# The Zoologist/3rd series, vol 1 (1877)/Issue 6/On the Claim of the Pine Grosbeak to be Regarded as a British Bird

This article was published in: The Zoologist, 3rd series, vol 1, issue 6 (June, 1877), p. 242–250
ON THE CLAIM OF THE PINE GROSBEAK TO BE REGARDED AS A BRITISH BIRD.
By J.H. Gurney, Jun.
Some time ago I set to work to examine into the claim of the Pine Grosbeak to be retained in the list of British Birds. I found that a good deal of misapprehension about it prevailed amongst the authors whose works I consulted, and my notes accumulated in proportion to my researches. My papers were then laid aside, in the hope that time might unravel some of the intricacies which baffled me. As I now see no prospect, however, of getting any further information on the subject, I willingly accede to the ​suggestion of a friend, and send the result of my investigations to the present time for publication in 'The Zoologist.'
Mr. Harting, in his 'Handbook of British Birds' (p. 113), has given a list of nearly all the reported occurrences of the Pine Grosbeak in Great Britain, collected from various sources, and one would suppose at first sight, from his long category, that there could be no doubt about the claim of this bird to be regarded as British. Many species, indeed, in that work have appended to their names far shorter lists of recorded occurrences, and have never been suspected to be interlopers. But on examining the list of Pine Grosbeaks, we perceive on what slender evidence a great many of them have been introduced. I think I cannot do better than follow Mr. Harting, and taking them seriatim as he gives them, state as fairly as I can the pros and cons in regard to each.
1. The Pine Grosbeak appears to have been first introduced into the list of British Birds by Thomas Pennant, the well-known author of the 'British Zoology.' In that work (4th ed., vol. i., p. 317) he says, "I have seen them flying above the great pine forests of Invercauld, in Aberdeenshire; and I imagine they breed there, for I saw them on the 5th of August." He adds that one that he "saw in Scotland and believed to be a female was (like the female Crossbill) of a dirty green, the tail and quill-feathers dusky." Nothing has ever transpired to make us doubt the correctness of Pennant's identification of the species, which he has accurately described, except the rather significant fact that none are known with certainty to have been seen in Scotland since. This of itself, however, is not sufficient proof that the bird was not once found there.
2. In a catalogue of the rarer birds met with in the parish of Kirkmichael, in Dumfriesshire, by Dr. Burgess, published about 1792, the Pine Grosbeak is included; but Dr. Burgess' name is unknown to ornithologists, and what weight may be attached to his authority in the matter it is impossible to say. Professor Newton informs me that Kirkmichael is close to Jardine Hall, but that Sir William Jardine (who, as every one knows, was a very good naturalist), in writing on the fauna of Dumfriesshire, in the 'New Statistical Account of Scotland,' makes no mention of the Pine Grosbeak. Mr. Robert Gray, who I believe first drew attention to ​Dr. Burgess' Catalogue, has not been able to throw any light on the matter in his 'Birds of the West of Scotland.'
3. I have not seen Don's 'Fauna of Forfarshire,' but am indebted to Mr. Gray for the following extract from it (p. 43):—"Loxia curvirostra, the Crossbill, and enucleator, the Pine Grosbeak. These two species of Loxia have come in great numbers to the woods of Glammiss and Lindertis, and totally destroyed the whole of the larch and fir-cones for these two years past." Don's 'Fauna of Forfarshire' was published in 1813: it is now impossible to decide whether he was competent to distinguish the species named by him or not.
4. In Ireland this bird is supposed, on the vaguest testimony, to have been once obtained. The following is Thompson's account of the specimen in his 'Natural History of Ireland' (Birds), vol. i., p. 275:—"In the manuscript journal of that eminent naturalist, John Templeton, Esq., is the following note:—'December the 20th, 1819. Yesterday heard from Mr. Montgomery, of Belfast [the late Mr. John Montgomery, of Locust Lodge] that Mr. Bradford [a pump-maker] had received a specimen of Loxia enucleator, which was shot at the Cave Hill [vicinity of Belfast], and on showing [him] the figure in the 'Naturalists Miscellany,' he recognized it to be the bird.'" Mr. John Templeton died in 1827: ten years afterwards his son published a list of Irish Vertebrates, from materials found amongst his papers (Mag. of Nat. Hist., n.s., vol. i. p. 403), in which the Pine Grosbeak is mentioned as "a doubtful native," but no particulars are given of the specimen which was shot by Mr. Bradford at Cave Hill. I am told that the figure of the Pine Grosbeak in the 'Naturalists Miscellany' is a gaudy red picture. I have not seen the work lately, but, if I remember right, many of its plates might puzzle a better naturalist than Mr. Bradford, and I should be inclined to discredit his identification, if for no other reason than that he professed to have recognised the species from such a bad figure.
5. In Selby's "Catalogue of the Birds of Northumberland and Durham" (Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb., 1831, p. 265) that author writes:—"Strobilophaga enucleator. Pine Grosbeak. A specimen of this rare British species, now in the possession of Mr. Anthony Clapham, was shot at Bill Quay, near Newcastle." This bird passed from Mr. Clapham to the late Mr. W. Backhouse, and is now in the possession of his son. It was lent to me some ​years ago, and I had a photograph taken of it, which is now before me. It was a female bird, of a greenish yellow colour and in moult. The only objection which has been raised to its authenticity is the odd place where it was said to have been killed—viz. Bill Quay, near Newcastle. I do not know the locality myself, but we are accustomed to think of a "Quay" as a place where foreign birds are sold in cages. It is just possible that this Pine Grosbeak may have been a caged importation, in which case it might very well have been got there, though not shot there. I have a note that, according to another account, it was obtained at Coble Dene, near Shields, but I have unfortunately mislaid the reference, and I have quite forgotten now what my authority for that change in the locality was.
6. It seems just possible that the flight of Pine Grosbeaks recorded in Paget's 'Natural History of Yarmouth' (p. 6), as having "been seen on the Denes, Nov. 1822," may have been confounded in some way with the Hawfinches, a large flight of which are stated by the same author to have appeared in the January following. We are not informed that any were captured; only a flight of them "seen," by whom is not stated; but a person not well acquainted with birds, might perhaps mistake a flock of Hawfinches for Pine Grosbeaks.
7. In Lubbock's 'Fauna of Norfolk' it is remarked (p. 36) that "a pair of the Pine Grosbeak (Loxia enucleator) are now preserved in Yarmouth, shot near that place, and which are said to have had a nest, which unfortunately was destroyed." This I have no doubt is the same pair and nest alluded to in Gurney and Fisher's 'Catalogue of Norfolk Birds' (p. 21) as occurring at Raveningham, near Yarmouth. As the authors knew the late Mr. Lubbock, they in all probability communicated with him on this subject. If the Pine Grosbeak was ever a British bird, it was probably only a winter or an autumn visitant, at any rate not a summer one, and it seems impossible to believe that it could ever have nested in Norfolk.
8. In September, 1694, according to a statement in Fox's 'Synopsis of the Newcastle Museum' (pp. 65, 101), a flock of about a hundred birds visited a hemp-yard in Pembrokeshire, and destroyed all the hemp-seed. They were so tame, or intent on their feeding "that, being forced from their places, they would ​not remove above two or three yards." It was not until nearly a century afterwards that the suggestion was made by Marmaduke Tunstall that they were Pine Grosbeaks (Fox, l.c.), but certainly the account as left by the observer—a Mr. Roberts—points rather to the Crossbill, although no mention is made of the beak, beyond the statement that it was "more stubbed and larger than a Bullfinch's."
9. The Pine Grosbeak is named in Hastings' 'Natural History of Worcestershire' (p. 65), in a list of birds which "are all of unfrequent occurrence." The Great Black Woodpecker is named also, but as no particulars are given of the occurrence of either of them, this record may be dismissed without further comment.
10. Following the order in Mr. Harting's list, where the records are arranged chronologically, we now go back to North Britain. In the list of species to be found in the parish of Eccles, in Berwickshire, copied verbatim for me by Mr. Gray, from the Statistical Account of the Parish, the Pine Grosbeak is thus noticed by Dr. R.D. Thomson, who Mr. Gray tells me was a member of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club, and for a long time resident in Glasgow:—"Besides about eighty common birds, the parish is occasionally visited by some rarer species; of these may be mentioned the Columba turtur (Turtle Dove), Aquila albicilla (Sea Eagle), Corythus enucleator (Hawk-finch), Ardea nycticorax (Night Heron), Lanius excubitor (Greater Butcher-bird)." The English name of Hawk-finch would lead one to think that a mistake had been made.
11. In Mr. Pemberton Bartlett's "Notes on the Ornithology of Kent" (Zoologist, 1844, p. 621), the reader is informed that the Pine Grosbeak has been "occasionally killed" in the county. Mr. Bartlett's informant was Dr. Plomley, who possibly may have referred to a pair of Pine Grosbeaks in the late Mr. J. Chaffey's collection of Kentish birds, which were said to have been killed in England, but on whose authority is not known.
12. Next we come to the late Mr. Yarrell's specimen, which is now the property of Mr. Frederick Bond, in whose collection I dare say many of the readers of 'The Zoologist' have seen it. ​Although the evidence about it is very incomplete, it is the best authenticated specimen I know of. Yarrell (Brit. Birds, ii. p. 9) tells us that it was shot some years prior to 1839 at Harrow-on-the-Hill; while Fox (op. cit., p. 65), apparently referring to the same bird, speaks of it as shot at Wellwyn, in the adjoining county of Hertford. So good a naturalist as Yarrell appears to have been satisfied of its authenticity, and in the absence of any further evidence, one must accept his testimony.
13. In 'The Zoologist' for 1845 (p. 1025) the Rev. H. Clark states that he had a Pine Grosbeak which was killed "in a fir-plantation near Rochdale, Lancashire," in February, 1845. Mr. Bond has kindly informed me that he saw it several times, that it was a male bird, and that after Mr. Clark's death it was sold to a dealer. Mr. Clark being dead, it is now too late to obtain any further information about it.
14. In Knox's 'Ornithological Rambles in Sussex' (p. 211), two Pine Grosbeaks are stated to have been killed in Ashdown Forest in February, 1848. Although it was believed at the time that they had been killed as stated, Mr. Knox informs me, by letter, that he now almost begins to doubt them.
15. The same naturalist has recorded (l.c.) that another Pine Grosbeak was killed at Petworth. At this distance of time no further evidence is procurable.
16. In 1850 a Pine Grosbeak was seen at Corrymulzie, Bræmar, N.B., by the late Prof. Macgillivray, who, however, writes very cautiously and guardedly about it in his 'Natural History of Deeside and Bræmar' (p. 403).
17. The seventeenth reported occurrence is a mere name in the 'Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archæological Society,' in Mr. Baker's Catalogue of the Fauna of that county. I applied to that gentleman's grandson to know if he could tell me what ground there was for including it, and he has obligingly informed me that it appears from his grandfather's papers that it was met with by Mr. Anstice, of Bridgwater, and also by the late Mr. Govett. As against this, I may remark that Mr. Anstice would most likely have communicated such an important fact to his friend Colonel Montagu for his 'Ornithological Dictionary,' who, however, has made no mention of it.
18. In a note on the occurrence of rare birds near Kingsbridge (Zool. 3474), Mr. Charles Prideaux states that a Pine Grosbeak ​was lately (that is about 1851–2) killed at Taunton. Your correspondent, Mr. Nicholls, informed me some time ago that he saw the bird at the time, that it had been bought of a dealer, and that it looked to him as if it had been set up from the flesh. It may therefore rank with Mr. Bond's bird as one of the better authenticated specimens.
19. This record is the last mentioned by Mr. Harting (op. cit.), and refers to one seen at Dunkeld, N.B., by Col. Drummond Hay, as he told me when I had the pleasure of meeting him some time ago.
20, 21, 22. In addition to the foregoing, I have three more records to refer to, one relating to Lancashire, one to Hampshire, and one to Devonshire. In the first of these counties, the locality is Hulston, the date prior to 1837, and the recorder Mr. Rylands, on the authority of the late Mr. T.K. Glazebrook (Naturalist, 1837, p. 352). In the second, that is Hampshire, the locality is Thruxton (Zoologist, p. 9023), but in this instance I have been informed by the recorder himself, that a mistake was made in the identification of the species. As regards the third, I learn from Mr. Byne of Taunton, that he is in possession of a Devonshire-killed Pine Grosbeak, but its history, so far as I can make out, after a good deal of correspondence with various parties, is not satisfactory.
Mr. Gatcombe informs me that on the 8th November, 1868, the Rev. Mr. Furneaux saw a pair of Pine Grosbeaks feeding on the seeds of an Arbor-vitæ at St. Germains, in Cornwall, and felt sure about the species. I have a note of being told that it was included, on the authority of the Rev. G. Tugwell, in one edition of the 'Handbook of Devon,' in which is followed the excellent practice of some recent Guides to counties, of devoting a chapter to Natural History. I have two editions of this Handbook, but neither of them contain any such record.
In Mr. Gray's valuable work on the 'Birds of the West of Scotland,' already quoted, the Pine Grosbeak is mentioned as included in a list of the birds of the Esk Valley, in Midlothian; and Mr. W.C. Angus has obligingly informed me that the Rev. J.M. ​Crombie, in his 'Braemar' (a work which I have not seen), refers to a supposed Pine Grosbeak that he saw near the Bridge of Dee at Invercauld.
Finally, in Prof. Newton's copy of Bullock's Sale Catalogue, which has MS. notes in it, in the hand-writing of some former naturalist,—possibly Dr. Latham,—a female Pine Grosbeak is included and marked as British. In the Sale Catalogue of Mr. Sealy, of Cambridge, also, I see that "Lot 59" is described as "Pine Grosbeaks, three in case, one shot at Doncaster, and one at Sheffield." Whether these were anything more than dealer's localities I am unable to say.
Having now enumerated a list of five and twenty so-called "occurrences" of this bird in Great Britain, I will proceed to weed out the most doubtful cases, and consider the claims of those that remain. In the first place, then, I dismiss all records in which the name of the bird is given without any particulars. I do the same with those included in the sale-catalogues, three in number. The remainder (fourteen in number) I divide into two classes, under the heads of "mistaken identity," and "mistaken locality." By mistaken locality I mean that the specimens in question were not killed in this country, as those who recorded them were led to believe.
Probable cases of mistaken identity:—3. Forfarshire; 4. Ireland (Belfast); 8. Wales (Pembrokeshire); 10. Berwickshire; 15. Sussex (Petworth); 20. Lancashire (Hulston).
Probable cases of mistaken locality:—7. Norfolk (Yarmouth or Raveningham); 11. Kent; 13. Lancashire (Rochdale); 14. Sussex (Ashdown).
We have now only four left to deal with, and it appears to me that these are the most worthy of credit:—
    1. The examples met with by Pennant in Aberdeenshire.
    5. Mr. Backhouse's bird, obtained at Bill Quay, Newcastle.
    12. Mr. Bond's bird, said to have been killed at Harrow.
    18. The Taunton specimen of 1852, for the correct naming of which I have the authority of one of your correspondents, Mr. Nicholls.
I leave it to your able correspondent, the Rev. M.A. Mathew, to say what he can for the last-named specimen in his forthcoming work on the Birds of the West of England. As regards Mr. Bond's specimen, the only argument which can be used against it is the ​possibility of its being an escaped importation; and the same may be said of Mr. Backhouse's specimen. As regards the birds met with by Pennant, looking to the ease with which the Pine Grosbeak could fly to this country from its Scandinavian home, and the vast forests of pine in which to this day whole flocks might roam unnoticed and unmolested, I confess I see no great reason to discredit his account. Antiquated records of birds are generally incomplete, and in the case of the Pine Grosbeak this is especially the case, but because a few reports may be disproved, we are not therefore to discredit all. That it is not found here now is no proof that it was not once found here.
The conclusion at which I arrive is that if the Pine Grosbeak were now to be installed for the first time as a British bird, the evidence would scarcely warrant such a step; at the same time the evidence is of such a kind that we are not justified now in rejecting it, especially as it has been standing in our lists for a great number of years, and has become firmly established there by the verdict of almost every writer on British Birds.
* ↑ One or two others which were unknown to him at the date of his publication will be found mentioned at the end of this paper.
* ↑ Mr. Selby, in the Catalogue referred to, says that the bird "was shot."—Ed.
* ↑ From the original account by Lhwyd (Phil. Trans, xxvii. pp. 464 and 466) it is plain that the birds could not have been Hawfinches, as might be supposed from the description of the bill. The cocks were of a deep scarlet colour; the hens gray, with a scarlet breast.—Ed.
* ↑ Perhaps this is the same bird as No. 18.—Ed.
* ↑ This list is contained in an anonymous edition of Allan Ramsay's 'Gentle Shepherd; a Pastoral Comedy,' published at Edinburgh in 1808 (vol. i. pp. 269—271). Dr. Patrick Neill is said to have drawn up the botanical lists contained in this work, but it does not appear who was responsible for the zoological lists.—Ed.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse