• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Mega Seabirds - The Unofficial Records! (1 Viewer)

Apparently the report of

"Scopolis Shearwater Bridges of Ross"

was from the very same person who sent me the list! You can't make this stuff up sometimes....

Anyway we all have our "blue-footed moments" (in joke - sorry)

cheers, a
 
Someone sent this list to me of recent (and not so recent) seabird claims. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think any of these are on the official record books...

Audubons Shearwater Whitburn, County Durham

Anyone like to claim them - I understand several claims may have been made by BF regulars...
cheers, alan

I saw this bird with two other experienced observers, and also photographed it. Photos were published in Birding World but the printed quality was not as good/clear as the originals. More accurate to describe it as Audubon's/Boyd's.

One more 'possible' to add. An all-dark auklet flew north at Whitburn during a very heavy Little Auk passage a few years ago, seen by several observers. Same size as Little Auk/possibly a touch bigger, wholly chocolate brown except for slight paling on the belly area. Too far out for any head detail to be seen. Possibly Crested Auklet, possibly not... Never seen any wholly brown Little Auks before or since, despite seeing 50K+ Little Auks in east coast movements over last 25 years.

Cheers,
Mark
 
I saw this bird with two other experienced observers, and also photographed it. Photos were published in Birding World but the printed quality was not as good/clear as the originals. More accurate to describe it as Audubon's/Boyd's.

One more 'possible' to add. An all-dark auklet flew north at Whitburn during a very heavy Little Auk passage a few years ago, seen by several observers. Same size as Little Auk/possibly a touch bigger, wholly chocolate brown except for slight paling on the belly area. Too far out for any head detail to be seen. Possibly Crested Auklet, possibly not... Never seen any wholly brown Little Auks before or since, despite seeing 50K+ Little Auks in east coast movements over last 25 years.

Cheers,
Mark

You do have to be aware of stained birds.

I had a manx go by me at galley a few years back that was partially oil/grease stained. The pattern of the staining was so natural and intricate looking that it had me scouring the web and seabird books for a match, just in case it was anything interesting.
But other than the black staining its gizz and flight was Manxie all the way.

Would you have those small shear shots to hand mark?

Owen
 
You do have to be aware of stained birds.

I had a manx go by me at galley a few years back that was partially oil/grease stained. The pattern of the staining was so natural and intricate looking that it had me scouring the web and seabird books for a match, just in case it was anything interesting.
But other than the black staining its gizz and flight was Manxie all the way.

Would you have those small shear shots to hand mark?

Owen

Point taken with stained birds. Much more likely as an explanation than an ultra rare seabird.

At work at mo, but will send shearwater pics through to you once back home.

Mark
 
I saw this bird with two other experienced observers, and also photographed it. Photos were published in Birding World but the printed quality was not as good/clear as the originals. More accurate to describe it as Audubon's/Boyd's.

One more 'possible' to add. An all-dark auklet flew north at Whitburn during a very heavy Little Auk passage a few years ago, seen by several observers. Same size as Little Auk/possibly a touch bigger, wholly chocolate brown except for slight paling on the belly area. Too far out for any head detail to be seen. Possibly Crested Auklet, possibly not... Never seen any wholly brown Little Auks before or since, despite seeing 50K+ Little Auks in east coast movements over last 25 years.

Cheers,
Mark

Thanks for posting that Mark, I was wondering what the stories were behind those possible records.
 
Hi Alan

Been away for a few days and just seen this. It seems like your mysterious friend has been intrigued by rare seabirds for some time as well. That's one incredible list - some really interesting reports on there.

I don't suppose anyone can recall which of the Flamborough claims were accepted by the Yorkshire Rarities Committee?

Good Birding

Andrew
 
Someone sent this list to me of recent (and not so recent) seabird claims. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think any of these are on the official record books...

I can give details for a few of these.

The ‘Southern Giant Petrel’ off Flamborough Head was seen by a single observer (not me) but was only identified as a Giant Petrel sp. It was not submitted to BBRC.

Soft-plumaged Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire. This bird flew north on 18/9/94. It was seen by me and two other observers. I submitted it as Soft-plumaged Petrel at a time when, I believe, this encompassed Soft-plumaged, Fea’s and Zino’s. The other two observers, while agreeing with the ID, do not submit anything. This was at a time when not much was known about this group, and the record was not accepted. I always felt that this bird better fitted Soft-plumaged than either of the others, and having now seen 6 Fea’s (or Fea’s/Zino’s) in Britain/Ireland, as well as birds in Madeira, I am confident that that is what it was, and it is on my personal list.

Atlantic Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire. This was seen by the late Dave Beaumont. It was never submitted.

Red-legged Kittiwake Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire. I saw this bird, an adult, on 01/06/08. It was a fairly foggy day, and I saw the bird briefly flying away before it disappeared into the mist. I judged it to be darker above than Black-legged Kittiwake, and, importantly, this darkness extended right to the black wing-tip, not paling off on the primaries as on Black-legged. The white trailing edge to the inner wing was more contrasting than on Black-legged, but I failed to note if this continued onto the outer wing as on Red-legged (hardly so on Black-legged). I considered the wings were possibly longer and narrower than Black-legged’s. I rang this bird in as a ‘probable’ and it was not submitted, nor is it not on my list.

Glaucous-winged Gull Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire. This bird, a 1w, and never more than a ‘possible’, flew south on 03/12/00 (remember Adrian?). It resembles the darkest 1w Glaucous Gull, and had an all-black bill. It was seen again 2 days later by Andrew Lassey (one of the original observers, along with me and Adrian Webb) and an account appears in the 2000 Flamborough report.

South American Tern North Hykeham, Lincolnshire - This refers to an unusual Common Tern at Burton gravel pits in July 09

Madeiran Petrel Pendeen Watch, Cornwall (thrice) – the bird I saw was on 20/08/09, and an account is in Birdwatch. It has been ‘not accepted’, but is on my personal list (but may have to be removed if BOU adopts the four-way split).

Bulwers Petrel Hornsea – there have been 2 sightings of Bulwer’s Petrel off Hornsea. I saw one with George Bennet on 22/11/89. Although we both felt this was Bulwer’s, it was not submitted. Having now seen many hundreds of Bulwer’s (I hadn’t seen any at the time) as well as 45 Jouanin’s, I am confident that it was indeed Bulwer’s, and it is on my personal list. A second bird was seen by Trevor Charlton & Steve James 2 years later. It was not submitted, I believe because at least one of the observers felt Jouanin’s could not be eliminated. Jouanin’s in fact gives a ‘large shearwater’ impression, and I don’t really consider it confusable with Bulwer’s.

Scopolis Shearwater Flamborough Head (several) – there have been 2 sightings, on 21/07/02 and 03/08/02. I submitted them both, but they were not accepted. I also had a possible there on 08/07/01 and a probable off Porthgwarra on 06/09/98.

Short-tailed Shearwater Flamborough Head – I saw this bird on 27/07/97 with 4 other observers. We were all confident it was not a Sooty (or an all-dark Balearic) and no-one disagreed with my identification as Short-tailed. However, no-one would back me up in my submission, and, predictably, it was not accepted, as I’m sure would have been the case even if I had had backup.
It is on my personal list.

I also saw a mega-distant possible White-chinned Petrel off Porthgwarra 20/08/01. This is not on my list.

I believe I have seen at least 8 Yelkouan Shearwaters in Britain, at Flamborough, Hornsea & Pendeen.

Cheers

Brett
 
Hi Brett

Many thanks for the response. Some cracking records there and just reward for hours of work for the observers.

I hear that some of the Flamborough seawatchers had to be surgically removed after spending so long in situ ;)

Seawatching=the final frontier! What next?

Good Birding

Andrew
 
New Technology may help

Interesting thread, I have always thought the only major breakthrough with getting some rare seabirds accepted by the committees will be greatly helped by the advent of Photoscopes and Videoscopes, like the one Zeiss currently have out at the costly price of £4500 last year at the Rutland Birdfair!! I tried this beauty out and at the time thought if I was a hard core seawatcher I would need this!

Although this technology is'nt new and most keen birders now have a 'digiscoping' set up, the only draw back with digiscoping is that you have to take your eye off the bird and then struggle with your equipment and then refind the bird! A daunting task and which also risks you having brief views of that once in a lifetime seabird!

My only real luck with any seabird megas was a Fea's type Petrel off North Ronaldsday back in 2000/2001 I think from memory. Three of us were fortunate to see the bird and around the time I had practising trying to video record through my scope but it was so difficult to pick up seabirds at times disappearing behind waves, needless to say I concentrated on the bird rather than dive for my camcorder and get a record videograb or some footage. But until we can all just press the button and start to record high quality video while continuing to watch the bird then most of these records will remain very difficult to prove.
 
Last edited:
I've had nothing that can compare to Brett's sightings, but my first (of two) Fea's (type) was a poorly seen bird (2 other observers) from the Scillonian in 2002. I wasn't surprised it didn't make the grade with BBRC. A couple of days earlier I saw a claimed Wilson's from Porthgwarra but being way past the Runnel Stone was extremely distant - too far for me!
In 1989 I was one of 4 observers seawatching off Porthcurno. 2 claimed a frigatebird spp - the other two (me included) didn't see it! Typical.

I think it's worrying that if everything is going to be split three or four ways identifying all of these birds will become a lot more difficult and the new challenges posed will far outpace developments in optics and advances in identification matters! Brett's examples with Madeiran & soft-plumaged petrels represent cases in point.

Maybe such developments in technology should include remote controlled high res image stabilised CCTV cameras we could attach to the Runnel Stone and operate from the cliff top! Or maybe in 50 yrs time everything will be a 'cryptic' species impossible to assign in the field and we'll go back to shooting it all like the Victorians did, just to make an i/d! ;)
 
Someone sent this list to me of recent (and not so recent) seabird claims. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think any of these are on the official record books...

Yellow-nosed Albatross south of The Lizard, Cornwall
Southern Giant Petrel Wolf Rock, Cornwall
Southern Giant Petrel Islay, Argyll
Southern Giant Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
Great-winged Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire (twice)
Trindade Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
Trindade Petrel Pendeen Watch, Cornwall
Soft-plumaged Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
Atlantic Petrel Pendeen Watch, Cornwall
Atlantic Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
White-chinned Petrel Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
Red-legged Kittiwake Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
Glaucous-winged Gull Flamborough Head, East Yorkshire
Parakeet Auklet Whitburn, County Durham (twice)
Parakeet Auklet Brora, Highland
Tufted Puffin Portland Bill, Dorset
Brown Booby Point Lynas, Anglesey
South American Tern North Hykeham, Lincolnshire
Antarctic Tern Penmon Point, Anglesey
Black-bellied Storm Petrel Sheringham, Norfolk
Cape Verde Shearwater Cape Clear, Cork
Madeiran Petrel Pendeen Watch, Cornwall (thrice)
South Polar Skua Loop Head, Clare
Bulwers Petrel Walney
Audubons Shearwater Whitburn, County Durham
Bulwers Petrel Selsey Bill (twice)
Elegant Tern Porthgwarra
Red-billed Tropicbird Scillonian (twice)
Yelkouan Shearwaters Cornwall, usually twice every day
Brown Noddy Belfast
South Polar Skua St Ives, Cornwall
Cape Gannet various
Great Frigatebird Filey
Audubons Shearwater Devon
Swinhoes Petrel Suffolk, Wirral, East Yorkshire, Devon
Grey-headed Albatross Cromer,
Zinos Petrel Strumble Head
Bulwers Petrel Hornsea
Bulwers Petrel Lunan Bay
Black-capped Petrel Girdle Ness
South Polar Skua Western Approaches
Townsends Shearwater Western Approaches
Brown Pelican Cape Clear (5)
White-faced Petrel Pembrokeshire
Masked Booby Isle of Wight
Masked Booby Porthgwarra
Magnificent Frigatebird Huddersfield
White-cheeked Tern Dungeness
Royal Tern St Marys
Royal Tern St Ives, Cornwall
Scopolis Shearwater Flamborough Head (several)
Scopolis Shearwater Bridges of Ross
Brown Booby Cape Clear
Feas Petrel Hoylake
Bulwers Petrel Leasowe
Short-tailed Shearwater Flamborough Head

Its a bit like the Atlantic Odyssey - without any photographs!

Anyone like to claim them - I understand several claims may have been made by BF regulars...

cheers, alan

Bonsoir,

I will put my hand up for one of them. South Polar Skua off Loop Head in August 2006.

Three of us went over for a seawatching trip of the Bridges of Ross immediately after the Ultimate Pelagic. Our hopes were not high as conditions were far from ideal. On just such a non ideal day, the morning passage had died off and so two of us decided we'd go off up Loop Head to look at the large raft of shearwaters we remembered seeing there in 96.

The shearwaters were in place but nothing interesting was amongst them. A couple of Arctic Skuas were zapping around half heartedly hassling a few shears and the odd passing tern, but apart from that it was quiet. I scanned off out to the left and picked up an all dark Skua with what appeared to be a yellow collar and announced I'd got a nice dark phase adult Pom. This was even though I had a very uneasy feeling that it really did not compute for an adult Pom, where were the 'spoons'?? Why did it have such large and luminous neat white wing patches??

I gave directions to the bird which had now actually joined a couple of Great Skuas and remarkably, a light phase sub adult Pom Skua. My friend got onto exactly the same bird but was equally puzzled as to why it was a Pom and not a Bonxie.

From memory, the description of the bird was that it was wholly all dark, we described it as Bournville dark chocolate coloured. It was very monotone in colour, not black but a very dark brown with a hint of greyness which gave it a remarkably cold appearance. The only feature that stood out on the head and body was what we could now see was fine yellow streakiing that extended from the back of the neck down the sides of the bird's neck. It was in absolutely pristine plumage. Other plumage features that we noted were the neat black underwing coverts, this area was the darkest area on the bird but still did not contrast very strongly with the body but did contrast quite strongly with, obviously the white wing flash and the more silvery underside of the primaries and secondaries. There were very few markings on the body, just a very small amount of irregularly placed just about noticeable flecking on the back.

The white wing flashes were absolutely shockingly white in direct contrast to the darkness of the bird and this was quite a stunning feature, it looked like they were illuminated!!

We also noted that the middle two or three tail feathers projected slightly and that the shafts of the tail feathers were white. This was noticable when the bird stalled in the air and spread it's tail wide.

In total we had the bird for about 15 minutes, it had stayed around while the other skuas passed through. The last time I saw it it had been sitting distantly out on the water and I thought that was where we had left it when we left but it had actually flown off in the general direction of the Bridges. I was off up the hill behind us, vainly trying to get a mobile signal (my 2nd or 3rd attempt I might add) at this point and this is where the confusion about us bogging off and leaving it sat on the water came from. The bird did not come in very close after we first saw it and I would estimate we watched it from about 500-750 metres to about double this distance when it was on view, it was lazilly loafing around basically and sitting on the water three or four times at varying distances.

Our description states that we did not notice a pale nose band and given that this would have been obvious we summised that the bird did not have one although we were unaware at the time that this was a feature on many SPS's.

Size wise, from direct comparison with a Great Skua we noted that the bird was slighter, not so powerful and had slightly thinner wings. A smaller head and less heavy all dark bill were also noted.

We decided to go back to the Bridges and see if anyone had seen anything pass there and to pick up the third member of our party who we had left there earlier. Our over riding feeling was one of confusion and dread. We both knew we had seen a bird that we could not readily identify. I know I am not and never will be the best birder in the country, but with about 40 years of birding experience between us that was a pretty disconcerting feeling I can tell you!!

We picked up our friend and hurried back to the B & B to pick up our books. We actually refused to open the books until we had convened in the pub and before we did so we ordered and double checked my friend's hastilly scribbled notes to make sure that nothing from the books coloured our description. We also had not had 5 pints of the black stuff each by this point either!!

Over two hours after seeing it we realised that what we had seen was almost certainly a dark phase adult South Polar Skua. We both had thought as we were watching it that it could well be a Southern Skua of some type and that accounted for the feeling of dread as they are practically impossible to id for certain with the possibility of dark, I think juv, Great Skuas being the chief reason.

We felt it was not a Great Skua because of the paucity of markings on the upperside of the wings and the body, no capped effect (we remarked that it had a slightly darker hooded effect suggesting a Black-headed Gull) but definately no cap. No warm tones to the plumage at all. No gingery tones whatsoever.

My friend tried to get photos with his brand new camera but had then and in fact still now has not managed to fathom out digiscoping.

At this point I rang a friend in the UK who had lived in Cape May on and off for a few summers and had been out on the Hatteras pelagics to pick his brain about what he could remember about SPS's. He was on his way back from seeing the White Pelican that was knocking about in Lancashire at the time and had a guy in car with him who runs one of the bird info services on the web. This is how the news was released slightly incorrectly that the bird was seen from the Bridges when it in fact was not and had us accused on here of suppressing the bird from people we were sitting next to, something which would be utterly ludicrous and not something we would ever do. The reason the news was not released instantly by us was because firstly we did not really know what the hell we had just seen (yes we suspected SPS but we did not really believe that is the conclusion we would later come to) and secondly we did not want to put news out of such a potential mega, and a practically impossible one to id to boot without being more sure. We recounted our story to a local birder shortly afterwards without knowing that the sighting had already been reported. We were quite shocked when we saw the thread on the bird when we got home and did not really want to get involved in it to be honest.

We fully expected to open the Skuas field guide later and just find that we had seen a very dark Great Skua.

I can't remember much more details, but it is also worth saying that my friend had experience of some of the southern Skua group from a trip to Antartica on the Agullas (please forgive the spelling) in 2004 I think.

A description was submitted to the IRBC but quite frankly I don't think it stood a cat in hells chance of acceptance without photographs. Even with photographs it's chances would have been as thin as a racing snake! But the record is there just in case they ever get sussed out and our bird fits into the suite of characters needed to clinch one.

Cordialement et a bientot,

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
I have no form with any of these things myself, but the Suffolk Swinhoe's Petrel was seen well by quite a few people, some of whom I know and trust. Not sure if it was ever submitted. I seem to recall that Parakeet Auklet has a whole section devoted to its occurence in "The Birds of Caithness". Worth a read should you ever have the chance.
 
I'm not casting aspersions on any of the records mentioned here, and I do think mega rare seabirds turn up, but I do sympathise with the rarities committee to some degree. I think an important consideration when assessing claims of mega seabirds is the likelihood of it occurring in the first place. This seems obvious, but I don’t think people truly consider the implications of probability and numbers. For example, even if observers are faced with a good views of flyby megas such that if they were in an area where it occurred commonly, only 1 in 10,000 would be incorrectly identified, the probability of the bird in question being what it’s claimed to be is less than 50% if potential confusion species outnumber it by more than 10,000 to 1.
 
Last edited:
I'm not casting aspersions on any of the records mentioned here, and I do think mega rare seabirds turn up, but I do sympathise with the rarities committee to some degree. I think an important consideration when assessing claims of mega seabirds is the likelihood of it occurring in the first place. This seems obvious, but I don’t think people truly consider the implications of probability and numbers. For example, even if observers are faced with a good views of flyby megas such that if they were in an area where it occurred commonly, only 1 in 10,000 would be incorrectly identified, the probability of the bird in question being what it’s claimed to be is less than 50% if potential confusion species outnumber it by more than 10,000 to 1.

Ilya,

That's a VERY basic numerical assessment which makes assumptions that the rarity in question is not so distinctive that its ID becomes instantaneous, or that its gizz is distinctive enough alone to warrant an Identification etc etc.

Various factors come into bird Identification beyond "what are the odds of that happening?".

If time has shown anything, its that, as you say, these mega Seabirds are out there, but as observer coverage increases, birders go on more pelagics, and into more interesting waters, we are starting to see that, perhaps, these birds are out there with more frequency than we thought.

Regardless of this. A record should only be assessed on that which was seen by the observers. An odds based approach would eliminate most major records before they even were put down on paper.

Owen
 
If time has shown anything, its that, as you say, these mega Seabirds are out there, but as observer coverage increases, birders go on more pelagics, and into more interesting waters, we are starting to see that, perhaps, these birds are out there with more frequency than we thought.

I suspect most of the good stuff lives on the drop off and over deep water canyons where there is substantial upwelling and don't venture into coastal waters very much - this is certainly my experience with the Madeiran Storm Petrel species complex, many Pterodromas and Albatrosses for example. Those big canyons off SW Ireland (check some maps of the drop off in this area) are prime targets if anyone can sort a boat out.

Cheers, alan
 
Ilya,

That's a VERY basic numerical assessment which makes assumptions that the rarity in question is not so distinctive that its ID becomes instantaneous, or that its gizz is distinctive enough alone to warrant an Identification etc etc.

Various factors come into bird Identification beyond "what are the odds of that happening?".

If time has shown anything, its that, as you say, these mega Seabirds are out there, but as observer coverage increases, birders go on more pelagics, and into more interesting waters, we are starting to see that, perhaps, these birds are out there with more frequency than we thought.

Regardless of this. A record should only be assessed on that which was seen by the observers. An odds based approach would eliminate most major records before they even were put down on paper.

Owen

Yes - deliberately basic as I felt a full explanation of Bayes' theorem would be overkill. That doesn't negate the point though.

With regards to a bird so distinctive that its ID becomes instantaneous, the key issue is whether ID is beyond any doubt, in which case, yes indeed, a priori probability is irrelevant, as the theorem shows. Often that isn't the case though.

With regards to whether a record should not be based wholly on what was seen by the observers, I disagree entirely for the very reasons I outlined. A lot more evidence should be needed to support claims of a yellow-eyed penguin in UK waters than a Sabine's gull. It's why there are "description species" in the first place.

If an odds based approach did eliminate most major records then in my opinion, eliminating them is the correct decision. I don't think it would though (and it certainly wouldn't if ID was beyond any doubt) - its just a question of making an appropriate judgement of the weight of evidence versus the likelihood of it occurring in the first place and to do this, I think it helps to understand how the numbers work.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic stuff, keep it coming!

One thing I notice is that British people are unwilling to submit records of poorly seen seabirds to the rarities commitee. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but I never had problems with it. A feeling of self-confidence - I did my best, nobody can make more of a bird flying half a mile away. So you leave a sort of clues for future observers. I also know that Rarities Commitees decisions are far from final. So what now is rejected in three years time might be re-considered and accepted, because eg. there will be several more records like that.

BTW - anybody knows a list of seabirds seen off East N America? These waters had much more rare seabirds, eg. many Herald Petrels, and this can be a prediction of what turns in N Atlantic.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top