Tan 1985a).

Subject Number of papers/books %

267 100.0

48

J. BOSWALL

Forktail 2

on the population dynamics of the Brown Eared Pheasant, which is treated in

the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book (King 1978-1979). Seventy-two species are

covered by the papers on ecology. Thirty-six papers and the two books

present the results of avifaunal studies. The books are based on large-scale

investigations in Xizang (Tibet) (Zheng el al. 1983) and on Hainan Island

(Gao 1984). Tan (1985a) notes that both received special commendations and

that the former, in particular, is an excellent reference book.

The seven papers on taxonomy include a recent systematic review of

Chinese parrotbills Paradoxomis (Cheng 1984), which suggests a new

taxonomic system for the genus and describes a new subspecies of Black¬

breasted Parrotbill P. flavirostris gongshanensis. By 1983, the Institute of

Zoology in Beijing housed over 68,000 skins, many collected since 1949 and

representing about 80% of the Chinese species.

Only three of the 265 texts are concerned with migration, one of these

dealing with the Black-naped Oriole Onolus chinensis. Since 1984, migration

has received increasing attention. Zhang et al. (1985) studied autumn raptor

migration near Tangshan, Hebei province. Scientists from the East China

Normal University made a radar and field observation study of migration at

Haizhou Bay, Jiangsu province (Mao 1985).

Tan (1985b) lists 98 species as endemic to China but an analysis by

Geoffrey Carey (in litt.) shows that at least 27 of these breed in one or more

countries neighbouring China.

BIRD RINGING

The advent of bird ringing in China, in 1983, will no doubt lead to the

publication of further papers on migration. By the end of 1984, 3,084 birds

of 53 species had been ringed (Anon. 1984). The two species best represented

on the list are the Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus and the Great

Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus. By the end of 1985, over 12,000 birds of

161 species has been ringed (Anon, undated). Under the guidance of Chang

Fuyuen and Yang Rouli, the directors of the National Bird Banding Centre,

ringing had started up at 50 different localities by the spring of 1985 (Chang

Fuyuen pers. comm, to M. D. Williams). The Centre’s address is: do

Forestry Academy of Science, Beijing. In additon, Qin Jian-hua directs a

National Bird Banding Office, do Ministry of Forestry, Beijing.

WORK BY NON-CHINESE ORNITHOLOGISTS

Teams from the International Crane Foundation and Earth watch have

operated with Chinese ornithologists in surveys of birds, particularly cranes,

at the Zhalong (Heilongjiang province), Lake Poyang (Jiangsu province) and

Yen Cheng (Jiangxi province) nature reserves. The Wild Bird Society of

1986

Ornithology in China

49

Japan has been very active in seeking co-operation with Chinese

ornithologists, and has for example hosted them in Japan and provided

manpower support for the efforts to save the White Crested Ibis Nipponia

nippon.

The 1985 spring migration at Beidaihe, Hebei province, was surveyed by a

team of British ornithologists (Williams et al., Forktail, this issue; Williams

1986); a follow-up survey was undertaken in autumn 1986. W. G. Harvey

visited Karamay, Xinjiang, in June 1985 (Harvey 1985a, b). C. R. Robson

( Forktail , this issue) and D. S. Farrow travelled in Xizang province in spring

1986.

Elsewhere (Boswall 1985) I have suggested that more bird-watching may

actually be done in the U.S.S.R. by the members of specialist ornithological

holiday tours than by the negligible number of Soviet birders. The same

could easily prove to be true of China. For example, those on the birding trip

led by Ben King to Sichuan in May-June 1984 saw sights ‘not shared by any

living ornithologist’ (King 1984a), such as the full and extraordinary display

of a wild Temminck’s Tragopan Tragopan temminckii. It is very much to be

hoped that the selected observations made on such tours will be published,

following the example of King (1984b). Specialist bird- watching holidays to

China were pioneered by Cecil Klein of the British company Study China

Travel. Following a reconnaissance in 1981 by David McDonald, James

Hancock and Christopher Perrins, the very first such trip was led by

Christopher Perrins to north-east China in 1982. I followed him there in 1983

(Boswall 1983). By 1984, two more British companies (Birdquest and

Ornitholidays) and two American ones (World Nature Tours and Kingbird

Tours) were offering bird tours to China. In my opinion the scientific

importance of these tours is underestimated by certain leaders, participants

and others.

World Wildlife Fund Hong Kong has organised a number of visits to

Chinese reserves, e.g. to Poyang and to forest areas in Guangdong and Fujian

(David S. Melville in litt.).

CONCLUSION

Ornithology in China would seem to be undergoing a transition. Work which

laid the foundations for modern ornithology in the West, such as the

collection of specimens, is still being carried out, whilst techniques such as

bird ringing and the use of radar to study migration are being introduced.

Given the continuation of China’s political open-door policy and the

readiness of the country’s ornithologists to exchange views and work with

their counterparts overseas, it seems likely that any gaps between the

development of ornithology in China and in the West will soon be

substantially reduced.

Thanks are due to William W. Thomas for arranging for Zhang Junfan to translate Tan

50

J. BOS WALL

Forktail 2

(1985a) and a published biography of Zheng Zuoxin. Gratitude is due also to Linda Birch,

Minna Daum, Anthony Galsworthy, David S. Melville, Iain Orr, Marion Parsons, Tan

Yaokuang, Wang Qishan, Martin Williams, Michael G. Wilson, Zheng Guangmei, Zheng

Zuoxin and Xu Weishu for help in various ways.

POSTSCRIPT

After this paper was in proof, translations were received of Zheng (1981) and Liu (1984).

Both papers are relevant and important, and it is hoped to cover them in a supplementary

article in a future Forktail.

REFERENCES

Anon, (undated) An outline of bird banding in China. The National Bird Banding Centre of the

People’s Republic of China. (In Chinese).

Anon. (1984) The first bird banding in China. Chinese Wildlife (5): 6-9. (In Chinese).

Boswall, J. (1983) Some observations of the birds of north-east China, April/May 1983.

Unpublished (copy deposited in the Alexander Library, Department of Zoology, Oxford).

Boswall, J. (1985) Fine-feathered comrades. BBC Wildlife 3(4): 174 - 179.

Boswall, J. (in press, a) Bird conservation in China. Biol. Consent .

Boswall, J. (in press, b) Some notes on bird markets, pigeon keeping and other bird/man relations

in China. Avicult. Mag.

Cheng Tso Hsin (1955) Eastern Collared Pratincole - natural enemy of locusts. Bull. Biol. 5: 10 -

11. (In Chinese).

Cheng Tso Hsin, ed. (1963) China’s economic fauna: birds. Peking. (In Chinese).

Cheng Tso Hsin, ed. (1964) China’s economic fauna: birds. English translation of Cheng (1963),

968 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce. Available as document JPRS: 23,630 through

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, U.S.A.; or as PB 223672

through Microinfo Ltd., P. O. Box 3, Norman Lane, Alton, Hants GU34 2PG, either in print

(£107.50 in 1982) or on microfiche (£12.50).

Cheng Tso Hsin (1976) Distributional list of Chinese birds. Peking Institute of Zoology. (In

Chinese). Available, £15.00, from Guanghua Bookshop Ltd., 9 Newport Place, London

WC2.

Cheng Tso Hsin (1979a) Ornithology in China. Ibis 121: 409 - 410.

Cheng Tso Hsin (1979b) Great numbers of bird species found in China. Ton 28(1): 59 - 62.

Cheng Tso Hsin (1982) Cheng Tso Hsin: list of publications. Beijing: Institute of Zoology (copy

deposited in the Alexander Library, Department of Zoology, Oxford; in Chinese).

Cheng Tso Hsin (1984) A systematic review of crow-tits ( Paradoxomis ) hitherto recorded from

China. Acta Zoologtca Sinica 30(3): 278 - 285. (In Chinese).

Cheng Tso Hsin (1986) Birds of the world {Latin, Chinese and English names). Beijing: Science

Press, Academica Sinica.

Cheng Tso Hsin, Tan Yaokuang, Lu Taichun, Tang Chanzhu, Bao Guijin and Li Fulai (1978)

Fauna Sinica: Aves, 4: Galliformes. Beijing: Science Press, Academica Sinica. (In Chinese).

Cheng Tso Hsin and 18 others (1979) Fauna Sinica: Aves, 2: Anseriformes. Beijing: Science Press,

Academica Sinica. (In Chinese).

Etchecopar, R. D. and Hue, F. (1978 - 1983) Les oiseaux de Chine, de Mongolie el de Coree, 1-2.

Paris: Boubee.

Fu Tong-shen, Gao Wei and Song Yu-jou (1984) Birds of the Changbai Mountains. Northeast

Normal University Press. (In Chinese).

Gao, F., ed. (1984) Birds and mammals of Hainan Island. Beijing: Science Press, Academica

Sinica. (In Chinese).

Grimm, R. J. (1979) Ornithology in the People’s Republic of China. Condor 81: 104 - 109.

Han Suyin (1959) The sparrow shall fall. New Yorker, 10 October: 43 - 50.

Harvey, W. G. (1986a) Two additions to the avifauna of China, Anas angustirostns and Hippolais

pallida. Bull. Brit. Om. Club 106: 15.

1986

Ornithology in China

51

Harvey, W. G. (1986b) A taste of Karamay. Bull. Oriental Bird Club 4: 8 - 10.

King, B. W. F. (1984a) West China birding expedition. Kingbird News no. 6: 2-4.

King. B. (1984b) Bird notes from the Anyemaqen Shan range. Qinghai Province, China Gerfaut

74:227- 241.

King, W. B. (1978 — 1979) Red data book, 2: Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland:

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Li Gui-yuan and 11 others (1982) Fauna Sinica: Aves, 13: Paridae, Sittidae, Certhiidae,

Remizidae, Dicaeidae, Neciannudae, and Zosteropidae. Beijing: Science Press, Academica

Sinica. (In Chinese).

Li Gui-yuan, ed. (1985) Sichuan fauna economica, 3. Chengdu: Science and Technology Press. (In

Chinese).

Liu Zhuomo (1984) The current state of research into the avifauna of China. Chinese J. Zool.

19(2): 45 - 49. (In Chinese).

Mao Ying (1985) Wader migration in Haizhou Bay, eastern China. Interwader Newsletter 6: 10 -

11.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1980) The history of ornithology in China. Frontiers 2: 48 - 55.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Needham, J. (1978) Science reborn in China. Nature 274: 830 - 839.

Orr, I. (1980) Bibliography of nature reserves and natural history in China. Unpublished.

Ridley, M., ed. (1986) Pheasants in Asia 1986. Basildon, U. K.: World Pheasant Association.

Tan Yaokuang (1985a) Recent advances in ornithological studies of China. Chinese Wildlife (3): 14

- 15. (In Chinese).

Tan Yaokuang (1985b) Endemic birds in China. Chinese Wildlife (1): 18-21. (In Chinese).

Williams, M. D., ed. (1986) Report on the Cambridge Ornithological Expedition to China 1985.

Unpublished.

Wong, M. (1982) Review of ‘Fauna Sinica: Series Vertebrata. Aves 4: Galliformes’. Auk 99: 396 -

398.

Xu Weishu and Purchase, D. (1983) On the migration of banded waders between China and

Australia. Mem. Beijing Nat. Hist. Mus. 23.

Zhang, Y. S., Shao, T. A. and Wang, S. J. (1985) Observations of migrating raptors in the

Tangshan district. Chinese J. Zool. 20(1): 17-21. (In Chinese).

Zhao Zhenjei and others (1985) The avifauna of Changbai Moutain. Changchun: Jilin Science and

Technology Press. (In Chinese).

Zheng Baolai, ed. (1986) Fauna Sinica: Aves, 8: Eurylaimidae, Hirundinidae, Motacillidae,

Campephagidae, Pycnonotidae and Irenidae. Beijing: Science Press, Academica Sinica. (In

Chinese).

Zheng Guangmei (1981) A review of, and the outlook for bird ecology in China. Chinese J. Zool.

16(1): 63 - 68. (In Chinese).

Zheng Zuoxin, Li Dehao, Wang Zuxiang, Wang Ziyu, Jiang Zhihua and Lu Taichun (1983) The

avifauna of Xizang (Tibet). Beijing: Science Press, Academica Sinica. (In Chinese).

Jeffery Boswall, Natural History Unit, B.B.C., Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2LR, U.K.

FORKTAIL 2 (1986): 53-66

The rediscovery of

Gurney’s Pitta Pitta gurney i

PHILIP D. ROUND and UTHAI TREESUCON

By following up information about birds in trade, a four-year search to trace Gurney’s Pitta

Pitta gumeyi culminated in June 1986 with the discovery of a nesting pair in a 1.6km2 forest

fragment in southern Thailand. The nest was 94cm up in the main fork of a palm, only

50m from a logging road in one of the lowest-lying parts of the area. The clutch of three

hatched and both adults fed the young, the male more often than the female, and both more

often in the afternoon; earthworms were the most frequent food. A ‘skyeew’ was given in

alarm and as contact. The nest was empty on 2 July, the young having probably been

predated or taken for trade (but possibly having fledged). Bird-trappers maintained that the

species still occurs in secondary growth and even old plantations, but searches in such

habitat and at other localities were unsuccessful, although the birds are evidently

unobtrusive at this season. Protection of the site of discovery is urgently needed, as are

further searches for and studies of the species.

Gurney’s Pitta Pitta gumeyi is endemic to the semi-evergreen rainforest zone

of peninsular Thailand, where it breeds, and extreme south Tenasserim in

Burma, where it may only be a non-breeding, dry season migrant. Past

records, together with such facts as were known concerning its biology, are

summarised in Collar et al. (1986). Until 1986, apart from occasional live

birds and specimens in trade, the species had not been recorded since 1952; it

was surmised that this lack of recent records could be accounted for by the

near total destruction of its lowland forest habitat and that the species might

be nearing extinction.

This paper reports the discovery of a nesting pair of Gurney’s Pittas

in June 1986 and makes recommendations for the species’s conservation. In

order to avoid drawing undue attention to the site, and thus possibly further

jeopardising the birds’ precarious prospects for survival, the exact location of

the find is not revealed.

BACKGROUND

In early May 1986, N. J. Collar alerted one of us, P.D.R., to a report he had

received from B. W. Miller in the United States that two Gurney’s Pittas had

been seen in the secret backroom of an unidentified Bangkok animal dealer.

Since trade in all species of pitta, together with most other native wild birds,

is illegal in Thailand, dealers are understandably reticent about parting with

information and, of the three major animal trading companies in Bangkok

contacted by P.D.R., only one admitted to familiarity with Gurney’s Pitta.

The managing director maintained that his company still received five or six

Gurney’s Pittas per year and, speaking further with an unidentified contact

over the telephone, claimed that as many as 50 birds per year were still

54

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

entering the trade.

Other contacts in Bangkok identified a small town in southern Thailand as

a major entrepot for locally caught wildlife. P.D.R. visited the largest of the

three illicit dealers resident there in order to make enquiries concerning the

source of Gurney’s Pittas said to be entering trade. The dealer confirmed that

he received ‘small numbers’ of Gurney’s Pitta; and while he did not know the

precise origins of the birds he sold, he promised to ask the village subdealer

who usually brought him birds. The site subsequently mentioned proved to

be one which had already been identified by Round (in press) as probably

still supporting lowland forest. The subdealer himself was unable to give

exact details concerning the whereabouts of the birds but, although he

referred to the site by the name of a mountain, he was nevertheless able to

confirm that Gurney’s Pittas originated from lowland forest {paa lam). He

was unwilling to take outside observers in to meet his local contacts, claiming

that the area was not safe.

THE SEARCH

On 10 June, we decided to approach the general area mentioned by the

subdealer via a different route. A village headman was contacted and he

was able to confirm that the district, which had previously been a stronghold

of insurgents, was now secure. Some of the villagers contacted were

apparently able to recognise Gurney’s Pitta when shown a photograph of a

captive male, although it was evident that others were confusing the species

with the much commoner Blue-winged Pitta P. moluccensis or with Banded

Pitta P. guajana. The consensus seemed to be, nevertheless, that Gurney’s

Pitta was still present.

On 11 June, the authors accompanied by two villagers as guides, hiked

into a 1.6km2 plot of lowland forest at 80- 100m elevation. This was still

connected to forest on the hill slopes rising to approximately 650m elevation.

All remaining lowlands were intensively cultivated, fields of hill rice and

tapioca alternating with rubber plantations and with small patches of

secondary scrub jungle and selectively logged forest. Camp was established at

two sites in the forest, separated by about 1 km, during 11-14 June at 100m

elevation and during 14-17 June at 80-90m elevation.

While those parts of the forest nearest the foothills appeared to be little

disturbed, the lower-lying parts of the area supported few trees taller than

15— 20m, among which only one species, Dipterocarpus sp., predominated.

This indicated that the forest had formerly been logged over, probably

within the previous twenty years. There was much bamboo Dendrocalamus

sp. while palms (chiefly Licuala peltata Roxb. with some L. spinosa Wurmb.

and Salacca rumphn Wall.) predominated in the understorey (Plate 1). The

lowest-lying parts of the area were swampy.

The entire area was subject to a high level of human use and was

criss-crossed with a network of trails ramifying among the dipterocarp trees,

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

55

which were being tapped for resin. Gunshots were heard daily while

bird-trappers, chiefly those seeking White-rumped Shamas Copsychus

malabaricus, were occasionally encountered.

Although most larger birds, such as pheasants Phasianidae and some

hornbills Bucerotidae had been hunted out, the area still supported a great

diversity of forest birds. These included many of the extreme lowland

specialists listed in Wells (1985), such as Red-crowned Barbet Megalaima

rafflesii, Large Wren-Babbler Napothera macrodactyla , together with many

other species which are scarce or absent from existing nature reserves in

Thailand.

Soon after first light each day, we set out independently to search for

birds, with most effort being concentrated within a 0.5 km radius of the

camp. Searches usually continued until dusk. All bird species seen or heard

were recorded and particular attention was paid to listening for pitta-like

calls (usually short, monosyllabic or disyllabic, fluty or whirring notes). We

were already familiar with the calls of eight of the 12 species of pitta thought

to occur in Thailand (Lekagul and Cronin 1974; and also with the ‘blip’

(‘tarup’) call of the captive male Gurney’s Pitta tape-recorded by P.D.R.

(Collar et al. 1986). We both carried this call on tape and played it at frequent

intervals in an attempt to generate a response. Any unfamiliar bird calls were

either taped and played back or otherwise followed up.

On occasion, one of us was accompanied by the elder of our two guides,

who claimed to have seen Gurney’s Pitta and to be able to recognise it by call.

However, both Gurney’s and Banded Pittas are known in southern Thailand

by the same name ( nok ten ) and it appeared that our guide was confusing the

Plate 1. Forest in vicinity of Gurney’s Pitta nest, 29 June 1986. Note the preponderance of bamboos

( Dendrocalamus sp.) and palms Licuala pellata. (U. Treesucon)

56

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

two as he constantly drew our attention to the distinctive ‘kirrr’ alarm calls

of Banded Pittas. (Under forest conditions, when no more than fleeting

views are usually obtained, it is probably difficult to distinguish between

these two species on the ground without the aid of binoculars.)

After the first three days, we had encountered small numbers of both

Hooded Pitta P . sordida and Banded Pitta without getting any indication that

Gurney’s might be present. On 14 June we decided to move our camp at

midday to the second, slightly lower site, even though we had been warned

by our guides beforehand that this area was more disturbed, with rather

fewer forest birds, owing in part to its proximity to a logging road.

In the late afternoon, following a brief but heavy rain shower, we had gone

out to examine the forest edge along the logging road. P.D.R. returned to

the forest interior first and at 17h40 was rounding a bend in the trail less than

100 m from the forest edge when a male Gurney’s Pitta flew up off the

ground, about 10 m ahead on the trail. The bird was easily recognised by its

plump shape and uniformly brown back and wings which contrasted with the

blue crown and tail. No further sightings were obtained in the next five

minutes, although a single yelping ‘skyeew’ note was heard, similar to the

contact or alarm call given by both Hooded and Blue-winged Pittas, but

differing in its distinctly wavering, tremulous quality. When the prepared

playback tape with the ‘lilip’ call was used, after only three notes a sudden

movement on the trail revealed the presence of a male Gurney’s Pitta. The

bird was at first breast on, but it turned and bounded off up the trail,

stopping at intervals to forage briefly. The bird allowed itself to be followed

for about 30 m before it moved off into the dense ground vegetation at the

side of the trail.

After a further 20 minutes, U.T. joined P.D.R. and the prepared tape was

played briefly. There was no immediate response, but after we had waited

approximately five minutes, first one and then a second bird started calling

with ‘skyeew’ notes, which were taped. Without any need for further

playbacks, the male bird then emerged once again onto the path, granting

further views before moving off in the same direction as previously. There

was no positive indication as to the sex of the second bird, which was

assumed to be the female of the pair.

The site was revisited early on the morning of 15 June, but an hour’s wait

produced no further sightings. P.D.R. moved to search for further birds

closer to the foothills where a guide had reported past sightings of Gurney’s

Pitta, while U.T. remained in the vicinity. At 08h20 U.T. obtained a

response to the taped playback of the calls heard on the previous day and was

moving towards the source when, brushing against some vegetation, he

flushed an unidentified pitta off its nest in spiny understorey vegetation. The

nest contained three eggs. U.T. took up a concealed vantage point about

20 m away and was able to watch a male Gurney’s Pitta return to the nest and

commence brooding some 30 minutes later. The male remained on the nest

throughout the day.

At 16h44, the brooding male called from the nest, giving one sequence of

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

57

four ‘blip’ calls followed by two more sequences of two such calls each. The

male flew off the nest at 17h05 and U.T. left some minutes later. The male

was subsequently encountered by P.D.R. on the same length of trail where it

had been seen the previous day.

THE NEST

The nest was a flattened dome, 18 cm deep with an external horizontal

diameter of 19cm and an internal diameter of 16cm. The side entrance was

approximately 14cm wide by 11cm high. It was constructed of bamboo

leaves and the leaves of unidentified broadleaved plants. The floor was a

shallow cup, lined with fine black rootlets. The nest was situated 94cm off

the ground in the base of spiny Salacca rumphii palm, at the point where the

fronds diverged (Plate 2). The nest tree was situated at the side of a shallow

gully.

Such a nest, situated in a low tree, resembles the nest of Banded Pitta

(Robinson 1915, pers. obs.) and conflicts with E.G. Herbert’s statement,

reported in Baker (1934), that his one nest of Gurney’s Pitta was placed on

the ground. However, this may be open to some slight doubt since Herbert

never saw the nest in situ but received it from his collector. Moreover, his

Plate 2. The nest tree, Salacca rumphii. Note nest a

little right of centre. Fan-shaped leaves are those of

Licuala peliata. 28 June 1986. (U. Treesucon)

58

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

earlier account (Herbert 1924) does not mention the situation of the nest,

remarking only that it was ‘similar to the one in my collection’, meaning the

nest of a Blue Pitta P. cyanea which itself was said to have been taken on the

ground, at the foot of a bamboo clump. Interestingly, however, the only

nests of Blue Pitta we have seen have been placed on epiphytic ferns in low

trees rather than on the ground (Round and Treesucon 1983), so perhaps

there is considerable variation in nest site among pairs of the same species.

The nest was situated only about 50m from a logging road, which skirted

the southern fringe of the forest block, in one of the lowest-lying parts of the

area, close to 80m elevation. Most other areas at similar elevation were

thought to be unsuitable for pittas as they were dominated by a swamp forest

formation, with up to 5 cm of standing water in parts and with a deep tangle

of tree roots and litter which might impede foraging for a ground bird. The

area in which the Gurney’s Pitta territory was situated was on moist, light,

sandy soil. Bamboo leaves predominated in the litter.

BEHAVIOUR AT THE NEST

It was possible to approach and to watch the nest while concealed in foliage,

without disturbing the birds. Observations were made subsequently at

intervals on 16 and 17 June. The heads of two tiny young were first seen at

midday on 17 June and were presumed to have hatched sometime between

the nights of 15- 16 and 16- 17 June. From the afternoon of 24 June, when a

blind was set up near the nest, the birds were watched almost continuously

throughout the daylight hours until the morning of 29 June when, having

been joined by F. R. Lambert, we had arranged to depart in order to search

additional areas for Gurney’s Pitta territories. When the site was revisited on

the morning of 2 July neither young nor adults could be found although the

nest structure was intact. The young would have been 13-14 days old when

last seen on 29 June, at which time their feathers were only just beginning to

emerge from pin. It was assumed at the time that either the nest had been

predated, most likely by a snake, or the young had been stolen by a villager

in order to be sold. However, unexpectedly early fledging appears to be a

frequent phenomenon among tropical forest birds and may be an adaptation

to avoid the high levels of nest predation to which tropical forest birds are

supposedly prone. It is therefore conceivable that, following up to three

further days of extremely rapid development, the birds might have left the

nest of their own accord. While the fledging period appears not to be

recorded for any species of pitta, the collection of Dr Boonsong Lekagul,

Bangkok, contains three skins of juvenile Blue-winged Pittas which, though

apparently fledged, are only about two-thirds the overall head- and body-

length of an adult, suggesting that young pittas might leave the nest while

still only part grown.

The female brooded the eggs and the eggs or young overnight on the

nights of 15-16 and 16-17 June respectively. On the morning of 16 June,

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

59

the male visited the nest seven times during 06h50 to 09h30 and was thought

to be feeding the brooding female, as distinct feeding actions were seen on at

, least two occasions, while in a third instance the male inserted his head into

i the nest entrance. The female left the nest on the male’s seventh visit, at

09h31; the male commenced brooding and was still on the nest when we

departed at 10h23. When the nest was revisited at 16h50, the male had

; already left and was seen moving across the forest floor in the vicinity while

the female was brooding.

On 17 June, the nest was watched, 07h 15—1 lh40, and again, 13hl3-

14h05. On this occasion, the female left the nest at the male’s first observed

i visit with food at 08hl8. It was not determined, however, whether the male

fed the female or (as now seems more likely) the young, as the latter were not

discovered until 1 lh30 when the male stood up to shift position on the nest.

When the nest was revisited at 13hl3, the female was already brooding the

young and the male came in with food on five occasions in the next 52

minutes of observation. From 24 June (8-9 days old) onwards, the young

were not brooded overnight or at any time during the day.

A total of 355 visits by the adults to the nest were recorded from 08h40 on

25 June until 08h05 on 29 June. On only four occasions did the male, and on

one occasion the female, visit the nest apparently without bringing food for

the young. The male contributed 290 visits, compared with the female’s 65

(Figure; see also Plates 3 and 4). Almost half of the female’s visits were

recorded on the last near-complete day of observations (33 visits on 28 June),

and with hindsight it seems that this may have been because she was slow in

becoming habituated to the presence of the blind. She gave no overt signs of

alarm other than during a 30-minute period immediately after the blind was

first entered on the morning of 25 June, when a series of ‘skyeew’ calls was

heard. Although no alarm calls were given subsequently, she was noticeably

Figure. Frequency of feeding visits to

young in nest.

60

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

more hesitant in delivering food to the nest than was the male, usually

looking around for a few seconds immediately after alighting and before

feeding the young. In contrast, the male showed not the slightest agitation,

feeding the young immediately on alighting at the nest entrance and

sometimes even foraging within 2 m of the occupied blind.

The earliest recorded nest visit was at 06hl8 on 27 June, only nine minutes

after sunrise, while the latest occurred at 18h28 on 26 June, four minutes

before sunset. The female made the last visits of the day on both 27 and 28

June, and these took place at 18h25 and 18h20 respectively. The female

consistently increased her feeding visits in the late afternoon and the

frequency of feeds made by the male also increased during this time (Figure).

The shortest interval between two consecutive feeds by the same parent (the

male) was less than one minute and the longest 52 minutes, but most took

place at intervals of 5-15 minutes. Even though there was intermittent,

sometimes heavy, rain throughout the four days of observation, this did not

appear to impede foraging and the adults continued to bring food to the nest

throughout.

The only time when both parents were seen together on the nest was when

the eggs or young were still being brooded, and on one other occasion when

the male was still attempting to feed the young with a large (3-4cm long)

leatherjacket-like insect grub which they were unable to swallow, when the

female also appeared with a beakful of earthworms.

Eleven faecal sacs were extruded by the young during the full day’s

observations on 27 June and at least nine and ten on 26 and 28 June

respectively. These were usually extruded after the male had probed into the

nest cavity with the bill, though on occasions the young extruded them onto

Plate 3. c f Pitta gumeyi at nest, immediately after feeding young, 28 June 1986. (U. Treesucon)

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

61

the nest rim without prior external stimulus. Both sexes were seen to carry

off laecal sacs. On two occasions when a faecal sac broke open, the male was

seen to eat part of the contents.

Earthworms were the most frequently observed prey item brought to the

young and accounted for 46 of 63 observed feeds (Table). However, this may

in part be due to the ease with which they could be seen, since they usually

drooped from the bill. On only a small percentage of the male’s feeding visits

was it actually possible to detect food in the bill, since the blind occluded

views of the birds’ approach to the nest. In addition, the male flew up to the

nest entrance from a point almost directly below and in front, feeding the

young with its back turned to the observer. We both had the impression that

the male was actually bringing in a higher proportion of small food items

than could be determined with certainty. Because the female usually alighted

to the side of the nest entrance and hesitated before feeding the young, the

prey items which she brought were more often identified.

The birds were occasionally seen foraging, when they usually tossed the

leaf litter aside with sideways flicks of the bill, sometimes giving short probes

Table. Food items brought to the nest, 17 June and 25-29 June 1986.

.1

I Plate 4. 9 Pitta gumeyi at nest, immediately after feeding young, 28 June 1986. (U. Treesucon)

1 - - -

62

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

into the loose topsoil. Both adults were frequently observed with mud

adhering to their bills.

After the birds had vanished from the nest, we attempted to search for

possible pitta prey items, by searching beneath the leaf litter in those areas

where the birds had been seen foraging. However, after approximately five

minutes of searching, we had collected only one earthworm, a large spider, a

millipede and two small cockroaches. Small cockroaches were very numerous

in the leaf litter.

VOCALISATIONS

The ‘skyeew’ note described above was the most frequently heard call and

this presumably corresponds with the ‘peculiar kir-r-r’ of Hume and Davison

(1878). However, while their description serves to convey the impression of

the slight tremolo, it incorrectly suggests similarity to the entirely distinct

‘kirrr’ (‘whirr’ in Medway and Wells 1976) of a Banded Pitta. In fact, the call

is much more likely to be confused with the contact or alarm calls of Hooded

and Blue-winged Pittas, as already mentioned. Both sexes gave this call: in

alarm, such as in response to the presence of an observer; in response to

taped playbacks of both this and the ‘lilip’ calls, and apparently also as a

contact call. However, the overall rate of calling was very low: in 39 hours of

observations at the nest during 26-29 June, only nine sequences of calls

(eight sequences of 1-3 notes; one of six notes) were heard. Of these, three

were given at dawn and two at dusk: two more, in the early afternoon, may

have been given in response to distant ‘skyew’ calls from a Hooded Pitta.

The ‘lilip’ call was only heard on the one occasion already mentioned above

when the male delivered it before leaving the nest and eggs unattended. This

suggests that this note too may have a contact function, possibly serving to

alert or attract the female.

No primary song was heard with certainty, although on 14 June, P.D.R.

heard a sequence of mellow ‘prew’ notes spaced at roughly one second

intervals, which had a somewhat pitta-like quality, coming from the area

where, within seconds, the male was first flushed from the trail.

SEARCHES ELSEWHERE

During 29 June to 1 July, together with F. R. Lambert, we visited an

adjacent area, on the opposite side of the same mountain range, where

villagers were said to be actively engaged in trapping pittas (chiefly Banded

Pittas) for illicit trade. The two most experienced trappers were extremely

helpful-and acted as our guides. They showed us how, by imitating the

explosive ‘kirrr’ note of the Banded Pitta, they could entice the birds to

respond, and they apparently use this method to lure them into mist-nets.

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

63

i Both trappers were familiar with Gurney’s Pitta and claimed that usually

about two birds per month were trapped from around the area of their

district. They reported that this species was much scarcer than Banded Pitta

and, in addition, more difficult to catch because they were unable to imitate

its call. When played our tape of Gurney’s Pitta, they immediately

recognised the ‘skyeew’ note as belonging to this species, but were unfamiliar

with the ‘blip’ call. Moreover, although their usual trapping areas comprised

approximately 5knr of level lowland forest, at approximately 150m

elevation, they maintained that they had never encountered Gurney’s Pitta

there but usually found it, together with the Giant Pitta P . caerulea and the

much commoner Blue-winged and Hooded Pittas, in patches of secondary

scrub jungle, even including old, overgrown rubber plantations, closer to

their houses. Such areas were only slightly lower in elevation than the

remaining forest, at around 110m.

Although we spent two days searching, in both forest and in secondary

growth and cultivation, no Gurney’s Pittas were located. The trappers

maintained that the birds were most easily detectable from November to

January (i.e. outside the breeding season), when they were more inclined to

call. They nevertheless maintained that the species was present all year,

although they did not appear to be familiar with the nest.

A small area of forest and secondary growth at less than 50m elevation at

Ban Nai Chong, some 20km north of the town of Krabi, was also searched,

during 10-16 July, by R. Filby and S. Dalziel. Although a number of

Banded Pittas were encountered, no Gurney’s were found even though the

prepared playback tape was used extensively. The apparent absence of

Gurney’s Pitta here is difficult to account for because the habitat appears

very similar to that at the site of the recent discovery. However, the area

differs in that it lacks any permanent watercourses and, in addition, has been

isolated from the remaining forests of the submontane slopes.

DETECTABILITY AND NUMBERS

Although all or most pittas are shy and secretive, it appears that Gurney’s

may be especially difficult to locate, at least when nesting, because it calls so

infrequently. During the period 11-25 June, while we were still actively

searching for additional pitta territories, we estimated that there were about

10 Banded Pitta territories in and around the 1.6 km2 forest block which held

the Gurney’s Pitta territory. This was based chiefly on birds heard, as there

was a high incidence of calling and, on occasions, Banded Pittas even

responded to playbacks of the taped ‘skyeew’ note of Gurney’s Pitta.

Nothing was known concerning the breeding status of the particular

individuals concerned, but assuming that Banded Pitta breeds at the same

time of year as does Gurney’s (see Chasen 1939) our findings suggest that it

i may be more vocal than Gurney’s Pitta at a comparable stage in the breeding

cycle. This might, however, be a function of the differing population levels

64

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

in the two species. If there was only one pair of Gurney’s in the forest block,

as seemed to be the case, the birds might be less inclined to call than would

Banded, since pairs of the latter might continually be encountering their

neighbours.

STATUS UPDATE

The discovery of a single nesting pair of Gurney’s Pittas in June 1986 appears

to confirm the supposition, made in Collar et al. (1986), that the species is

restricted to the extreme lowlands. The only positively claimed upland

records, from Khao Phanom Bencha (Meyer de Schauensee 1946), must be

open to doubt. While it is possible that, due to the species’s former

abundance in the once extensive forests of the lowlands, some individuals

were able to disperse up the submontane slopes, it seems far more likely that

a simple recording error may have led to specimens being attributed to the

wrong altitudinal station.

There is virtually no forest below 100 m within the boundary of any

protected area in peninsular Thailand. Furthermore, it is now doubtful

whether even as much as 20 km2 of extreme lowland forest in total remains

throughout the entire Thai range of Gurney’s Pitta as the speed of forest

clearance has accelerated even further in the past two or three years, owing to

the adoption of coffee as a cash crop.

The only ray of hope is that Gurney’s Pitta may be able to survive in

secondary forest and scrub jungle. Certainly the location of the 1986 nest,

though situated in an ornithologically species-rich forest, was in a relatively

disturbed part, with few large trees and a preponderance of bamboo. There

are also the (probably reliable) reports of bird-trappers at one locality that

they regularly find small numbers of Gurney’s in patches of secondary

growth, even including old, overgrown rubber plantations. At present,

however, nothing can be inferred concerning the breeding status of these

individuals since the trappers appeared never to have seen a Gurney’s Pitta

nest. Many tropical forest birds are relatively long-lived and it is possible that

the trappers are merely encountering displaced birds that are moving

around, searching unsuccessfully for suitable breeding habitat. In addition,

it is doubtful whether Gurney’s Pitta could ever utilise those secondary

habitats that are remote from remaining forest. Indeed, such patches of

lowland secondary growth themselves are undoubtedly at risk due to the

continuing intensification of agriculture on already deforested areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

If Gurney’s Pitta is to be saved, the immediate establishment of a protected

area around the site of the 1986 find will be necessary, and recommendations

1986

Gurney’s Pitta

65

for this have already been submitted to the Thai government by ICBP and

IUCN. Such a reserve should aim to protect the largest possible area of

lowland forest, selectively logged forest and secondary growth, as well as all

contiguous areas of forest on hill slopes. If possible, agriculture should be

discontinued (or at least not intensified) around the immediate margins of the

site, so that the areas occupied by secondary forest may actually increase.

Similar recommendations, involving the maintenance of intact forest blocks,

with corridors radiating from them and linking surrounding secondary

growth and plantations, have already been suggested for the conservation of

forest birds in the Neotropics (Evans 1986). If such measures were applied

around the site of the Gurney’s Pitta find, many other lowland forest birds

might also benefit. ,

There is also an urgent need for detailed research around the site of the

find, in order to determine the numbers, ecology and breeding status of any

such Gurney’s Pittas as remain. Areas of secondary growth and scrub in the

lowlands outside the margins of existing parks and sanctuaries should also be

searched for Gurney’s Pitta and other key lowland bird species, with a view

to extending the boundaries of such sites.

These measures need to be implemented with the greatest urgency as, with

the passage of each dry season (January to April), there is a successive

reduction in the amount of forest remaining as farmers open up new areas for

cultivation. With so little Gurney’s Pitta habitat remaining, just one further

dry season may be sufficient to ensure the species’s destruction.

Many people directly assisted us in our long search. We thank the superintendents of those

national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in peninsular Thailand where, during the past four

years, we have searched fruitlessly for Gurney’s Pitta. Mr. Pisit na Patalung gave us the

names of some key contacts among the illicit animal traders; we must thank the traders

themselves for (wittingly or unwittingly) aiding our search. We are grateful to the villagers,

village headmen and the sub-district head around the site of the eventual find for their

hospitality, forbearance and assistance. The bird-trappers, known as Lung Beung and

Lung Chawp, proved to be good friends and field companions. Wherever else we may

differ, they share with us a common interest in pittas and, like us, are concerned to see bird

habitats protected. Many people have enthusiastically encouraged us in our search,

especially Dr. N. J. Collar and Dr. D. R. Wells.

REFERENCES

Baker, E. C. S. (1934) The nidification of birds of the Indian Empire , 3. London: Taylor and

Francis.

Chasen, F. N. (1939) The birds of the Malay Peninsula , 4. London: H. F. and G. Witherby.

Collar, N. J., Round, P. D. and Wells, D. R. (1986) The past and future of Gurney’s Pitta.

Forktail 1: 29-51.

Evans, P. G. H. (1986) In focus: Dominica, West Indies. World Birdwatch 8(1): 8-9.

Herbert, E. G. (1924) Nests and eggs of birds in central Siam. J. Nat. Hist. Soc. Siam 6:

293-311.

Hume, A. O. and Davison, W. (1878) A revised list of the birds of Tenasserim. Stray Feathers 8:

151-163.

Lekagul, B. and Cronin, E. W. (1974) Bird guide of Thailand. Second (revised) edition. Bangkok:

Association for the Conservation of Wildlife.

66

P. D. ROUND and U. TREESUCON

Forktail 2

Medway, Lord and Wells, D. R. (1976) The birds of the Malay Peninsula, 5. London and Kuala

Lumpur: H. F. and G. Witherby in association with Penerbit Universiti Malaya.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1946) On Siamese birds. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 98: 1-82.

Robinson, H. C. (1915) On a collection of birds from the Siamese province of Bandon, N. E.

Malay Peninsula. J. Fed. Malay States Mus. 5(3): 83-110.

Round. P. D. (in press) The status and conservation of forest birds in Thailand. Cambridge, U. K.:

International Council for Bird Preservation.

Round, P. D. and Treesucon, U. (1983) Observations on the breeding of the Blue Pitta ( Pitta

cyanea ) in Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 31: 93-98.

Wells, D. R. (1985) The forest avifauna of western Malesia and its conservation. Pp. 213-232 in

A. W. Diamond and T. E. Lovejoy, eds. Conservation of tropical forest birds. Cambridge,

U.K.: International Council for Bird Preservation (Techn. Publ. no. 4).

P. D. Round and Uthai Treesucon, Centre for Wildlife Research, Biology Department, Faculty of

Science, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.

FORKTAIL 2 (1986): 67-82

Recent observations of birds in

Xizang and Qinghai provinces, China

C. R. ROBSON

Between 3 March 1986 and 19 April 1986 216 species of birds were recorded from 23

localities in Xizang and Qinghai provinces, China; 7—11 species were new for Xizang, three

for Qinghai, and 17-20 for ‘South-east Tibet’. Notable species seen include Black-necked

Crane Grus nigricollis , Kozlov’s Babax Babax koslowi and Kozlov’s Bunting Emberiza

koslowi.

Vaurie (1972) treated Tibet (Qinghai- Xizang Plateau) as a geographical

region rather than a country with political boundaries, splitting it up into

three plateau regions - Northern, Outer and South-eastern (cited as South¬

east Tibet in this paper) - according to vegetation, topography and climate,

etc. Chinese scientists recognise different divisions for the region (Zhang

1978) and these together with Vaurie’s can be found on Figure 2.

Unfortunately the names of the Chinese divisions could not be translated and

I have used those of Vaurie for convenience.

The history of ornithology in South-east Tibet is rather brief, and the

region’s avifauna is still poorly known. In southern South-east Tibet the

most important work was done by F. Ludlow and Major G. Sherriff during

their collecting expeditions of 1936, 1938 and 1946-1947. Previously only

very small collections had been made by F. M. Bailey in 1911 and again

accompanied by Captain Morshead, in 1913. G. Bonvalot and Prince H.

d’Orleans were the first to make collections in northern South-east Tibet, in

1890, followed by P. K. Kozlov in 1900-1901 and the Brooke Dolan

Expedition of 1934- 1935, with E. Schafer. There was also a small collection

made by Captain Bower and Dr Thorold in 1891-1892. In recent times

collecting has been carried out in South-east Tibet by Chinese ornithologists,

and reported on by Cai Qikai et al. (1977), Li Dehao et al. (1978), Li Dehao

and Wang Zuxiang (1979), Jiang Zhihua et al. (1979), Zheng Zuoxin et al.

(1980) and Zheng Zuoxin (1983). Some of the birds they collected were

outside Vaurie’s (1972) division for the South-eastern Plateau Region, but all

were within present-day Chinese limits, and Xizang province. In this paper I

include the whole of this part of Xizang up to the border, and call it

South-east Tibet, rather than the South-eastern Plateau.

North-eastern Tibet has been much more widely explored, and is probably

the best known part of Tibet (Qinghai-Xizang Plateau). A great number of

expeditions have criss-crossed the area, starting with the great Russian

expeditions of the 1870s, led by N. M. Przhevalsky, V. I. Roborovsky and,

later, P. K. Kozlov, who completed his last explorations there in 1907-1909,

and ending with the work done by F. R. Wulsin, J. F. Rock and W. Beick

between 1922 and 1930, and by Sien Yaohua and his co-workers in

1959-1962.

68

C. R. ROBSON

Forktail 2

During March and April 1986 D. S. Farrow and I spent seven weeks

travelling from Lhasa to Qinghai Hu (Koko Nor) via Pome District, Qamdo

and Yushu in South-east Tibet. During the course of our trip we observed

over 200 species of birds, among which were 7- 1 1 new species for Xizang

province, three new for Qinghai province and 17-20 new for South-east

Tibet (South-eastern Plateau region as described by Vaurie 1972). In

addition we made a number of observations representing minor range

extensions, or providing recent information on little-known or threatened

species. During the second half of March, we observed a small migration of

raptors through southern South-east Tibet. The largest single movement

occurred at Giincang on 13 March. On that day cloud cover dropped to

c. 3, 200m in the late morning and then lifted again to c. 4, 800m in the early

afternoon. After the cloud lifted raptors began passing through between

c.3,600 and 4,200m.

We arrived in Lhasa by aeroplane from Chengdu, Sichuan, on 3 March

1986. After a few days birdwatching in the Lhasa area we travelled east by

truck, along the Lhasa-Chengdu road to Giincang in westernmost South¬

east Tibet, where we spent the next six days, 10-16 March, exploring

various habitats up to 4,300m. We were surprised by the extensive pine and

mixed coniferous forest with prickly oak and rhododendron remaining in this

area, and decided to move on east to Pome District (30°15'N 95°00'E), where

we expected to lose altitude and perhaps find some evergreen forest.

We travelled by truck again, arriving at Tangmai, Pome District, on 20

March, after spending a day at Dongjug. Between Dongjug and Tangmai we

dropped down in altitude and evergreen elements became increasingly

dominant. At Tangmai itself, we found ourselves surrounded by pristine

evergreen forest (see Plates 1-2). It rained heavily at Tangmai, and on 24

March we moved, again by truck, south-east along the Po Tsangpo river to

Bomi. We left the evergreen forest behind, some 20km after Tangmai, as we

regained altitude. We found extensive forest once more at Bomi, and spent

two days, 25-26 March, exploring an area across the river to the south. On

27 March we continued south-east to Rawu, then north via Baxoi and Bamda

to Qamdo on the upper Mekong, arriving on 31 March. On the way to

Qamdo we passed through high and often rugged terrain, including the

breathtaking gorges of the Salween and Mekong. The general terrain

remained rather rugged, but more open around Qamdo, with some patches

of forest on a north-facing aspect. We found a good area of forest about 7km

north of Qamdo, on the east side of the Mekong, and spent two days, 1-2

April, looking for birds there.

In Qamdo we decided to try and head north for Yushu along a road which

was marked on our maps. We took a lift in a truck from Qamdo to Sagoo,

some 65 km to the north-west along a major tributary of the Mekong. There

was no transport north of Sagoo, and the road itself, very obvious on our

maps, disappeared. We walked on to Hsiin-ta and then Gamda, through a

well-wooded area, on 4-5 April. From Gamda we had a very long day’s walk

over high country to Goinxab. The next two days were spent walking on

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

69

through open steppe country to Ka-ma and eventually Nangqen on the

Mekong again, arriving there on 8 April. We picked up the road again at

Nangqen and travelled by truck via Doramarkog to Yushu. Yushu (just

inside the northern border of South-east Tibet) was very disappointing, the

surrounding hills bare and overgrazed. We travelled by bus for the two-day

800km journey to Xining over the high, windswept Qinghai Plateau, on

12-13 April. From Xining we took a bus west to Qinghai Hu, and spent our

last few days in Tibet proper on the Bird Island peninsula at the western end

of the lake, 15-19 April. All these localities are mapped in Figures 1 and 2.

RECORDS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST

GREAT CORMORANT Phalacrocorax carbo Maximum of five at Tangmai

from 21-23 March, one between Tangmai and Bomi on 24 March, two at

Rawu on 28 March and two at Nangqen on 8 April. Although previously

recorded from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972), these

appear to be the first records for South-east Tibet.

COMMON SHELDUCK Tadoma ladoma A pair on the Mekong, about

30km south of Qamdo, on 31 March. Although previously recorded from the

Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972), this appears to be the

Plate 1. Evergreen forest along the Yigrong Chu

near Tangmai, habitat for Bay Woodpecker and

Black-eared Shrike-Babbler (C. R. Robson)

Plate 2. Undergrowth in evergreen forest c. 7 km

south-west of Tangmai, habitat for Yellow-throated

Fulvetta and Grey-cheeked Warbler (C. R. Robson)

70

C. R. ROBSON

Forktail 2

first record for South-east Tibet.

EURASIAN WIGEON Anas penelope A flock of ten at Tangmai on 22

March, one at Rawu on 28 March, and one a few kilometres north-east of

Hsiin-ta on 5 April. Zheng (1976) maps this species right across South-east

Tibet as a winter visitor, without specific location, and Meyer de Schauensee

(1984) mentions it as a winter visitor to the region, but no definite records for

the region, prior to ours, have been traced. It has previously been recorded

from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

GADWALL Anas strepera At least five, about 7 km south-west of Tangmai,

on 20 March, another two at Tangmai on 21 March, and two or three at

Rawu on 28 March. Zheng (1976) maps this species right across South-east

Tibet as a winter visitor, without specific location, but no definite records,

prior to ours, have been traced. It has previously been recorded from the

Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

SPOT-BILLED DUCK Anas poecilorhyncha One at Giincang on 13 and 15

March, and about eight at Rawu on 28 March. The sighting at Rawu appears

to represent an extension eastwards of its known range in South-east Tibet.

Zheng (1976) maps it for South-east Tibet, south of the Tsangpo valley, as a

winter visitor, without specific location, but only one previous record for the

region has been traced: one or two flocks seen on the Tsangpo at Dzeng, near

Tsela Dzong (29°25'N 94°22'E) in March 1947 (Ludlow 1951). It has

previously been recorded from the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie 1972).

NORTHERN SHOVELER Anas clypeata One at Giincang on 15 March.

This appears to be only the second record for South-east Tibet, and an

extension westwards of its known range in the region. Zheng (1976) maps it

as a winter visitor to South-east Tibet, south of the Tsangpo valley, without

specific location, but only one previous record for the region has been traced:

two specimens taken at Bomi (Zheng 1983). It has previously been recorded

from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

SMEW Mergus albellus At least 25, in a large mixed flock of ducks, at the

western end of Qinghai Hu, on 16 April. This may be the first record for

Qinghai Hu, and the Northern Plateau region. Zheng (1976) maps it to the

north of the upper Hwang Ho area as a winter visitor, without specific

location, and Sien et al. (1964) give a record from Xining by E. Stresemann

and W. Meise, 1937-1938. It has also been recorded from Dobo (36°41'N

101°30'E), north-east Qinghai province, in the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie

1972).

BLACK KITE Milvus migrans At least 145 moving east at Giincang on 13

March, followed by six east on 15 March and 18 east on 16 March. A rather

disorientated flock of 40 at Nyingchi on 17 March, some eventually going

east. Another disorientated flock of 32 over Dong jug on 19 March. A flock of

17 moving north or north-east over Tangmai, on 21 March, followed by

seven going in the same direction on 23 March. At least 40 birds, which had

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

71

roosted in the fields at Bomi on 24-25 March, had all left by the evening of

the 25th, presumably in an easterly or south-easterly direction.

WHITE-TAILED EAGLE Haliaeetus albicilla At least three (one adult and

two immatures) c. 8km west of Lhasa on 4 March, and single adult and

immature birds at Giincang, on 11 and 12 March respectively, both moving

in an easterly direction. These appear to be the first records for Xizang

province and South-east Tibet. It has previously been recorded from

north-east Qinghai province in the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Sien

et al. 1964, Vaurie 1972).

HIMALAYAN GRIFFON VULTURE Gyps himalayensis Several seen at

the following localities: Giincang, 10-16 March; Rawu, 28 March; between

Baxoi and Bamda, 30 March; between Bamda and Qamdo, 31 March; c.7km

north of Qamdo, 2 April; between Qamdo and Sagoo, 3 April; between

Sagoo and Hstin-ta, 4 April; between Hsiin-ta and Gamda, 5 April; between

Gamda and Goinxab, 6 April; between Goinxab and Nangqen, 7-8 April;

between Nangqen and Doramarkog, 9 April; between Doramarkog and

Yushu, 10 April; and at Yushu, 1 1 April. Surprisingly, these appear to be the

first records for South-east Tibet. It has previously been recorded from the

Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

CINEREOUS VULTURE Aegypius monachus Two birds c. 8km west of

Lhasa on 4 March, and another just north of Lhasa on 5 March. These may

be the first records for Xizang province, and the Outer Plateau region. Zheng

(1983) lists it for southern and western Xizang, but appears to give no

specific localities. It has been recorded from the Northern Plateau region and

South-east Tibet, as far south as Tongchi Gompa (33°25'N 97°03'E) in

south-east Qinghai province (Vaurie 1972).

NORTHERN HARRIER Circus cyaneus One moving east at Giincang on 12

March, followed by another two on 13 March, three at Tangmai on 22

March, one at Sumzom on 27 March, one c. 7 km north of Qamdo on 1 April,

one between Qamdo and Sagoo on 3 April, and one between Gamda and

Goinxab on 6 April. Zheng (1976) maps it across southern South-east Tibet

as a winter visitor, without specific location, and Meyer de Schauensee

(1984) also mentions it as a winter visitor to the region, but no definite

records for the region, prior to ours, have been traced. It has previously been

recorded from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

MARSH HARRIER Circus aeruginosus One between Yushu and Madoi, at

c. 4, 085 m, on 12 April. This may be only the second record for Qinghai

province. It has previously been recorded from the Zaidam (April, August)

and northern Chang Tang (September) in the Northern Plateau region, and

southern Xizang in the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie 1972).

NORTHERN GOSHAWK Accipiter gentilis One moving east at Giincang on

13 March.

72

C. R. ROBSON

Forktaii 2

NORTHERN SPARROWHAWK Accipiter msus Two moving east at

Giincang on 13 March.

COMMON BUZZARD Buteo buteo Single birds at Giincang on 11 and 13

March, the latter moving in an easterly direction. It appears that this species

has previously only been recorded from the northern part of South-east

Tibet. It has also been recorded from eastern Qinghai province, in the Outer

Plateau region (Vaurie 1972).

STEPPE EAGLE Aquila rapax mpalensis At least 25 in the Lhasa area on 4-5

March, at least 46 moving east at Giincang on 13 March, followed by singles

on 15 and 16 March, and two birds moving in a north or north-easterly

direction at Dongjug on 19 March. These may be the first records for Xizang

province. Zheng (1983) lists it for western Xizang, but appears to give no

specific localities. It has been recorded from north-east Qinghai province, in

the Outer Plateau region, and northern South-east Tibet, as far south as Ge

Chu (32°08'N 96°48'E) in south-east Qinghai (Vaurie 1972).

GOLDEN EAGLE Aquila chrysaetos One between Ganden and Giincang on

9 March, at least six at Giincang, 10—16 March, one at Tangmai on 22

March, and two more on 23 March, one or two at Bomi on 25 March, two or

three at Rawu on 28 March, three or four c. 7km north of Qamdo on 1-2

April, two or three between Qamdo and Sagoo on 3 April, and several,

including a pair displaying, between Sagoo and Hsiin-ta on 4 April.

Surprisingly, there only appears to be one previous record for Xizang

province, from Norn Chu (32°02'N 98°13'E) (Vaurie 1972). Zheng (1983)

lists it for southern Xizang, but appears to give no specific localities. It has

been recorded from north and north-east Qinghai province, in the Northern

and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

SAKER FALCON Falco cherrug Two pairs, believed to be breeding, in hills

at the western end of Qinghai Hu on 18 April. One bird was observed for

over 20 minutes, sitting very tight on a nest, and presumably incubating,

with its mate keeping watch nearby. Another pair were seen chasing one

another, possibly as part of some sort of display, in the vicinity of another

nest.

COMMON COOT Fulica atra One, a few kilometres north-west of Qamdo,

on 3 April. This appears to be the first record for South-east Tibet. Zheng

(1976) maps it across South-east Tibet as a winter visitor, without specific

location, but no definite records for the region, prior to ours, have been

traced. It has been recorded from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions

(Vaurie 1972).

COMMON CRANE Grus grus A single bird came down very low under

heavy cloud before heading off north, at Tangmai, on 21 March. The

following day, at the same locality, a flock of 16 cranes, probably this species,

went through in the same direction. This appears to be the first record for

Xizang province and South-east Tibet. Zheng (1983) lists it for eastern

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

73

Xizang, but appears to give no specific localities. It has been recorded from

the Northern Plateau region (Vaurie 1972).

BLACK-NECKED CRANE Grus nigricollis Two or three groups, totalling

at least 57 birds, c.8km west of Lhasa, on 4 March, another two flocks of

c.41 and c.15, between Lhasa and Ganden (three hours by bus east of

Lhasa), on 8 March, and a flock of 23+ to the east of Ganden, on 9 March.

This species was listed by Vaurie (1972) as one of the six endemic Tibetan

birds (but see, e.g. Clements and Bradbear, Forktail, this issue).

NORTHERN LAPWING Vanellus vanellus One at Rawu on 28 March, and

another a few kilometres north-west of Qamdo on 3 April. These may be the

first documented records for South-east Tibet. Zheng (1976) maps it across

southern South-east Tibet as a winter visitor, without specific location, and

Ludlow (1951) says it passes through South-east Tibet during spring and

autumn migration, but gives no details. No other records for the region have

been traced. It has been recorded from the Northern and Outer Plateau

regions (Vaurie 1972).

EURASIAN WOODCOCK Scolopax rusticola One at Giincang on 14 March.

This appears to be only the fifth record for Xizang province. From

South-east Tibet there were two previous records quoted by Vaurie (1972),

and another by Li et al. (1978), and from Lhasa, in the Outer Plateau region,

a single bird (Ludlow 1950).

GREAT BLACK-HEADED GULL Larus ichthyaetus One on the Mekong at

Nangqen on 8 April, a second winter bird. This appears to be the first

definite record for South-east Tibet. It has been observed to the north-east of

Yushu, in south-east Qinghai province, according to Meyer de Schauensee

(1984), but no details are given. It has been recorded from the Northern and

Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

COMMON BLACK-HEADED GULL Larus ndibundus One adult at the

western end of Qinghai Hu on 16 April. This may be the first record for the

area. Vaurie (1972) lists it as a migrant for the Northern Plateau region, but

gives no details other than a record from the Zaidam on 5 March by P. K.

Kozlov.

MEW GULL Larus canus Two birds, a first winter and a second winter, at

the western end of Qinghai Hu on 16 April. These appear to be the first

records for Qinghai province and the Northern Plateau region. The nearest

previous records are from Sichuan and Shaanxi provinces (Zheng 1976).

HERRING GULL Larus argentatus One second winter or second summer

bird, at the western end of Qinghai Hu, on 17 April. I could not determine

the subspecies of this bird, but it most resembled L. a. heuglini or L. a.

barabensis. The former is sometimes considered conspecific with Lesser

Black-Backed Gull L. fuscus, and is said to hybridise with L. a. vegae in

northern central Siberia, producing a hybrid population which has been

named L. f. taimyrensis (Cramp and Simmons 1983). This appears to be the

74

C. R. ROBSON

Forktail 2

first record for Qinghai province and the Northern Plateau region, the

nearest previous record being in Kansu province (Zheng 1976).

PALLAS’S SANDGROUSE Syrrhaptes paradoxus At least 20-30 birds on

the Bird Island peninsula, at the western end of Qinghai Hu, on 17 April.

Several birds were seen at the same locality in 1984 (M. A. S. Beaman

verbally). These appear to be the first records for the Qinghai Hu region. It

was recorded previously in the Northern Plateau region from the Zaidam

(Vaurie 1972), and mapped to the north-east of Qinghai Hu, probably in

Kansu province, by Zheng (1976).

HIMALAYAN SWIFTLET Collocalia brevirostris A flock of at least 50,

c.7km south-west of Tangmai, on 23 March, and another flock of at least 40

a few kilometres south-east of Tangmai, along the Po Tsangpo, on 24 March.

There only appear to have been two previous records for Xizang province.

Zheng (1976) has mapped it in southern Xizang, in the Outer Plateau region

(c.28°50'N 91°00'E), and Meyer de Schauensee (1984), presumably based on

Zheng (1976), says it occurs in south Tibet (Xizang). The other record is of

four birds collected in April, May and August to the south of the ‘Big Bend’

in the Tsangpo (29°50'N 95°05'E), South-east Tibet, reported on by Zheng

(1983).

GREAT BARBET Megalaima virens Several birds calling daily in the

Tangmai area, 20-23 March, with a maximum of five on 22 March. These

appear to be the first records for south-east Tibet, and the second for Xizang

province, the only previous record there being of four birds collected in May

1974 in the Outer Plateau region, near the border with central Nepal (Cai el

al. 1977).

BAY WOODPECKER Blythipicus pyrrhotis One or two heard calling from

evergreen forest c. 7 km south-west of Tangmai on 20 March, and one seen in

evergreen forest a little way along the Yigrong Chu, near Tangmai, on 22

March. These appear to be the first records for Xizang province and South¬

east Tibet. It is already known to occur across the border in Arunachal

Pradesh, India (Ali 1977).

BARN SWALLOW Hirundo rustica At least four or five between Qamdo and

Sagoo on 3 April. This appears to be only the third record for South-east

Tibet and the fifth for Xizang province. One of the previous records for

South-east Tibet was from a locality close to ours (Zheng 1983).

NEPAL HOUSE MARTIN Delichon nipalensis At least 500 between

Dongjug and Tangmai on 20 March. This appears to be the first record for

South-east Tibet and only the second for Xizang province. The only previous

record was of seven birds collected in southern Xizang, in the Outer Plateau

region, just north of the border with central Nepal, in June 1976 (Zheng

1980).

WATER PIPIT Anthus spinoletta One at Nyingchi on 17 March, and another

possible heard at Rawu on 28 March. The bird at Nyingchi was probably of

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

75

the race A. s. blakistoni, which is less heavily streaked on the underparts in

winter plumage than A. s. japonicus. This appears to be the first record for

Xizang province and South-east Tibet. It has previously been recorded from

the Northern and Outer Plateau regions, as far south as Yushu in south-east

Qinghai province, northern South-east Tibet (Vaurie 1972).

BROWN DIPPER Cinclus pallasii One, a few kilometres west of Dongjug,

on 18 March, five or six at Dongjug on 19 March, at least two, up to a few

kilometres east of Dongjug, on 20 March, and one at Tangmai on 22 March.

There only appears to be one previous record for South-east Tibet, from

Buho in the northern part of the region (Vaurie 1972). The species has also

been recorded from southern Xizang, in the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie

1972, Zheng 1983), and the Xining area, north-east Qinghai province, also in

the Outer Plateau region (Sien et al. 1964).

BLACK REDSTART Phoenicurus ochruros Two males at Rawu on 28

March. It appears that previously this species had only been recorded from

the northern part of South-east Tibet. It has been recorded widely in the

Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

PLUMBEOUS REDSTART Rhyacomis fuliginosus One male on the Salween

between Baxoi and Bamda on 30 March. This record appears to be to the

north-east of those previously listed for South-east Tibet (Ludlow 1951,

Vaurie 1972, Zheng 1983). It has also been recorded from southern Xizang,

in the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie 1972, Zheng 1983).

DESERT WHEATEAR Oenanthe deserti One male, c. 8km west of Lhasa,

on 4 March. This appears to be the earliest record for Xizang and Qinghai

provinces. According to Vaurie (1972:158) the earliest record is 2 April, but

he also mentions a record from the upper Hwang Ho in March (1972:282).

BLUE ROCK THRUSH Monticola solitarius One male above the Dreypung

Monastery, near Lhasa, on 7 March. This appears to be the first record for

:the Lhasa area. The nearest previous record was from Kharta Shika (28°05'N

87°19'E), over 500km to the south-west (Vaurie 1972). It has also been

: recorded in southern Xizang, near the border with central Nepal, and

western Xizang, in the Outer Plateau region (Zheng 1983).

NAUMANN’S THRUSH Turdus naumanni One, of the nominate race, at

Giincang, on 12 March, with Red-throated Thrushes T. ruficollis. This

appears to be the first record for Xizang province. It has previously been

recorded from the Zaidam (10 October) and Dobo (36°41'N 101°30'E, 27

October), Qinghai province, in the Northern and Outer Plateau regions

respectively (Vaurie 1972). There are also two records from the Qinghai-

Kansu border east of Xining (Sien et al. 1964).

RED-THROATED THRUSH Turdus ruficollis Two at Rawu on 28 March,

one or two between Bamda and Qamdo on 31 March, one c. 7km north of

Qamdo on 2 April, three between Gamda and Goinxab on 6 April, and one

between Nangqen and Doramarkog on 9 April. It appears that all previous

76

C. R. ROBSON

Forktail 2

records from South-east Tibet were from the western part of the region. It

has also been recorded from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie

1972).

GREY-CHEEKED WARBLER Seicercus poliogenys Four or five, including

one singing, in undergrowth in evergreen forest, c. 7km south-west of

Tangmai, on 23 March. This appears to be the first record for Xizang

province and South-east Tibet. It is known to occur across the border in

Arunachal Pradesh, India (Ali 1977).

CHESTNUT-CROWNED WARBLER Seicercus castaniceps Two or three, a

little way along the Yigrong Chu, near Tangmai, on 22 March, two or three

c. 7km south-west of Tangmai on 23 March, and one a few kilometres

south-east of Tangmai, along the Po Tsangpo, on 24 March. Not listed for

Tibet by Vaurie (1972), but mapped by Zheng (1976) in southernmost

South-east Tibet and mentioned by Meyer de Schauensee (1984). The

locality given by Zheng is outside the Chinese international border according

to the Times atlas of the world. This species was reported from two localities in

South-east Tibet by Li et al. (1978).

BLACK-FACED WARBLER Abroscopus schisticeps One between Dongjug

and Tangmai on 20 March, common in flocks along the Yigrong Chu near

Tangmai, and up to c. 7km south-west of Tangmai, on 21-23 March.

Previously only recorded in South-east Tibet from one locality, in the same

area as ours (Ludlow 1951). It has recently been recorded in southern

Xizang, in the Outer Plateau region (Zheng 1983).

KOZLOV’S BAB AX Babax koslowi At least five at Sagoo on 4 April, four at

Hsun-ta on 5 April, and one in a narrow gorge east of the Mekong, near

Nangqen, on 9 April. These appear to be the first sightings of B. k. koslowi

for about 70 years. The southern race, B. k. yuguensis, has been recorded

recently from three localities in South-east Tibet (Li et al. 1978, Li and Wang

1979, Zheng 1983). This species is listed by Vaurie (1972) as one of the six

endemic Tibetan birds.

STRIATED LAUGHINGTHRUSH Garrulax striatus Two, in evergreen

forest c. 7 km south-west of Tangmai, on 23 March. There only appear to be

records from two other localities in South-east Tibet. It was recorded from a

locality near ours (Ludlow 1951), and one to the south of ours, along the

Tsangpo (Zheng 1983). It has also recently been recorded from southern

Xizang, in the Outer Plateau region (Zheng 1983).

BLACK-EARED SHRIKE-BABBLER Pteruthius melanotis One male in a

mixed-species flock, in evergreen forest a little way along the Yigrong Chu,

near Tangmai, on 22 March, and another two males in a mixed-species flock,

in evergreen forest c. 7km south-west of Tangmai, on 23 March. These

appear to be the first records for Xizang province and South-east Tibet. The

species is known to occur across the border in Arunachal Pradesh, India (Ali

1977).

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

77

YELLOW-THROATED FULVETTA Alcippe cinerea Two flocks, of five

and ten respectively, in undergrowth in evergreen forest c. 7km south-west

of Tangmai, on 23 March. This appears to be only the second record of this

little known babbler for Xizang province and South-east Tibet. It was

previously recorded from Trulung (30°03'N 95°03'E) in January 1947

(Ludlow 1951).

BLACK-THROATED TIT Aegithalos concinnus Common along the Yigrong

Chu near Tangmai, up to c. 7km south-west of Tangmai, and a little way

south-east of Tangmai, along the Po Tsangpo, over 21-23 March. This

appears to be only the second known locality for this species in south-east

Tibet. It was previously recorded in flocks in winter at a locality near ours

(Ludlow 1951). Recently it has also been recorded from southern Xizang, in

the Outer Plateau region (Zheng 1983).

WILLOW TIT Parus montanus One at Rawu on 28-29 March. It appears

that previously this species has only been recorded from the northern part of

South-east Tibet. It has been recorded widely from east and north-east

Qinghai province, in the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie 1972).

BROWN- THROATED TREECREEPER Certhia discolor Several seen daily

in the Tangmai area, 21-23 March. This appears to be the first record for

South-east Tibet and only the second for Xizang province. The only other

record is of a bird collected on 1 1 June 1977 in southern Xizang, in the Outer

Plateau region, near the border with Sikkim and Bhutan (Li et al. 1979).

CHINESE GREY SHRIKE Lanius sphenocercus One, twice seen patrolling

the edge of alpine meadows at c. 4,100 m above Gtincang, on 11 and 16

March. This may be the first record for Xizang province. Zheng (1983) lists

it for eastern Xizang, but appears to give no specific localities. It has been

recorded from north-east, east and south-east Qinghai province as far south

as Dzogchen Gompa (32°07'N 98°54'E), in northern South-east Tibet

(Vaurie 1972).

YELLOW-BILLED CHOUGH Pyrrhocorax graculus At least six at Rawu on

28-29 March. It appears that this species has previously only been recorded

as far east as Pome District (30°15'N 95°00'E) in South-east Tibet. It has also

been recorded from southern and western Xizang (Zheng 1983) and

north-east Qinghai province (Vaurie 1972), in the Outer Plateau region.

DAURIAN JACKDAW Corvus dauuncus An apparent breeding colony of

c.20 birds at Bomi on 25-26 March. This appears to represent a range

extension north-west along the Po Tsangpo in South-east Tibet. It has been

recorded from north-east and eastern South-east Tibet, and north-east and

eastern Qinghai province, in the Outer Plateau region (Vaurie 1972).

COMMON STARLING Stumus vulgaris A flock of six at Nangqen, on 8

April. This appears to be the first record for South-east Tibet. It has been

recorded from the Northern and Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972, Zheng

1983).

78

C. R. ROBSON

Forktail 2

RUFOUS-NECKED SNOWFINCH Montifnngilla ruficollis Abundant on

high, open plateau north of Bamda on 31 March. This appears to be an

extension southwards of its known range in South-east Tibet, into the central

part of the region. It has also been recorded from the Northern and Outer

Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

WHITE-RUMPED SNOWFINCF1 Montifnngilla taczanowskii Common in

high, open plateau country (above 4,100 m) north of Bamda on 31 March.

This appears to confirm an extension south and westward of its known range

in South-east Tibet, into the central part of the region. Apart from a recent

record from Markam (29°80'N 98°50'E) to the south-east of our locality

(Zheng 1983), all previous records have been to the north of ours (Vaurie

1972). Many of the birds we saw were paired and displaying in the vicinity of

pika Ochotona burrows. The species is listed by Vaurie (1972) as one of the

six endemic Tibetan birds. It has also been recorded from the Northern and

Outer Plateau regions (Vaurie 1972).

LAPLAND LONGSPUR Calcarius lapponicus One seen and heard on the

Bird Island peninsula, at the western end of Qinghai Hu, on 17 April. This

appears to be the first record for Qinghai province, and the Northern Plateau

region. It has been recorded by W. Beick in western Kansu province (c.

37°35'N 102°20'E) in April (Vaurie 1972, Zheng 1976).

KOZLOV’S BUNTING Emberiza koslowi A flock of 12 (11 males and one

female) on the edge of a pass, at c. 4,050m, just before (east of) Goinxab, on

6 April. The flock was very confiding as it fed on open ground on a bank

above the path. Nearby there were steep grassy ridges with scattered junipers

and bushes, which presumably would be suitable breeding habitat for this

bird. This rare and little known species was apparently last recorded in April

Figure 1. Provinces, rivers and lakes

of western China.

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

79

and May 1935 (Schafer 1938, Schafer and Meyer de Schauensee 1939), and

prior to that only by P. K. Kozlov in August and September 1900 and

January 1901. It is listed by Vaurie (1972) as one of the six endemic Tibetan

birds.

LITTLE BUNTING Emberiza pusilla At least ten at Tangmai on 21-23

March, a total of at least 30 up to c. 10km south-east of Tangmai along the

Figure 2. Our itinerary in Western China, with various political and zoogeographic boundaries.

KEY

Boundaries of Xizang and Qinghai provinces

Apparent southern boundary of China as mapped by Zheng (1976)

=» Chinese International border according to the Times Atlas of the World

__IVa_ Zoogeographical boundaries following Zhang and Zhao (1978)

.o-o-o- Boundary of Outer Plateau region according to Vaurie (1972)

Boundary (northern) of Northern Plateau region according to Vaurie (1972)

goundary 0f South-east Tibet (South-eastern Plateau) according to Vaurie (1972)

80

C. R. ROBSON

Forktail 2

Po Tsangpo on 24 March, two at Bomi on 25 March, and two at Rawu on 28

March. These appear to be the first records for Xizang province and

South-east Tibet. It is known to occur across the border in Arunachal

Pradesh, India (Ali 1977).

LOCALITIES VISITED

Listed below are 23 localities corresponding to the numbers on Figure 2.

Coordinates for localities 1-18 were taken from an American Operational

Navigation Chart (DMAAC 1984), and coordinates for localities 19-23 from

the new Bartholomew map (Bartholomew 1985).

a. b. c.

Name on the Name on DMAAC English pronunci-

Bartholomew map. (1984). ation if apparently

different from a.

I would like to thank Tim Inskipp for his assistance in gathering the references and the

painstaking work he put in whilst going through the first two drafts of this paper.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. (1977) Birds of the eastern Himalayas. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Bartholomew (1985) World Travel Map, 1:6,000,000. China and Mongolia. John Batholomew

and Sons.

Cai Qikaf, Cao Jionghe, Li Dehao and Wang Zuxiang (1977) New records of Chinese birds from

Xizang. Acta Zoologica Simca 23: 336 (in Chinese).

Cramp, S. and Simmons, K. E. L., eds. (1983) The birds of the western Palearctic, 3. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

1986

Birds in western China (Tibet)

81

DMAAC (1984) Operational Navigation Chart, 1:1,000,000, ONC H-10. Bangladesh, Bhutan,

Burma, China, India. Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center.

Jiang Zhihua, Wang Zthu and Liang Jun (1979) New records of Chinese birds from Xizang. Acta

Zootaxonomica Sinica 4: 222 (in Chinese).

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East

Asia. London: Collins.

Li Dehao, Wang Zuxiang and Jiang Zhihua (1978) Studies on the birds of south-eastern Xizang,

with notes on their vertical distribution. Acta Zoologica Sinica 24: 231-250 (in Chinese).

Li Dehao and Wang Zuxiang (1979) New records of subspecies of Chinese birds from Xizang.

Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 4: 190-191 (in Chinese).

Ludlow, F. (1950) The birds of Lhasa. Ibis 92: 34-45.

Ludlow, F. (1951) The birds of Kongbo and Pome, south-eastern Tibet. Ibis 93: 547-578.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schafer, E. (1938) Ormthologische Ergebnisse zweier Forschungsreisen nach Tibet. J. Om. 86

Sonderheft.

Schafer, E. and Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1939) Zoological results of the second Dolan

Expedition to western China and eastern Tibet, 1934-1936, part 2, birds. Proc. Acad. Nat.

Sci. Philadelphia 90: 185-260.

Sien Yao-hua, Kuan Kuan-Hsiin and Zheng Zuoxin (1964) An avifaunal survey of the Ching-hai

province. Acta Zoologica Sinica 16(4): 690-709 (in Chinese).

Vaurie, C. (1972) Tibet and its birds. London: H. F. and G. Witherby.

I Voous, K. H. (1977) List of recent Holarctic bird species. London: British Ornithologists’ Union.

Zhang Yongzu and Zhao Kentang (1978) On the zoogeographical regions of China. Acta Zoologica

Sinica 24: 196-202 (in Chinese).

Zheng Zuoxin (Cheng Tso Hsin) (1976) Distributional list of Chinese birds. Peking Institute of

Zoology (in Chinese).

: Zheng Zuoxin, Li Dehao, Wang Zuxiang, Wang Ziyu, Jiang Zhihua and Lu Taichun (1983) The

avifauna of Xizang (Tibet). Beijing: Science Press, Academica Sinica (in Chinese).

Zheng Zuoxin, Jiang Zhihua, Wang Ziyu, Wang Zuxiang and Li Dehao (1980) New records of

Chinese birds from Xizang (Tibet). Acta Zoologica Sinica 26: 286-287 (in Chinese).

Craig R. Robson, 75 Stafford Street, Norwich, Norfolk, England.

APPENDIX

ALL OTHER BIRD RECORDS FROM XIZANG AND QINGHAI PROVINCES

The list below provides all our bird records from Xizang and Qinghai other than those given in

the main text. The numbers after each species relate to the localities where they were recorded

(see Figure 2). For the English and scientific names I have adopted those put forward by King et

al. (1975) and by B. F. King in an unpublished list of Chinese birds, with a few exceptions (for

which ‘King’ names follow in brackets). The systematic order follows Voous (1977).

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cnsiatus 23.

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus 23.

Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus 1, 1-2, 9, 20-21, 23.

Ruddy Shclduck Tadoma ferruginea 1, 1-2, 5-6, 6, 9, 9-10, 12, 12-13,

15- 16, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, 20-21, 23.

Common Teal Anas crecca 1, 2, 9, 12-13, 23.

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1, 1-2, 3, 5-6, 9, 9-10, 19-20, 23

Common Pintail Anas acuta 6, 9, 9-10, 23.

Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina 1, 23.

Common Pochard Aythya fenna 23.

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula 22, 23.

I Common Goldeneye Bucephala c languid 23.

! Goosander Mergus merganser 1, 1-2, 6, 6-7, 17-18, 18-19, 20-21, 23.

' Black Kite Mtlvus migrant 1,2, 3, 6, 7,9, 10-11, 11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14,

16- 17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, 21-22. 23.

j Lammcrgcicr Oypaetus barbatus 1, 2, 2-3, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10-11, 11-12, 12,

12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-2D, 20.

I Northern Goshawk Acciptter genlilis 3, 6, 6-7, 14- 15.

I Northern Sparrowhawk Accipuer ntsus 1, 2, 3, 5-6, 6-7, 7-8. 12, 15-16,

16-17, 17-18.

Upland Buzzard Buteo hemtlastus 1, 11-12, 14-15, 19-20, 20-21, 21-22,

23.

Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 1, 2-3, 3, 10-11, 12, 15-16, 16-17,

17-18, 20-21.

Sakcr Falcon Falco cherrug 1, 2, 15-16, 16-17, 19-20, 20-21, 23.

Szechenvi’s Monal Partridge (Buff-throated Partridge) Tetraophasts szechcnxu

3, 9, 12, 14-15.

Tibetan Snowcock Tetraogallus txbetanus 16-17.

Tibetan Partridge Perdix hodgsontae 2, 2-3, 12, 13-14, 16-17, 18-19.

Common Hill Partridge Arborophila torqueola 5-6, 6.

Blood Pheasant Ithagims cruentus 5, 7, 12, 14-15

White Eared Pheasant Crossopnlon crossoptilon 3 i harmani), 12, 14-15. 15,

16-17.

Common Coot Fultca atra 23.

Ibisbill Ibidorhyncha struthersu 5-6, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 20-21.

Little Ringed Plover Charadnus dubius 23.

Kentish Plover Charadnus alexandnnus 23.

Northern Lapwing Vanellus vancllus 1, 23.

Black-tailed Godwit l.imosa hmosa 23.

Common Grecnshank Tnnga nebulana 1

82

C. R. ROBSON

ForktaiJ 2

Common Sandpiper Actuis hypoleucos 7.

Great Black-headed Gull Lams ichthyaetus 1, 1-2, 20-21, 23.

Brown-headed Gull Lams bmnmcephalus 9, 12, 19-20, 20-21, 23.

Hill Pigeon Columba mpestns 1,2, 10-11, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16

16-17, 18-19, 21-22, 23.

Snow Pigeon Columba leuconota 3, 5, 12, 12-13.

Oriental Turtle Dove Sirepiopelia onentalis 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15

Derby’s Parakeet (Derbian Parakeet) Psmacula derbiana 3, 5, 5-6. 6, 7,

7-8.

Little Owl Athene noctua 20-21, 23.

Tawny Owl Strix aluco 6, 15.

Hoopoe Upupa epops 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15-16, 16-17, 18-19, 20, 20-21.

Grey-headed Woodpecker Ptcus canus 3, 5, 14-15.

Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius 7, 13-14, 14-15.

Darjeeling Woodpecker Picouies darjellensis 6.

Crimson-breasted Woodpecker Picoides cathphanus 6.

Thrcc-toed Woodpecker Picoides tndactylus 7, 14- 15.

Long-billed Calandra Lark (Tibetan Lark) Melanocoiypha maxima 19-20,

20-21, 21-22, 23.

Mongolian Lark Melanocoiypha mongohea 21-22, 23.

Greater Short-toed Lark Calandrella cinerea 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19

19-20, 21-22, 23.

Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula 1, 3, 4, 7, 7-8, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15

15- 16, 16-17, 18-19, 19-20. 20. 20-21, 21-22. 23.

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestns 1,9,9-10, 11-12, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18

18-19, 19-20, 20-21, 21-22, 23.

Northern Crag Martin Himndo mpestns 1 , 10- 1 1 , 1 1 - 12, 12, 12-13, 13-14,

16- 17, 17-18, 18-19, 23.

Olive-backed Pipit (Olive Tree Pipit) Anthus hodgsom 6, 6-7, 7

Yellow-hooded Wagtail Motaalla cttreola 18.

White Wagtail Motacilla alba 1, 3, 4, 5, 5-6, 6, 7, 7-8, 9, 10-11, 11-12, 12,

*2- i3, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20,21-22, 23.

Long-tailed Minivet Pencrocolus elhologus 6.

White-breasted Dipper (White-throated Dipper) Cinclus cinclus 2-3, 3, 5,

5-6, 9, 13-14, 14-15, 16-17, 18-19, 19-20.

Northern Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13-14, 14-15, 18-19.

Maroon-backed Accentor Pmnella immaculata 6.

Rufous-breasted Accentor Pmnella strophiata 3, 5, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 8.

12, 13-14, 14-15.

Brown Accentor Pmnella fulvescens 1 , 2, 2-3, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10-11, 12, 12-13,

13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 23.

Robin Accentor Pmnella mbeculoides 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16,

16- 17, 18-19, 20-21, 21-22, 23.

Alpine Accentor Pmnella collans 1, 3, 5, 6

Orange-flanked Bush-Robin Tarsiger cyanums 6, 7.

Black Redstart Phoemcums ochmros 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17,

17- 18, 18-19, 19-20, 20-21, 21-22, 23.

Hodgson's Redstart Phoenicums hodgsom 3, 6, 6-7, 7-8, 10-1 1, 12, 12-13,

13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 18-19.

Blue-fronted Redstart Phoenicums frontalis 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 9, 12,

13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 18-19.

White-throated Redstart Phoenicums schisticeps 2, 3, 5, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 9, 12,

13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 18-19.

Daurian Redstart Phoenicums auroreus 6.

Guldenstadt's Redstart Phoenicums erythrogaster 1, 2, 3, 4, 20-21, 21-22.

Plumbeous Redstart Rhyacomis fuliginosus 5-6, 6.

Isabelline Wheatear Oenanthe isabellina 21-22, 23.

River Chat Chaimarromis levcocephalus 5, 5-6, 6, 13-14.

Chestnut -bellied Rock Thrush Monticola mfiventns 6.

Blue Whistling Thrush Myophonus caemleus 5-6, 6.

Plain-backed Thrush Zoothera mollissima 3, 6.

White-collared Blackbird Turdus albocinctus 6, 6-7, 7.

Common Blackbird Turdus memla 2, 3.

Kessler's Thrush (White-backed Thrush) Turdus kesslen 14-15, 15-16,

16-17.

Red-throated Thrush Turdus mficollis 1, 2, 3, 6, 6-7, 7.

Chestnut -headed Tesia Tesia castaneocoronata 6.

Brownish-flanked Bush Warbler Cetna fortipes 5-6, 6.

Ashy-throated Warbler Phylloscopus maculipenms 6, 6-7.

Goldcrest Regulus regulus 3, 5, 5-6, 6, 7, 7-8, 12, 13-14, 14-15, 22.

White-browed Tit Warbler Leptopoecile sophiae 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 23.

Crested Tit Warbler Leptopoeale elegans 3, 12

Yellow-bellied Fantail Rhipidura hypoxantha 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7.

Spot-breasted Scimitar-Babbler Pomatorhinus erythrocnemis 12, 12-13.

Streak-breasted Scimitar-Babbler Pomatorhinus mficollis 6, 6-7, 7.

Scaly-breasted Wren-Babbler Pnoepyga albiventer 6, 6-7.

Rufous-capped Babbler Stachyns mficeps 5-6, 6.

Giant Babax Babax tvaddelli 3.

Giant Laughingthrush Ganrulax maximus 3, 4, 7, 7-8, 8, 8-9, 11-12, 12,

13-14, 14-15.

Elliot’s Laughingthrush Garrulax elliotn 11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15,

16- 17, 18-19.

Henri’s Laughingthrush (Brown-checked Laughingthrush) Ganulax henna

2, 3, 4, 5, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 8-9, 9.

Black-faced Laughingthrush Ganulax affims 3, 5, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7-8.

Chestnut-crowned Laughingthrush Ganulax erythrocephalus 6, 6-7

Red-billed Leiothrix Leiothnx lutea 6.

Green Shrike-Babbler Ptemthius xanthochloms 5, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7.

Streak-throated Barwing Actinodura ivaldem 6

Chestnut-tailed Minla Minla singula 5-6, 6, 6-7.

Rcd-tailcd Minla Minla ignotmcia 5-6, 6, 6-7.

Rufous-winged Fulvclta Alcippe castaneceps 5-6, 6, 6-7.

Chinese Fulvctta Alcippe stnaticollis 3, 7, 12.

Streak-throated Fulvctta Alappe anereiceps 5, 5-6, 6.

Beautiful Sibia Heterophasia pule hello 6

Stripe-throated Yuhina Yuhina gulans 6.

Whiskered Yuhina Yuhina flavtcolhs 6, 6-7.

Black-browed Tit Aegithalos louschistos 3, 5, 5-6, 6, 7, 7-8.

Yellow-browed Tit Sylvipams modestus 5-6, 6

White-browed Tit Pams superaliosus 15-16, 23.

Grey-crested Tit Pams dichrous 3, 5, 7, 1J-14.

Rufous-vcntcd Tit Pams mbidiventns 3, 5-6, 6, 7, 7-8, 13-14, 14-15.

Coal Til Pams ater 3, 5, 5-6, 7, 7-8.

Great Tit Parus major 1, 2, 3, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15

Green-backed Tit Pams monticolus 5, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7.

Chestnut-vented Nuthatch Suia nagaensis 3, 5, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7-8.

Wallcreeper Tichodroma murana 1,7-8, 10-11, 12, 16-17, 18-19

Rusty-flanked Trcccrccpcr Cerihui mpalensts 6, 6-7.

Common Trcecreeper Cenhia familians 3, 7, 12, 13-14.

Fire-breasted Flowcrpecker (Buff -bellied Flowerpecker) Dicaeum igmpectus

6, 6-7.

Chinese Grey Shrike Lamus sphenocercus 16-17.

Eurasian Jay Ganulus glandanus 3, 6.

Gold-billed Magpie Urocissa flavirostns 6.

Black-billed Magpie Pica pica 1, 2-3, 8, 9, 10-11, 11-12, 12, 12-13,

13- 14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 21-22, 22.

Tibetan Ground Jay Pseudopodoces humilis 1, 2, 11-12, 15-16, 16-17,

17- 18, 18-19, 20-21, 21-22, 23.

Eurasian Nutcracker Nucifraga caryocatactes 6, 7

Red-billed Chough Pynhocorax pynhocorax 2-3, 3, 4, 6, 7, 7-8, 9, 10-11,

11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19,20-21,

21-22, 23.

Daurian Jackdaw Corvus dauuncus 2, 9, 10-11, 11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14,

14- 15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, 21-22.

Large-billed Crow Corvus macrorhvnchos 2-3, 3, 5-6, 6, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 9,

10- 11, 11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 16-17, 18-19.

Common Raven Corvus corax 1, 6, 9, 11-12, 12, 13-14, 17-18. 18-19,

19-20, 20-21, 21-22.

Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus 9. 10- 11, 11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14,

14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20, 20, 20-21, 21-22, 23.

Streaked Rock Sparrow Petroma petroma 16-17, 17-18, 21-22, 23.

Plain-backed Snowfinch Monnfnngilla blanfordi 23.

Rufous-necked Snowfinch Monnfnngilla mficollis 2, 19-20, 20-21, 21-22,

23.

David’s Snowfinch (Small Snowfinch) Monnfnngilla davidiana 23.

White-rumpcd Snowfinch Monnfnngilla taezanotvskn 20-21, 23.

Adams’s Snowfinch (Blackish-winged Snowfinch) Monnfnngilla adamsi 1, 2,

16-17, 19-20, 20-21, 21-22, 23.

Black-headed Greenfinch Carduelis ambigua 3, 4, 6, 6-7, 7.

Twite Carduelis flavirostns 1, 2, 7, 9, 11-12, 12-13, 15-16, 17-18, 18-19,

19-20, 20, 23.

Common Crossbill (Red Crossbill) Loxia curvirostra 12, 13-14, 14-15.

Plain Mountain Finch Leucosticte nemoncola 3, 4, 9, 12, 12-13, 13-14,

14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 17-18.

Brandi’s Mountain Finch Leucosticte brandti 15-16, 23.

Beautiful Rosefinch Carpodacus pulchemmus 1, 1-2, 2-3, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10-11,

11- 12, 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16, 16-17, 18-19.

Dark-rumped Rosefinch Carpodacus edxvardsn 5-6, 6.

Three-banded Rosefinch Carpodacus tnfasaatus 3, 6, 12, 13-14, 14-15

White -browed Rosefinch Carpodacus thura 3, 7, 7-8, 9, 12, 13- 14, 14-15

Streaked Rosefinch Carpodacus mbicilloides 1, 2, 7-8, 9, 10-11, 12, 13-14

Great Rosefinch Carpodacus mbicilla 1 .

Gold-napcd Finch Pynhoplectes epaulet ta 6.

Pink-tailed Rosefinch Urocynchramus pylzotvi 23.

Grey-headed Bullfinch Pynhula erythaca 3, 6, 6-7.

Collared Grosbeak Mycerobas affims 6.

White-winged Grosbeak Mycerobas camipes 2, 3, 5, 7-8, 9, 12, 13-14

Rock Bunting Embenza eta 1, 2, 2-3, 3, 4, 5, 5-6, 6-7, 7, 7-8, 9, 10-11,

11-12, 12, 12-13, 13-14, 14-15, 16-17, 17-18, 18-19, 21-22

FORKTAIL 2 (1986): 83-91

Conservation priorities

in the Philippine Archipelago

PAUL HAUGE, JOHN TERBORGH, BLAIR WINTER and

JOHN PARKINSON

To determine how conservation planning should most efficiently proceed so as to protect all

the Philippine Archipelago’s terrestrial vertebrate species, we took the island having the

largest total number of species (Mindanao), identified the island containing the greatest

number of species not found on Mindanao, and repeated this procedure until an asymptote

began to be approached. The most critical islands from the point of view of conservation

thus prove to be Mindanao, Luzon, and Palawan. Together they contain 86% of all

Philippine terrestrial vertebrate species.

Single-island endemics (Philippine species that occur on only one island) constitute an

important part (176 species, or 28%) of the terrestrial vertebrate fauna. Mindanao, Luzon

and Palawan are again the key islands, containing 72% of all single-island endemics. The

creation and management of parks and reserves on these three islands should therefore have

the highest priority in the overall conservation plan for the Philippines. Smaller islands,

however, also merit attention since they hold significant numbers of endemic species, these

being especially vulnerable to extinction. The trends in both total species numbers and in

numbers of single-island endemics are strongly convergent in the four classes of

vertebrates, suggesting that a conservation plan optimal for, say, mammals, would also be

optimal or nearly so for other taxa.

The Philippine Archipelago consists of a vast array of more than 7,000

islands lying between 5 and 20°N and between 117 and 127°E in the western

Pacific Ocean. The biota of these islands is exceptionally rich and includes

large numbers of species that occur nowhere else in the world. Within the

archipelago the biogeographic situation is exceedingly complex. Species

richness may vary greatly from one island to the next, and many islands

possess unique endemics. Furthermore, there are marked gradients in

species composition along the chain resulting from the fact that the

archipelago has been colonized by species invading from the south and

south-east through Mindanao, from the south-west through Palawan, and

from the north through Luzon (Inger 1954), although the Luzon (from

Taiwan) and Palawan routes have been rejected for certain taxa (Heaney

1986). The picture has been made still more complex by the occurrence of

numerous small-scale radiations within the archipelago itself. Superimposed

on these patterns are the effects of a Pleistocene history of repeated land-

bridge connections between many of the islands, and possibly between the

Philippines and the emergent Sunda Shelf.

All these layers of complexity have produced intricate patterns of

distribution. While these very intricacies have provided a major source of

fascination for biogeographers (Taylor 1922, Dickerson 1928, Inger 1954,

Leviton 1959, Diamond and Gilpin 1983, Heaney 1986), they are bound to

confound any studied attempt to formulate an overall conservation plan for

84

P. HAUGE, J. TERBORGH, B. WINTER and J. PARKINSON

Forktail 2

the Philippines. In the absence of a thorough biogeographic analysis, it

would be difficult to answer such questions as: Which islands contain the

greatest concentrations of species? Which islands are richest in endemic

forms? Are the patterns for different taxonomic groups (e.g. birds,

mammals, reptiles, etc.) similar or dissimilar? How many parks, and on

which islands, would be required to protect, say, 90% of the fauna? The

difficulty in answering these questions stems from the fact that the available

information is often scattered through a miscellany of guidebooks,

expedition reports, and taxonomic treatises. But to ignore these questions in

planning for the future management and expansion of the Philippines’

reserves would certainly lead to mistakes, mistakes that it might not be

possible to rectify later because time is quickly running out.

The urgency of the need for vigorous conservation work in the Philippines

is made plainly evident by recent statistics on the rate and extent of

deforestation. The Philippines rank high among tropical countries in both

rate of deforestation and extent of area deforested. The percentage of the

nation’s land area covered by forests and woodland plummeted between the

mid-1960s and the early 1980s from 57% to 41%. By the first half of the

1980s, the rate of deforestation had ‘slowed’ to an average of 91,000 ha per

year (World Resources Institute/International Institute for Environment and

Development 1986), due perhaps in part to the nation’s economic problems

at that period. However, rapid deforestation, compounded by continuing

economic development and a population that is expected to jump by some

37% by the year 2000 (World Resources Institute/International Institute for

Environment and Development 1986), clearly poses a serious threat of

extinction to a major portion of the rich and unique Philippine fauna and

flora.

Still, the existing framework of government parks and conservation

programmes makes us confident that the information presented here can and

will be used to avoid costly errors in conservation planning and to ensure the

full protection of the precious biological heritage of the Philippines.

Accomplishing that task requires that priorities be clearly specified to assure

the greatest possible benefit from each unit of land brought under protection.

METHODS

From available literature we attempted to extract species lists of mammals,

birds, reptiles and amphibians for each of the 30 or so major islands. While in

theory this may seem simple and straightforward, in practice we met with

many frustrations, such as ranges given as ‘throughout the archipelago’,

when other evidence suggested the contrary, and the incompleteness of the

faunal surveys of many of the islands. Poorly understood distributions and

systematics necessitated the complete exclusion of bats, although bats face

the same extinction pressures as other taxa. (L. Heaney reports to us the

possible extinction of one bat species, Dobsoma chapmani, and the

1986

Philippine conservation priorities

85

endangered status of two others, Acerodon lucifer and Nyctimene rabori,

among the 72 species of Chiroptera recorded in the Philippines: clearly,

much more work on Philippine bats is needed, especially in light of their

economic value in pollination, seed dispersal, and insect control.) Some of

the sources included evaluations of how carefully each island had been

explored and collected in, but more often this critical information was left up

to the reader’s imagination. Many of the islands have not been covered

adequately by zoologists. This proved to be the greatest difficulty we

encountered. We were also required to do a certain amount of detective work

to ascertain the synonymies in a kaleidoscopic nomenclature. In the end we

were obliged to concentrate our attention on the six best studied islands, and

to lump everything else under the heading of ‘other islands’.

We examined the data in two ways. First, we looked at the overall pattern

of faunal richness simply as the total number of species recorded for each

island. To identify conservation priorities in an objective fashion, we asked

the question: How should conservation planning proceed in order to protect

all of the archipelago’s terrestrial vertebrate species, and do so as efficiently

(in terms of land area) as possible? We answered this question by starting

with the island having the largest total number of species, and then asking

which island contains the greatest number of species not found on the first,

repeating this procedure until an asymptote began to be approached. Second,

we asked more specifically about endemic species whose distributions within

the archipelago are confined to single islands, and repeated the procedure

described above. Single-island endemics are of critical importance because of

their uniqueness and because their continued existence within the

Philippines will require very specific action.

The data came from a mix of expedition reports, field guides, and

taxonomic monographs. We endeavoured to be as up-to-date as possible by

contacting specialists in several groups and enlisting their help, but the fact

remains that the biogeography of Philippine vertebrates is far less completely

known than one would wish. The results are not a perfect reflection of

reality: they are a summary of what has been learned to date about the fauna

of an unusually complex and numerous set of islands.

RESULTS

All terrestrial vertebrates

Looking at the fauna as a whole, it is apparent that the second largest island,

Mindanao, holds the greatest number of species in all but one of the groups

of vertebrates considered (Table 1). Luzon, the largest island, has almost as

many species, including a sizeable proportion (33%) that do not occur on

Mindanao. Although fifth in size, Palawan comes next in our ranking

because of its highly distinctive fauna, nearly half of which is made up of

species which do not occur on either Mindanao or Luzon.

86

P. HAUGE, J. TERBORGH, B. WINTER and J. PARKINSON

Forktail 2

From the point of view of conservation, it is obvious that these three

islands are the most important. Not only do they hold the vast majority of the

total number of terrestrial vertebrate species, but they hold most that occur

nowhere else in the archipelago, as discussed below. Together, Mindanao,

Luzon and Palawan harbour 86% of all terrestrial vertebrates recorded for

the archipelago. Values for individual groups range from 77% for mammals

to 92% for birds. These results emphasize the vital importance of the larger

islands as species banks. The smaller islands in general contain reduced and

repetitive subsets of the faunas of the nearest large islands, a finding that has

been noted for other archipelagos as well (Diamond and Marshall 1977,

Terborgh el al. 1978, Patterson and Atmar 1986).

Single-island endemics

We come now to the problem of single-island endemics, species that occur

(or are known to occur) only in the Philippines, and on only one island within

the archipelago (Table 2). Taken together, these single-island endemics are

an important element of the Philippine fauna, contributing 176 species, or

28% of the total (excluding bats) of 625 terrestrial vertebrate species.

Developing a conservation plan for these species should have the highest

priority, but doing so is an especially difficult task because of the distinct and

Table 1. Species numbers for indigenous mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians on selected

Philippine islands.

1. Total number of indigenous species on the island.

2. Additional species not found on any island to the left.

3. Total number of ‘other’ islands was 16 for mammals, approximately 24 for birds, 24 for snakes, 49

for skinks, 59 for gekkonid lizards, and 22 for amphibians. The Sulu Archipelago was counted as

one island (the listing ‘Sulu Archipelago’ appears in many distributional records). Only the six listed

islands were considered for ‘other lizards’.

4. This is a conservative estimate. L. Heaney (pers. comm.) estimates that there may be as many as 93

indigenous non-volant mammal species in the Philippines.

5. Mammals exclusive of bats (from Heaney 1986).

6. Resident land birds, from Delacour and Mayr (1946), Amadon and duPont (1970), duPont (1971,

1976), Parkes (1971, 1973), Rabor (1977), Erickson and Heideman (1983).

7. From Savage (1950), Leviton (1952, 1957, 1959), Brown and Alcala (1970), Rabor el al. (1970).

8. From Brown and Alcala (1970, 1978, 1980).

9. From Brown and Alcala (1970), Rabor el al. (1970).

10. From Rabor (1952), Inger (1954), Leviton (1955), Alcala (1957, 1958), Brown and Alcala (1967,

1970, 1974), Rabor el al. (1970).

11. NA = data not available.

1986

Philippine conservation priorities

87

exacting spatial requirements of each one of them. Fortunately, the key

islands remain the same: Mindanao, Luzon and Palawan. These collectively

contain 72% of the single-island endemics. Conversely, however, 28% of the

single-island endemics occur on islands besides these three, including large

proportions of the single-island endemic lizards (29%), snakes (32%),

mammals (33%) and amphibians (47%). Discordant trends exist in some

taxa. Mindoro, for example, has nine endemic birds and mammals but only

three such reptiles, while Negros has just four endemic birds and mammals

but seven such reptiles. The ‘other’ islands (islands besides the six principal

islands studied here) collectively contain 14% of the single-island endemics,

including an especially large proportion (37%) of the single-island endemic

amphibians. Thus these ‘other’ islands should not be neglected.

DISCUSSION

The priorities we have developed here are based on the simple optimality

criterion of protecting the largest number of species, particularly endemic

species, per unit of land set aside. Fortunately, the task was facilitated by the

fact that the four major classes of terrestrial vertebrates - mammals, birds,

reptiles, and amphibians - show highly concordant patterns of distribution.

Thus, in specifying priorities, we were spared the unhappy job of making

value judgements, such as whether a bird is intrinsically more worthy of

protection than a rat or a snake. Another fortunate coincidence is that

endemics are concentrated on the most species-rich islands, making it

possible to preserve both quantity and quality on the same islands. The high

degree of concurrence among taxa in the distributional patterns we have

examined not only makes it easy to specify such priorities as to which islands

need protection, but it provides a basis for confidence that the distributions

Table 2. Numbers of single-island endemic species' on selected Philippine islands.

1. Species that occur only in the Philippines, and on only one island within the archipelago.

2. Total number of single-island endemics in that taxonomic category.

3. Percentage of all single-island endemics in that taxonomic category.

4. See Table 1, note 3.

5. All references as in Table 1.

6. NA = data not available.

88

P. HAUGE, J. TERBORGH, B. WINTER and J. PARKINSON

Forktail 2

of other taxa, i.e. plants and invertebrates, are fundamentally similar.

Indeed, the ‘critical faunas analysis’ of Collins and Morris (1985) for

swallowtail butterflies showed Palawan (32 species), Mindanao (28 species)

and Luzon (26 species) again to be the most important Philippine islands,

embracing between them all 49 Philippine species of swallowtails. Their

work followed that of Ackery and Vane-Wright (1984), who coined the term

‘critical faunas analysis’ and applied the concept to milkweed butterflies on a

global scale, finding, inter alia , that Luzon, Negros, and Mindanao are

among the most important locations for a hypothetical worldwide

conservation effort for that group of butterflies. The work presented here is

quite similar to critical faunas analysis, which both Ackery and Vane-Wright

(1984) and Collins and Morris (1985) applied to worldwide species

distributions and used to make recommendations for action on a global scale.

The pronounced concentration of the fauna on Mindanao, Luzon and

Palawan means that preserves on these islands can be highly efficient in

protecting large numbers of species simultaneously. Preserves on other

islands, though less efficient that these three islands at protecting species, are

still essential if all species are to be protected. Special attention should be

given to the needs of endemic species that occur only on the smaller islands.

They are highly vulnerable to extinction, since smaller islands are likely to

contain only one or a few populations of a given species and are more

susceptible to complete deforestation. Well-targeted efforts on certain small

islands could yield disproportionate conservation results. However, it should

be remembered that while endemic species on a given island may often be

generally sympatric, and therefore protectable in a single park (e.g. on

Mindoro, or Negros, or Bohol), this will not always be the case. For instance,

new species finds on the poorly known south-eastern peninsula of Luzon

indicate that many species may occur only on that part of the island, thus

suggesting a high level of allopatric endemism within the island (Heaney

1986).

With no first-hand knowledge of either the geography or the fauna of the

Philippines, we have not ventured to go further than to suggest the islands on

which preserves could have the greatest benefit. The best choice of sites on

these islands would depend on many factors: the state of the habitat, human

population densities, local variation in species diversity, the spatial

requirements of endemics, etc. Many of the islands contain complex

environmental gradients, climates that range from seasonally dry to

permanently wet, and montane as well as lowland vegetation types. The

mountains of Luzon, for example, harbour a rich assemblage of endemic

rodents, while the montane avifauna of Mindanao is especially well

differentiated. Reptiles are most abundant in the lowlands. Special

considerations such as these would have to be taken into account in detailed

planning (Brown and Alcala 1964).

It would also help to know which species are able to live in second growth

and other common types of human-created habitat, but this sort of

information is not included in handbooks or taxonomic monographs. The

1986

Philippine conservation priorities

89

chances are good that more than half of the species pool can make use of

disturbed environments (c/. Terborgh and Weske 1969). This being so,

biological reserves could be designed expressly to benefit the minority of

species that absolutely require unaltered natural conditions.

The final question we wish to consider is that of the size of existing and

future reserves. How large should they be, or perhaps more appropriately,

how big is big enough? There has been a good deal of controversy in the

literature over this issue - for a juxtaposition of contrasting viewpoints, see

Simberloff and Abele (1975) and the ensuing rejoinders: Diamond (1976),

Terborgh (1976), Whitcomb el al. (1976), Simberloff and Abele (1976). It is

unfortunate in our opinion that the debate has centred on the largely bogus

question of whether several small patches of habitat may contain more

species than a single large patch of equal aggregate area. Obviously, the

answer depends on how the various patches are situated with respect to the

variety of available habitat types. Far more importantly, parks should

include genetically viable populations of the particular species one is trying to

protect. To make the point with an absurd example, it may be possible to

protect a square kilometre of forest that contains the nest of a given bird

species, but that is irrelevant if five years later the birds are no longer

present. The object is to preserve species and whole ecosystems over the

long run, not just to include one or more individuals of as many species as

possible at the outset. There can be no doubt that large areas are more

effective over the long run.

Nevertheless, the question of how large is large enough is still a valid and

necessary one to ask. The answer has to be tailored to the particular

objectives at hand. It might be possible to assure the continued existence of

an amphibian, for example, by protecting a few springs or preserving the

vegetative cover along a watercourse. At the other extreme, making sure that

the Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi is still with us 100 years from now

is perhaps the most challenging conservation objective in the Philippines. If

enough habitat can be protected in Mindanao and Luzon to perpetuate the

eagle populations of these two islands, it seems probable that a majority of all

Philippine vertebrates will be secure along with them.

What must be kept in mind is that the spatial requirements of species

differ enormously. If we begin with the big and spectacular and give them

the highest priority, then many lesser creatures of little popular appeal can

ride their coattails to perpetuity. The ones that are left out can then perhaps

be afforded special attention on a smaller scale. We cannot realistically expect

that any conservation plan will be accepted that optimizes purely biological

criteria. But what we should realize is that the political concerns based on the

popular appeal of certain impressive, adorable, or ‘charismatic’ creatures can

potentially by channelled into very constructive action.

We wish to thank Walter C. Brown, John E. DuPont and Robert F. Inger for their help in

discovering the literature on Philippine vertebrates, and Lawrence R. Heaney, Paul D.

Heideman, and Robert S. Kennedy for reviewing the manuscript and providing critical

90

P. HAUGE, J. TERBORGH, B. WINTER and J. PARKINSON

Forktail 2

advice. It should be recorded that this paper was originally prepared four years ago under a

different authorial sequence, and has been thus cited, e.g. by Lewis (1986); this revision

represents a refinement but not a reworking of the earlier text. The Oriental Bird Club

waives copyright of this paper but petitions journals that reproduce it to indicate Forktail as

its first publisher.

REFERENCES

Ackery, P. R. and Vane-Wright, R. I. (1984) Milkweed butterflies: their cladistics and biology.

London: British Museum (Natural History).

Alcala, A. C. (1957) Philippine notes on the ecology of the giant marine toad. SillimanJ. 4:

90-96.

Alcala, A. C. (1958) Amphibians of Negros Island. SillimanJ. 5:171-174.

Amadon, D. and duPont, J. E. (1970) Notes on Philippine birds. Nemouria 1.

Brown, W. C. and Alcala, A. C. (1964) Relationship of the herpetofaunas of the non-dipterocarp

communities to that of the dipterocarp forest of southern Negros Island, Philippines.

Senkenbergiana Biologica 45: 591-611.

Brown, W. C. and Alcala, A. C. (1967) A new frog of the genus Oreophryne and a list of

amphibians from Camiguin Island, Philippines. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 80: 65-68.

Brown, W. C. and Alcala, A. C. (1970) The zoogeography of the herpetofauna of the Philippine

Islands, a fringing archipelago. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 38: 105-130.

Brown, W. C. and Alcala, A. C. (1974) New frogs of the genus Platymantis (Ranidae) from the

Philippines. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 113: 1-12.

Brown, W. C. and Alcala, A. C. (1978) Philippine lizards of the family Gekkonidae . Dumaguete

City, Philippines: Silliman University Natural Science Monograph Series No. 1.

Brown, W. C. and Alcala, A. C. (1980) Philippine lizards of the family Scincidae. Dumaguete City,

Philippines: Silliman University Natural Science Monograph Series No. 2.

Collins, N. M. and Morris, M. G. (1985) Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world: the IUCN

Red Data Book. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U. K.: International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Delacour, J. T. and Mayr, E. (1946) Birds of the Philippines. New York: Macmillan.

Diamond, J. M. (1976) Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations. Science

193: 1027-1029.

Diamond, J. M. and Gilpin, M. E. (1983) Biogeographic umbilici and the origin of the Philippine

avifauna. Oikos 41: 307-321.

Diamond, J. M. and Marshall, A. G. (1977) Distributional ecology of New Hebridean birds: a

species kaleidoscope. J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 703-727.

Dickerson, R. E. (1928) Distribution of life in the Philippines. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

duPont, J. E. (1971) Philippine birds. Greenville, Delaware: Delaware Museum of Natural

History.

duPont, J. E. (1976) Notes on Philippine birds (No. 4): Additions and corrections to Philippine

Birds. Nemouria 17.

Erickson, K. R. and Heideman, P. D. (1983) Notes on the avifauna of the Balinsasayao rainforest

region, Negros Oriental, Philippines. SillimanJ. 30: 63-72.

Heaney, L. R. (1986) Biogeography of mammals in S. E. Asia: estimates of colonization,

extinction, and speciauon. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 28(1-2): 127-165.

Inger, R. F. (1954) Systemadcs and zoogeography of Philippine amphibia. Fieldiana (Zool.) 33:

183-531.

Leviton, A. E. (1952) A new Philippine snake of the genus Calamana. J. Washington Acad. Sci.

42: 239-240.

Leviton, A. E. (1955) New distributional records for Philippine amphibians. Copeia 1955(3): 258.

Leviton, A. E. (1957) A review of the Philippine snakes of the genus Oxyrhabdium (Serpentes:

Colubridae). Wasmann J . Biol. 15: 285-303.

Leviton, A. E. (1959) Systemadcs and zoogeography of Philippine snakes. Ph.D. dissertation,

Stanford University.

Lewis, R. E. (1986) A rain-forest raptor in danger. Oryx 20: 170-175.

1986

Philippine conservation priorities

91

Parkes, K. C. (1971) Taxonomic and distributional notes on Philippine birds. Nemouria 4.

Parkes, K. C. (1973) Annotated list of the birds of Leyte Island, Philippines. Nemouria 11.

Patterson, B. D. and Atmar, W. (1986) Nested subsets and the structure of insular mammalian

faunas and archipelagos. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 28: 65-82.

Rabor, D. S. (1952) Preliminary notes on the giant toad, Bufo mannus (Linn.), in the Philippine

Islands. Copeia 1952(4): 281-282.

Rabor, D. S. (1977) Philippine birds and mammals. Quezon City: University of the Philippines

Press.

Rabor, D. S., Alcala, A. C. and Gonzales, R. B. (1970) A list of the land vertebrates of Negros

Island, Philippines. SillimanJ. 17: 297-316.

Savage, J. M. (1950) Two new blind snakes (genus Typhlops) from the Philippine Islands. Proc.

Calif. Zool. Club 1: 49-54.

Simberloff, D. S. and Abele, L. G. (1975) Island biogeography theory and conservation practice.

Science 191: 285-286.

Simberloff, D. S. and Abele, L. G. (1976) Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and

limitations. Science 193: 1029-1030.

Taylor, E. H. The snakes of the Philippine Islands. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

Terborgh, J. (1976) Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations. Science 193'

1029-1030.

Terborgh, J., Faaborg, J. and Brockmann, H. J. (1978) Island colonization by Lesser Antillean

birds. Auk 95: 59-72.

Terborgh, J. and Weske, J. S. (1969) Colonization of secondary habitats by Peruvian birds.

Ecology 50: 765-782.

Whitcomb, R. F., Lynch, J. F., Opler, P. A. and Robbins, C. S. (1976) Island biogeography and

conservation: strategy and limitations. Science 193: 1030-1032.

World Resources Institute/International Institute for Environment and Development (1986)

World Resources 1986. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Paul Hauge, Conservation Law Foundation of New England, 3 Joy Street, Boston, Massachusetts

02108-1497, U.S.A.

John Terborgh, Blair Winter and John Parkinson, Department of Biology, Princeton University,

Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U.S.A.

92

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Fork tail 2

Notes on Nordmann’s Greenshank

Tringa guttifer in Thailand

ROB G. BIJLSMA and FRANK E. DE RODER

Nordmann’s or Spotted Greenshank Tnnga guttifer is a notoriously elusive

bird which is inadequately known both on its breeding grounds (Velizhanin

and Yalchontov 1976, Nechaev 1982) and in its winter quarters (Lekagul el

al. 1985). It is listed in the ICBP Red Data Book (King 1981).

During a stay of nearly two months in Thailand (November and December

1984), we identified five Nordmann’s Greenshanks, one bird near Samut

Sakhon (13°31'N 100°20'E) and four birds at Ko Li Bong (Ko Libong)

(7°16'N 99°20'E). The largest concentration so far recorded for Thailand is

eleven at Ko Li Bong in December 1985 (Parish 1986).

Identification

The most striking difference from Greenshanks Tnnga nebulana , which were

always present in places where we observed Nordmann s Greenshanks, was

the chunkier outline of the latter, presumably caused by the combination of

the distinctly shorter legs, slightly smaller size, slightly shorter neck and

stouter bill. Although the upperparts are said to be paler in winter than in

Greenshanks (King et al. 1975), one bird actually had darker, brownish

upperparts and another had a coloration which was similar to that of a

Greenshank. These birds might have been juveniles (Hayman et al. 1986).

The barring of the tail-feathers is supposed to be paler than in Greenshanks;

in three of the four birds at Ko Li Bong the barring was unexpectedly paler

and hardly discernible, especially in flight. The webbing between all three

front toes could be seen under good light conditions up to a distance of

c.45m (using a 20x telescope).

Nordmann’s Greenshanks were less vocal than Greenshanks. The most

commonly heard call was a short ‘kuk’, resembling the sound made by a Bar¬

tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica. Another sound was a long-drawn,

unmelodious call ‘chrieeuw’, not unlike the panic call of a Greenshank but

very different from the latter’s normal call; it is presumably identical to the

‘keyew’ mentioned in King et al. (1981).

Foraging behaviour

The feeding behaviour of two individuals was observed on 4 and 5 December

near the village of Ban Pa Tu Pute at Ko Li Bong, using a Bushnell

20-45x60 telescope. A long pier permitted an excellent view over the

surrounding mudflats and the nearby roost. Bird A was feeding on sandy

mudflats with some exposed volcanic rocks; 10-15% of the mudflats were

covered with a thin layer of water and the activity of crabs was at a peak. Bird

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

93

B frequented sandy mudflats where water covered 70% of the area and the

incoming tide forced crabs to recede into their holes.

Our Nordmann’s Greenshanks were active, solitary feeders which located

their prey whilst running and walking in irregular patterns across the

mudflats. Occasional disputes with Greenshanks may have been indicative of

the existence of feeding territories. Fifty percent of the feeding movements

consisted of pecks; jabs (in which half the bill is inserted into the mud) were

made less often, whereas probes (in which the bill is fully inserted) occurred

occasionally (Table 1). Although jabs and probes are indicative of tactile

feeding, Nordmann’s Greenshanks were seen to use these movements only

after having spotted the prey visually. This always involved crabs, which

tried to escape down their burrows in the mud, but which were secured by

the birds thrusting their bills into the holes.

The number of successful feeding movements per minute did not vary

much between the two birds (Table 2). However, we had the impression that

bird B walked more rapidly than bird A and made more attempts to catch

prey in order to achieve the same absolute success per minute. Undoubtedly,

the hectic activities of bird B were caused by the fact that the availability of

crabs had seriously decreased because of the incoming tide.

Eleven times the prey was identified, always crabs with carapace lengths

between 0.5 and 6cm. The length of the carapace was estimated on the basis

of the length of the bill, being 48-58mm (Hayman et al. 1986). In two cases

the crab was discarded immediately after catching; both crabs had carapace

lengths equalling bill length. The remaining crabs were handled according to

their size. Small crabs were simply adjusted in the bill and swallowed whole.

Larger crabs were vigorously shaken until the legs came off. In one instance,

the legs were swallowed separately. Mean handling time was 11.9 + 6. Is

(n = 9, variation = 4-25 s).

Table 1. Feeding movements of two

Nordmann’s Greenshanks at Ko Li

Bong, 4 December 1984.

Table 2. Foraging characteristics of

two Nordmann’s Greenshanks at Ko

Li Bong, 4 December 1984.

94

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 2

Discussion

The similarity in stance and feeding behaviour of Terek Sandpipers Xenus

cinereus and Nordmann’s Greenshanks (Hayman et al. 1986) is indeed

striking. Both species have relatively short legs and mainly prey on crabs.

This type of food obliges both species to make fast runs in order to catch the

crab before it disappears into its burrow. However, the feeding movements

of Nordmann’s Greenshanks are not nearly so fast as those of Terek

Sandpipers, which must be the fastest mudflat-runner around.

Of the five Nordmann’s Greenshanks observed in Thailand during

November and December 1984, four were recorded on coastal mudflats and

one in a saltpan. Coastal mudflats are mentioned by King et al. (1975) as the

habitat in winter quarters, but it seems that it might also be worthwhile

looking for Nordmann’s Greenshanks in saltpans and fish- and shrimp-

ponds.

The foraging behaviour of Nordmann’s Greenshanks, as observed at Ko

Li Bong, did not differ greatly from that of the Greenshanks we have

observed. However, fishing was not recorded. This hunting technique is

common practice among Greenshanks. At Samut Sakhon Greenshanks were

hunting for fish and mudskippers along the edge of saltpans, sometimes

swimming or wading through belly-deep water. The Nordmann’s

Greenshank observed here was not feeding when detected but there can be

no doubt that this species takes fishes when the circumstances are

favourable, as in the breeding area (Nechaev 1982). Given its webbed feet, it

might even swim more than Greenshanks.

Our thanks go to our companion in the field, Mogens Henriksen, and to Phil Round,

Jonathan Starks and Kees Roselaar for advice and information. This project was kindly

grant-assisted by Interwader (East Asia/Pacific Shorebird Study Programme).

REFERENCES

Hayman, P., Marchant, J. and Prater, T. (1986) Shorebirds. London: Croom Helm.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-

East Asia. London: Collins.

King, W. B. (1981) Endangered birds of the world. The ICBP Red Data Book. Second edition.

Washington D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Lekagul, B., Round, P. D. and Komolphalin, K. (1985) Birdwatching for Palearctic migrants in

Thailand. Brit. Birds 78: 2-39.

Nechaev, V. A. (1982) Nesting biology of the Spotted Greenshank (Jnnga guttifer) in the Sakhalin

Island. Ornithological Studies in the U.S.S.R. 1: 138-147.

Parish, D. (1986) Northward migration 1986. Interwader Newsletter 7: 3-4.

Velizhanin, A. G. and Yalchontov, V. F. (1976) Brief reports on the Spotted Greenshank. (In

V. Novikov, ed. Rare, threatened and inadequately known birds of the U.S.S.R.) Transactions of

the Oka State Reserve 13: 138. (In Russian).

Rob G. Bijlsma, Bovenweg 36, 6121 HZ Bennekom, Netherlands.

Frank E. de Roder, Onder de linden 66, 6822 KN Arnhem, Netherlands.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

95

Does the White-eyed River-Martin

Pseudochelidon sirintarae

breed in China?

EDWARD C. DICKINSON

Although it is almost twenty years since the discovery and description of the

White-eyed River-Martin Pseudochelidon sirintarae (Thonglongya 1968),

there has been no success in improving our knowledge of the species. All

records have been from Bung Boraphet, a reservoir and marsh in central

Thailand; after the initial nine specimens were collected, a further individual

was taken in November 1968 (Thonglongya 1969), two birds were ‘found’ in

1972 (King 1978-1979), six adults were seen in February 1977 (King and

Kanwanich 1978), and four immatures were seen in January 1980 (Sophasan

and Dobias 1984). All records have been from November to February, the

winter period.

Speculation about the species’s breeding distribution has been limited.

Thonglongya (1969) searched for it without success along three large rivers

north of Bung Boraphet in May and June 1969. However, King and

Kanwanich (1978) noted that if it nests in river sand flats in Thailand it must

do so in March and April, as the monsoon rains from May onwards would

render water levels too high. They also commented that the bird may nest

‘somewhere in China’.

North of the ‘golden triangle’ opium-growing area (where Thailand, Laos

and Burma meet) lie the closely parallel valleys of the Salween, Mekong and

Chang Jiang. This area of south-western China is certainly a possible summer

home for the White-eyed River-Martin, but the Chinese ornithological

literature does not record it, although explorations there have not been very

thorough.

In May 1972 the Sun Fung Art House, a Hong Kong sales outlet of some

Beijing studios, had in its stock a set of four scroll paintings of which one (see

front cover) bore a superficial resemblance to the River-Martin. A closer look

revealed both similarities (the head and bill shape, the white eye, the

coloration, and the existence of elongated tail feathers) and differences (the

bill was red not yellow, the white rump was absent, and the elongated tail

feathers were the outer not the central ones).

The methodology of illustration in Chinese paintings is to pass on styles

and subjects. Allowing for artistic licence either over time or simply over the

distance between some remote Chinese area and Beijing, and as the species is

unknown to China’s ornithologists, any original drawing is most likely to

have been made in the field. With no inspection of a museum skin possible, it

seems seriously likely that the River-Martin has been found and sketched, at

some time, in China.

96

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktai) 2

The handbooks on which Chinese painters draw for their subjects are full

of Barn Swallows Hvrundo rustica, and the bird in this illustration is too

deliberately different to be intended as a Barn Swallow. The objection that

the picture might be based on the illustration (by Dr. Boonsong Lekagul)

that accompanied the original description can be discounted because (a) the

description had very limited circulation, (b) the proprietor of the Sun Fung

Art House felt that the picture had been painted no later than 1970, (c) the

bird depicted is simply too unlike Dr. Boonsong’s illustration.

The plate shows the Chinese inscription that accompanied the picture,

with the artist’s signature beneath it. If a student of such paintings could

assist in tracking down the artist and the date of the picture, we might

possibly get a clue as to where to look in China for the nesting grounds of the

White-eyed River-Martin. Until then it seems destined to remain one of the

most elusive species in the world.

REFERENCES

King, B. and Kanwanich, S. (1978) First wild sighting of the White-eyed River-Martin,

Pseudochelidon smntarae, Biol. Conserv. 13: 183-185.

King, W. B. (1978-1979) Red Data Book , 2. Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland:

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Sophasan, S. and Dobias, R. (1984) The fate of the ‘Princess Bird’, or White-eyed River Martin

(. Pseudochelidon smntarae). Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 32: 1-10.

Thonglongya, K. (1968) A new martin of the genus Pseudochelidon from Thailand. Thai Natn.

Sci. Pap. Fauna Ser. no. 1.

Thonglongya, K. (1969) Report on an expedition in northern Thailand to look for breeding sites

of Pseudochelidon sinnlarae (21 May to 27 June 1969). Unpublished.

Edward C. Dickinson, Chemw du Chano 8, 1802 Corseaux, Switzerland.

Plate. Incription and artist’s signature on painting

of a possible White-eyed River-Martin.

Photo: Didi Brandt.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

97

The threatened White- winged Wood Duck

Cairina scutulata in Bangladesh

MOHAMMAD ALI REZA KHAN

Of some 30 species of resident and migratory ducks and geese in Bangladesh,

the White-winged Wood Duck Cairina scutulata, locally called bhadi hansh or

shetapakkha balaka, is possibly the most endangered (Khan 1981, 1982,

1983; also King 1978-1979). Reports of the species are few. Mitra (1957),

based on his forestry operations of the 1940s and 1950s, and Rashid (1967)

reported it to be present in the Chittagong revenue division. Ali and Ripley

(1983) cited H. G. Alexander as having seen two parties of 30 ducks in the

open Padma river in 1948; however, neither my own fieldwork from 1969

nor that of others, including century-old District Gazetteer reports, suggest

that this duck ever occurred outside the evergreen and semi-evergreen forests

of the Chittagong revenue division of eastern Bangladesh, and there exists no

forest belt within a distance of 100 km all along the course of the Padma river

(see Figure).

In the 1970s and 1980s all records of the White-winged Wood Duck in

Figure. Bangladesh showing White- ~

winged Wood Duck habitat.

98

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 2

Bangladesh have referred to a small population in and around the Pablakhali

Wildlife Sanctuary in the Hill Tracts North Forest Division. This sanctuary,

usually stated to be 440km2 in extent, lies entirely within the Kassalong

Valley Reserve, itself holding some 1,700 km2 of forest and situated at

approximately 23°10'N 92°05'E. The species was first investigated there by

Husain (1975, 1977). I paid over a dozen visits to the forested areas of

Chittagong revenue division (which includes Sylhet, Chittagong, Hill Tracts

North and South, Jhoom Control and Cox’s Bazar Forest Divisions) between

1978 and 1984, but never found the species in any other forest. I first visited

the sanctuary in early 1978. This was followed by three successive field trips

there up to 1981, before the entire Hill Tracts District was made a prohibited

zone for members of the public because of ‘political unrest’. As far as I know

no-one has yet returned to the sanctuary since that time for purposes of

scientific study.

From the present-day occurrence of the Wood Duck in the Hill Tracts

North forests it may be conjectured that the species once existed in similar

forests throughout the Chittagong revenue division, and indeed there are two

isolated forest belts in the Greater Hill Tracts District where it may yet be

found. These are the Rangkheong Reserve Forest, covering 760km2 at

around 22°10'N 92°20'E, and the Sangu-Matamuhuri Valley Reserve Forest,

covering 740km2 at around 21°20'N 92°20'E. The destruction of forest, due

to human settlement and forestry operations, is apparently less in these two

areas than in other areas of Greater Hill Tracts. Moreover, these two forests

are rather inaccessible by road and waterways. These reserves have not been

surveyed ornithologically excepting one short collecting trip in 1965,

restricted to a small strip around Ruma Bazar in the Rangkheong Reserve

Forest, when the Wood Duck was not encountered (Husain 1968).

The White-winged Wood Duck usually occurs in pairs or small family

parties, and Husain and Haque (1982) considered that about 20 pairs were

present over an area of about 240 km2 in and around the Pablakhali

Sanctuary. This should not be taken to mean that one pair occupied every

12 km2, as in reality these pairs live in four or five isolated pockets within the

area, and several pairs may live permanently within a small area of 5 - 10km2.

At least two pairs lived close to the Pablakhali resthouse at Amtali and I

encountered them on all my visits. However, forest villagers and local

tribesmen considered that, while the species was not an uncommon bird in

the Pabalkhali area about two decades ago, its population had certainly

declined in recent years.

Habitat

Most of the reserved forests of Chittagong revenue division have been

categorised as tropical evergreen, semi-evergreen and deciduous in type

(Champion and Seth 1968). All forests here have three distinct strata with an

additional undergrowth.

The moist deciduous upper stratum, reaching 30- 50m, does not form a

closed canopy. The tallest trees are civit Swintotiia floribunda, chundul

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

99

Tetrameles nudiflora , uriam Mangifera longipes, chapalish Artocarpus

chaplasha, barta or lakooch A. lakoocha, garjan Dipierocarpus spp., surujbed

or toon Toona ciliata, buddha narikel Pterygota alata and shimul Bombax

ceiba. The second stratum forms a closed canopy at 20- 30m and consists of

high evergreens, including jam Syzygium spp., batna Quercus spp., telshur

Hopea odorata, pitraj Aphanamixis polystachya, and nageshwar Mesua ferrea.

The third stratum reaches 7- 15 m and comprises the saplings of the upper

two strata intermixed with, e.g., Vitex glabrata, Saraca indica, Mallotus

philippensis, Macranga sp., Castanopsis indica, Garcinia spp. and Elaeocarpus

spp. In the undergrowth bamboo, cane or palm may occur in pure stands or

mixed in with ferns, ground orchids, vines and lianas.

There is no forest patch utilised by the Wood Duck in the Pablakhali

Sanctuary which may be termed virgin or untouched by forestry operations

and human activities. The forest has been worked on a selective and/or clear-

felling basis, or at least bamboo has been removed.

Probable causes of decline

The most obvious cause of decline of the White-winged Wood Duck in the

Hill Tracts District seems to be the systematic clear-felling of primary forest

of all categories and its replacement with commercially viable timber species

(teak, rubber, dipterocarps and Syzygium ) under the existing forestry

practice in Bangladesh (Anon. 1981). Moreover, selective logging of old

softwood trees like civit, uriam, chapalish and lakooch for making tea-chests,

plywood, packing-boxes, match-boxes and match-sticks may be responsible

for destroying the Wood Duck’s nesting trees. Around 1961-1962 the

deforestation of the region was compounded by the implementation of the

Kaptai hydroelectric project, which inundated about 906 km2 of the

Kassalong Valley Reserve including a major portion of the Pablakhali

Sanctuary.

Although the creation of the impoundments has provided new breeding

and wintering grounds for migratory birds of prey, waterfowl and waders as

well as resident ducks, rails and herons, as emphasised by Husain (1985), I

have never seen Wood Duck venturing into the clear-water, fast-flowing or

deeper portions of the Kaptai Lake. Rather it prefers small pools, puddles

and ox-bow lakes spread all over the Kassalong forest. Neither Husain (1975,

1977, 1985) nor myself has any report on definite status of the Wood Duck in

the Hill Tracts prior to the creation of Kaptai Lake, and it therefore seems

hard to justify the claim (reported by Karpowicz 1985) that the population of

Wood Duck has risen since the completion of the Kaptai hydroelectric

project.

Another factor that has directly affected the ducks is the hunting of adults

and capture of young by local people. Even in the early 1980s senior forest

and other officials used to shoot Wood Duck in the Pablakhali Sanctuary. At

least up to 1981 the locals went hunting the ducklings with their dogs. At the

approach of danger, the mother deserts the ducklings; the dogs sniff them

out and the locals collect and rear them for some time before eating or selling

100

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Fork tail 2

them. This practice may still be continuing.

A further problem is the use by locals and settlers in the Hill Tracts of

nylon gill-nets for fishing. These are roughly a metre in height and 10- 15 m

in length, and are stretched with poles under the surface of a small lake or

pool. The adult ducks swimming under water occasionally get entangled,

and are either eaten directly or sent to market.

In the mid-1980s the government started leasing out the forest lands, of

both Pablakhali Sanctuary and neighbouring areas, to the plains-dwellers for

settlement there at the rate of 2.5 ha per family. By now (1986) an estimated

10,000 families have been settled in the Greater Hill Tracts District. This has

posed a serious threat to the survival of the Wood Duck and other wildlife of

Pablakhali and its neighbourhood, because the settlers are clearing the forest

land given to them, encroaching on the reserved forest, fishing the lakes and

pools, and disturbing the habitat and activity patterns of the Wood Duck.

This detrimental trend of human settlement must be stopped not only to save

the Wood Duck but also for the greater benefits of the forest and other

wildlife. Instead of settling the plains-dwellers as a counter-measure to tribal

insurgency, the government should solve the latter problem politically.

Conclusion

As nothing is known about the status of the species since 1981, an immediate

survey in the Pablakhali Wildlife Sanctuary and its environs is needed to

determine whether any population still survives there. If the result is

positive, steps must be taken to save it. All remaining isolated softwood trees

should be saved from selective logging, to ensure nesting sites. Use of

gill-nets in the sanctuary and other areas holding Wood Duck should be

banned. All forestry operations in the Pablakhali Sanctuary, for that matter

in all other sanctuaries, should be stopped and human settlement

discouraged. A small scientific unit might be established at Amtali within the

Pablakhali Sanctuary for continuous monitoring of the Wood Duck situation

in the area.

I am grateful to Prof. Kazi Zaker Husain and Md Nazrul Haque, Department of Zoology,

Dhaka University, and to Mr. A. K. Fazlul Haque, D. F. O., Hill Tracts North Division,

for their kind help and co-operation.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1983) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan. Compact edition.

Bombay: Oxford University Press.

Anonymous (1981) Agriculture in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Agricultural Development

Corporation.

Champion, H. G. and Seth, S. K. (1968) A revised survey of the forest types of India. New Delhi:

Government of India.

Husain, K. Z. (1968) Field-notes on the birds of the Chittagong Hill-Tracts. J. Asiatic Soc.

Pakistan 13(1): 91-101.

Husain, K. Z. (1975) Birds of Pablakhali Wildlife Sanctuary (the Chittagong Hill Tracts).

Bangladesh J . Zool. 3: 155-157.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

101

Husain, K. Z. (1977) The White-winged Wood Duck. Tigerpaper 4(1): 6-8.

Husain, K. Z. (1985) Present status of the birds of Bangladesh. Pp. 18-23 in Proceedings, The

Third East-Asian Bird Protection Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 29-31 May 1985. Tokyo: Wild

Bird Society of Japan.

Husain, K. Z. and Haque, M. N. (1982) The White-winged Wood Duck Project. Report to the

University Grants Commission, Dhaka. Unpublished.

Karpowicz, Z. J. (1985) Wetlands in East Asia - a preliminary review and inventory. Cambridge,

U.K.: ICBP Study Report no. 6.

Khan, M. A. R. (1981) The endangered birds of Bangladesh. Newsletter for Birdwatchers

(Bangalore, India) 21(12): 4-7.

Khan, M. A. R. (1982) Wildlife of Bangladesh-a checklist. Dhaka: Dhaka University.

Khan, M. A. R. (1983) The vanishing White-winged Wood Duck. Bangladesh Today, 16-30

June: 43-45.

King, W. B. (1978-1979) Red data book, 2: Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland:

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Mitra, S. N. (1957) Banglar shikar pram. Calcutta: Bengal Government Press (in Bengali).

Rashid, H. (1967) Systematic list of the birds of East Pakistan. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Pakistan.

M. A. R. Khan, Department of Zoology, Dhaka University, Dhaka-2, Bangladesh (present address:

Curator, Al Ain Zoo and Aquarium, P. O. Box 1204, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab

Emirates).

Black-tailed Crake Porzana bicolor :

a new species for Thailand

J. SERIOT, O. PINEAU, R. DE SCHATZEN and Ph. J. DUBOIS

Late in the afternoon of 25 January 1985, in the Doi Inthanon National Park,

Thailand (18°34'N 98°51'E), 1,300m above sea level, two of us (O.P. and

J.S.) and C. Howlett observed a crake which they identified as a Black-tailed

Crake Porzana bicolor. The next day the bird was seen by R.S. and Ph. J.D.

It was feeding on a marshy field, staying close to a bushy area along a

stream. It was scared by every movement in the surroundings and often

disappeared under the bushes. This habit was also noted by Delacour and

Jabouille (1931). The size of the bird was roughly that of a Pintail Snipe

Gallinago stenura, with which it was seen. The wings and back were

reddish-brown, uppertail-coverts blackish, tail black. The throat was

whitish, but the rest of the head, neck, flanks and belly were dark ash-gray,

darker on breast, vent blackish, undertail-coverts black. The bill was

yellowish-green with a red spot (only visible at close range) at the base. The

legs were red (not reddish-brown); eyes red.

Notified by us, Ph. Goffart and D. Lafontaine saw the Black-tailed Crake

on 29 January 1985. P. D. Round and B. F. King saw it on 31 January and

heard three further birds calling (of which one was seen) at an additional site,

less than 1km distant. It seems possible that the species nests here (P. D.

102

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 2

Round in litt.).

Published information on the Black-tailed Crake is sparse, and the species

appears to have been reported very little in the past fifty years; this is

evidently due in some degree to the inaccessibility (on political grounds) of

certain parts of its range, but also possibly to confusion with the Brown

Crake Amauromis akool.

There are a few specimens from unspecified localities in Nepal, some

others possibly being from an adjacent site in northern India (Inskipp and

Inskipp 1985). Baker (1929) recorded the species from Sikkim, where it nests

‘between 4,000 and 6,000 feet’ (1,200 and 1,800m). He also described it as

common in the North Cachar Hills, Khasi Hills, ‘Assam’ (now in

Meghalaya), ‘a dozen birds breeding in a small patch about 100 yards long by

600 wide’ at one unspecified locality. Baker (1935) added that the species

never nested below 3,000 feet (900m) except in the Lakhimpur district.

In Burma, Smythies (1953) reported that ‘a nest was taken by Osmaston

near Mogaung on the 18 July’ and ‘Harington records that Tancock obtained

a nest with 6 eggs at Sinlum Kaba on the 9 May’. The species is known

throughout the higher hills of the country from the Chin Hills in the west

(where one observer found it common) to Karenni in the east (one specimen

obtained at Nattaung), and it is described as not uncommon in the Shan

states (Smythies 1953).

In China, the Black-tailed Crake is recorded from south-east Sichuan east

to Wa Shan and south to the Likiang Mountains in north Yunnan (Meyer de

Schauensee 1984). In Viet Nam, Delacour and Jabouille (1931) considered it

scarce, two birds having been collected in the High Tonkin; they also record

it from Cha Pa, central Annam. In Laos, David-Beaulieu (1941) noted it in

the marshes of Xieng Khouang and Nong Het. Delacour and Jabouille

(1931) mention it as occurring in Siam but it is not listed for Thailand by

Deignan (1963), Lekagul and Cronin (1974) or King et al. (1975). Our

observations thus seem to be the first for Thailand.

The Black-tailed Crake is typical of mountain areas, seldom seen below

1,000m; Baker (1929) found it near ‘small streams, especially those which

had plenty of cover on one side and open grassland on the opposite one’, and

we found it in such habitat in Doi Inthanon. Delacour and Jabouille (1931)

also noted that it frequents open meadows mainly in the mornings and

evenings. Baker (1935) gives its breeding season as apparently from mid-May

to the end of August; the behaviour of the Thai birds suggests that breeding

might occur at Doi Inthanon, perhaps earlier than Baker’s dates.

REFERENCES

Baker, E. C. S. (1929) The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, 6. London: Tavlor

and Francis.

Baker, E. C. S. (1935) The nidification of birds of the Indian Empire, 4. London: Taylor and

Francis.

David-Beaulieu, A. (1941) Deuxieme liste complementaire des oiseaux du Tranninh. Otseau et

R.F.O. 10: 78-97.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

103

Deignan, H. G. (1963) Checklist of the birds of Thailand. U. S. Natn. Mus. Bull. 226.

Delacour, J. and Jabouille, P. (1931) Les oiseaux de I’Indochine frangaise, 1. Paris: Exposition

Coloniale Internationale.

Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. P. (1985) A guide to the birds of Nepal. London: Croom Helm.

King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South-East

Asia. London: Collins.

Lekagul, B. and Cronin, E. W. (1974) Bird guide of Thailand . Second (revised) edition. Bangkok:

Association for the Conservation of Wildlife.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smythies, B. E. (1953) The birds of Burma. Second edition. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

, J . Seriot, O. Pineau, R. de Schatzen and Ph. J . Dubois, c/o Ligue Frangaise pour la Protection des

Oiseaux, B. P. 263, La Corderie Royale, 17305 Rochefort Cedex, France.

Status of wintering

Black-necked Cranes Grus nigricollis

in Bhutan

F. A. CLEMENTS and N. J. BRADBEAR

The Black-necked Crane Grus nigricollis has been described as the least

known of all crane species (Walkinshaw 1973, King 1978-1979, Archibald

and Oesting 1981, Johnsgard 1983) with incomplete knowledge available on

its status and distribution. During the last ten years researchers have shown

increasing interest in the species and the habitats it occupies for breeding and

wintering.

The Black-necked Crane is a central Asian species, with a breeding range

now known to include Ladakh and areas of southern China bordering the

Tsangpo river (Xizang province), and in Sichuan and Qinghai provinces

(Johnsgard 1983). Meyer de Schauensee (1984) also reports it breeding from

north-west Kansu southwards, but his source for this is unknown. It is

probable that there are unknown breeding areas in the central plateau of

Xizang (Tibet) (Walkinshaw 1973). The main wintering areas used by this

species are reported to include parts of south-central Xizang, south-west

Sichuan and Yunnan provinces in China and the northern Viet Nam

lowlands, while a few birds have been reported in Bhutan, Arunachal

Pradesh in north-east India, and in the Kamon range in northern Burma

(Archibald and Oesting 1981, Khacher 1981a, b, Archibald 1983).

Recently, teams of Indian researchers under the auspices of the World

Wildlife Fund have been studying Black-necked Cranes at the Indian

breeding grounds in Ladakh (Gole 1981a, Hussain 1985), and more casually

where the species winters in Bhutan. Wintering cranes have been known

104

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktail 2

from Bhutan for some years and two recent reports from the WWF project

have suggested that 70 birds may be present (Gole 1 98 1 b,c).

In March 1986, at the invitation of the Royal Government of Bhutan, we

had the opportunity to visit the country. In addition to the official purpose of

our visit, we were able to make observations in known Black-necked Crane

wintering areas, and to discuss with local ornithologists the wintering status

of this species in Bhutan.

Bhutan is a small, sparsely populated, east Himalayan kingdom situated in

the north-east of the Indian subcontinent and bordered to the north by the

great Himalayan range and Xizang (Tibet). Of the 1.2 million population

90% are dependent on subsistence agriculture, and 60% of the land is still

covered by primary forest.

Black-necked Crane wintering grounds in Bhutan are high-altitude, large

U-shaped valleys with wide valley bottoms consisting of undrained mires and

small-field agricultural land. Wintering cranes have been reported from three

areas in Bhutan: Popshika, Bumthang, and Tashi Yangtse (Gole 1981b,

Khacher 1981a). Working from west to east, the Popshika and Bumthang

valleys are situated in central Bhutan at altitudes between 3,000 and 3,400m.

Tashi Yangtse is in the extreme east of Bhutan and is lower, at approximately

2,400m (Figure).

The Popshika valley lies to the south of the main lateral road to Tongsa,

approximately half a day’s drive east of the capital, Thimphu. The valley is

completely surrounded by forested mountain slopes and access is via a

narrow pass at 3,700m. In the centre of the valley is a small hill on which is

situated the seasonally occupied village and monastery known as Gangte

Gompa. Agricultural field systems are situated around the village and along

Figure. Map of Bhutan, showing the Popshika, Bumthang and Tashi Yangtse valleys.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

105

the valley sides on the lower slopes. The whole extent of the valley floor is

one vast mire. Cranes were present in this valley despite the rather late date

of our visit (12 March). In total, 77 birds were seen in three main flocks

scattered across the valley floor. We were present in the afternoon during

which time most birds were resting and feeding, the latter taking place in

fields as well as on marshy ground. Some flight and restless activities were

observed, presumably prior to departure for the breeding grounds.

Approximately 20% of birds present were juvenile.

The Bumthang valley, equivalent in extent to Popshika but more populous

and agriculturally developed, is situated two hours drive east from Tongsa;

the journey involves crossing the Yotong-La pass at approximately 4,000m.

A Swiss development programme has been present in the area for many

years. We did not visit land at the head of the valley, but in 24 hours we only

encountered two Black-necked Cranes feeding on a small area of dry, rough

grassland adjacent to the main village. As mentioned by Gole (1981b), the

favoured marsh in the centre of the valley has been drained and improved for

agriculture, causing cranes wintering here to be widely dispersed.

We were unable to visit the extreme east of Bhutan and the valley of Tashi

Yangtse. The road east of Tongsa to Tashigang is not surfaced and is often

impassable.

From our own observations and from communication with ornithologists

and local people, it would appear that many more birds are wintering in

Bhutan than was previously thought. Other foreign researchers who had

visited the Popshika valley have reported the presence of only a few birds

(Gole 1981b). We had been informed that up to 140 Black-necked Cranes

had been wintering here, and our encounter with 77 individuals in March

when some birds would already have left for the breeding grounds confirmed

this verbal information. The Popshika valley is therefore a most important

wintering ground, comparable with the Sea of Grass in western Guizhou

province, China (Archibald 1983).

Despite our encounter with only two individuals in the Bumthang valley,

we were informed that upwards of 40 birds still use the valley during winter.

Owing to some agricultural improvement and disturbance they are

apparently more widely scattered, and are found towards the head of the

valley.

It is unfortunate that we were unable to visit Tashi Yangtse because it is

likely that this valley harbours the largest numbers of Black-necked Cranes

in the whole of Bhutan. We were told of the discovery there of more than 300

individuals, present during winter 1984/1985 and 1985/1986; our information

came from two separate sources, both of whom had seen the birds.

It therefore seems possible that 500-600 Black-necked Cranes are present

in Bhutan in most winters. With so little information available on

Black-necked Crane in general, and in particular on its winter status in

Bhutan, it is vital that while verbal reports are treated warily, their potential

importance is realised. We believe that estimates of numbers are likely to be

correct for the following reasons. At least one government official in Bhutan

106

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Forktai! 2

is committed to Black-necked Crane conservation and has been studying

these birds in Bhutan and China for some time. The information given to us

by him for the Popshika valley is likely to be correct judging from numbers

we encountered after migration north had started. The Tashi Yangtse valley

has been mentioned only briefly in previous literature (Khacher 1981a,b) and

to our knowledge has not yet been visited by foreign ornithologists. The size

and isolation of this valley suggest that it could indeed support considerable

numbers of cranes. One must be wary of the possibility of duplication in

numbers between valleys, and of confusion with other crane species,

although the latter is most unlikely.

Our tentative conclusions on the numbers of birds wintering in Bhutan

should not be taken as evidence that the population of this least known of

cranes is safe. Wintering areas outside China have suffered markedly over the

last 30 years. Bombing during the Viet Nam war reduced the habitat

available and directly disturbed birds, some of which have now returned

(Archibald and Oesting 1981). The wintering flock in the Apa Tani valley,

Arunachal Pradesh, India, is no longer present as a result of the shooting of

birds and direct disturbance by local people (Khacher 1981b). In Bhutan,

too, there is evidence that wetland habitat is being lost, as in the Bumthang

valley, so it is fortunate that birds here are wintering in more than one area.

The continued presence of necessary marshland habitat in high-altitude,

isolated valleys depends upon the denial of agricultural improvement to

poor, rural communities.

The Royal Government of Bhutan is committed to gradual development

with a strong conservation strategy, and is unwilling to allow large numbers

of foreigners into the country. It is hoped that information made available in

this article will indicate the need for close co-operation with the Royal

Government of Bhutan so that conservationists can work together to

safeguard the sites used by Black-necked Cranes in winter.

We wish to thank officials of the Royal Government of Bhutan, and the Ministry of

Agriculture and Forestry, who provided us with much useful help and information. We also

wish to thank N. J. Collar and other staff of ICBP who made information available to us.

REFERENCES

Archibald, G. (1983) Crane Group. Pp. 31-36 in Proceedings of XVIII World Conference,

Cambridge, U. K. [Cambridge, U. K. : ] International Council for Bird Preservation.

Archibald, G. and Oesting, M. (1981) Black-necked Crane: a review. Pp. 190-196 in J. C. Lewis

and H. Masatomi, eds. Crane research around the world. Baraboo, Wisconsin: International

Crane Foundation.

Gole, P. (1981a) Black-necked Cranes in Ladakh. Pp. 197-203 in J. C. Lewis and H. Masatomi,

eds. Crane research around the world. Baraboo, Wisconsin: International Crane Foundation.

Gole, P. (1981b) Status survey of the Black-necked Crane wintering in Bhutan, February 1981.

WWF India Report, unpublished.

Gole. P. (1981c) Crane study in Bhutan. WWF India Newsletter no. 37: 14.

Hussain, S. A. (1985) Black-necked Crane in Ladakh- 1983: problems and prospects. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 82: 449-458.

1986

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

107

Johnsgard, P. A. (1983) Cranes of the world. London: Croom Helm.

Khacher, L. (1981a) Conservation needs of Black-necked Cranes of Bhutan, Arunachal Pradesh,

and Ladakh. Pp. 204—211 in J. C. Lewis and H. Masatomi, eds. Crane research around the

world. Baraboo, Wisconsin: International Crane Foundation.

Khacher, L. (1981b) The rare Tibetan crane. WWF Monthly Reports April 1981: 97-101.

King, W. B. (1978-1979) Red data book, 2: Aves. Second edition. Morges, Switzerland:

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walkinshaw, L. (1973) Cranes of the world. New York: Winchester Press.

F. A. Clements, Nature Conservancy Council, Archway House, 1 Eastcheap, Letchworth

Hertfordshire SG6 3DG, U. K.

N.J. Bradbear, International Bee Research Association, 18 North Road, Cardiff CF1 3DY, Wales,

1986

109

Guidelines for contributors

Forkiail publishes original papers in the English language (also, in certain cases, English translations