On 7th November 2006, Dave Hopkins(DH) discovered what he believed to bea Little Auk Alle alle just south of Lang-
stone Rock, Dawlish Warren, Devon. Theweather conditions at the time made viewingdifficult – the mouth of the estuary wasswathed in a thick mist, while bright sunshinefurther offshore made everything appear in sil-houette. The bird was noticeably smaller thanan accompanying Razorbill Alca torda and wasdiving continuously. DH phoned John Fortey(JEF) with the news that he had found a LittleAuk and JEF arrived with some other birdersshortly afterwards. Although the bird was still inview, it was drifting out to sea and into the mist,and was still diving regularly. The news wasreleased and the original observers left the birdwithout ever having had totally convincingviews.
Several local birders, including myself, hadseen Little Auk in the county in the precedingdays and only a few people went to see the birdthat day. These included Dave Stone (DS), whoarrived later that afternoon, by which time thebird had drifted further south (towardsDawlish) and closer inshore, enabling him toobtain some record shots. Later that day, DSsubmitted his photographs of the presumed
Little Auk to the Dawlish Warren websitewww.dawlishwarren.co.uk and I uploaded themthat evening. I thought that the bird looked abit odd for that species but, knowing thatseveral people had seen it, I assumed that thephotos just showed a Little Auk in an unusualpose! The following day, however, DS asked meto remove his pictures from the website as hewas convinced he had made a mistake, andphotographed a Common Guillemot Uriaaalge. I then took a really close look at the pic-tures for the first time: I told him that it wasdefinitely not a Common Guillemot and thatmy money was on it being a Marbled MurreletBrachyramphus marmoratus! As requested, Iremoved the photographs from the website butI e-mailed them to a few birders in Devon for asecond opinion. Of the replies received, somealso thought that it resembled a Marbled Mur-relet, but the idea of a North Pacific murrelet inDevon was surely far-fetched. Others, however,were convinced that it was just a Little Auk.Unfortunately, because they were not my pho-tographs, I felt I could not circulate them morewidely. Discussions continued into the fol-lowing day, when DS asked me to put thephotos back on the Dawlish Warren website, ashe felt that identification as a Little Auk had
Long-billed Murrelet in Devon:
new to BritainKevin Rylands
ABSTRACT A Long-billed Murrelet Brachyramphus perdix was discovered atDawlish Warren, Devon, on 7th November 2006. Initially misidentified as aLittle Auk Alle alle, its true identity was established when photographs of
the bird were posted on the internet. It was relocated at nearby Dawlish on11th November, where it remained until 14th.This represents the first recordof Long-billed Murrelet for Britain and the second for the Western Palearctic,
following the discovery of a dead bird on Lake Zurich, Switzerland, inDecember 1997. Subsequently, another individual was discovered, in
Romania in December 2006.The identification, distribution and taxonomy of this species are reviewed.
132 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131–136
now been established. The photos were posted(again) on the evening of 9th November, stilllabelled as showing a Little Auk, despitegrowing concerns over the identification.
On 10th November, I was able to visitDawlish Warren for the first time since the birdhad been seen, but there was no sign of it. Bymidday, as far as I was aware, the photos hadstill not been seen by anybody outside Devon,yet several people were unhappy with the iden-tification. Those expressing doubts andpointing either to Marbled or Long-billed Mur-relet B. perdix included myself, Andrew Stan-bury, Ivan Lakin (IL) and Chris Townend (wholeft for Namibia before the bird was relocated!),while Mark Bailey and two of the originalobservers, JEF and Dale Cooper, had alsoreached this conclusion.
Since the photos were now in the publicdomain, we decided to seek further opinions byposting a link to the photos on the BirdForumwebsite. The first response came withinminutes, when Jan Hein van Steenis from TheNetherlands said that the bird in the photo-graphs looked like a Long-billed Murrelet! Itwas soon clear that many birders thought thesame: the bird was a murrelet – and, while theimprobability of this was still debated, the maindiscussion centred on whether it looked morelike Marbled or Long-billed. The DawlishWarren website recorded 4,283 hits that day, incontrast to the usual 150!
Although the news that the bird was a Long-billed Murrelet was broadcast on the afternoonof the 10th, I was still mindful of the words ofcaution on BirdForum, particularly those ofSteven Mlodinow, who had written an identifi-cation paper on the separation of Long-billedand Marbled Murrelets (Mlodinow 1997). Hetoo thought that the photos showed a Long-billed Murrelet but cautioned against what thefield notes might reveal. However, as it had beenassumed to be just a Little Auk by all those whohad seen it, there were no field notes to supportDS’s images. Was this record destined tobecome another Dawlish Warren enigma,another Elegant Tern Sterna elegans or SouthPolar Skua Stercorarius maccormicki?
Although the bird had not been seen since7th November, confirmation that the photosshowed a murrelet, probably Long-billed, weresufficient incentive for a thorough search of thearea on 11th November. At first light, I posi-tioned myself at Rockstone, a good vantage
point midway between Dawlish Warren andDawlish town. During the first 40 minutes ofscanning I failed to see anything, no auks of anydescription. But then I located a small bird onthe sea off Coryton Cove, Dawlish, over a kilo-metre away. At this distance it looked odd,rather like a black-and-white Little GrebeTachybaptus ruficollis. I drove around toDawlish and after a few minutes managed torelocate the bird, about 100 m offshore. Panicinstantly set in as I realised that it was the mur-relet! I had to get someone else on the bird so Iphoned IL, who I knew was on Langstone Rockand, as far as I was aware, the only other personout checking the bay that morning. By this timeI was shaking too much to establish the identifi-cation, in fact I even had trouble just trying tostay with the bird in the scope! Eventually, ILarrived (by which time I could hardly standup!) and he confirmed that I wasn’t seeingthings. The news was put out at 08.39 am andthe rest is history.
Local birders soon began arriving. One ofthe first was JEF, who confirmed that it was thesame bird that he’d seen on 7th, albeit muchcloser and in better light. I wandered around ina state of shock for most of the morning, occa-sionally checking with people that we weren’t allmaking a horrible mistake! Because it wasrefound so early on a Saturday morning, largenumbers of birders were able to get to the sitebefore dark. During the course of the day, over1,000 people must have seen the bird, theaccents of the crowd changing as the day wenton, from Bristol to South Wales, Midlands,Manchester and finally the Northeast.
The bird was relocated at Dawlish Warrenearly on the Sunday morning (providing a verywelcome patch tick for several observers), andthen moved back again to Dawlish town. It con-tinued to perform superbly to more largecrowds until the afternoon of Tuesday 14thNovember. That afternoon and the followingday, the wind picked up from the south and thesea became much rougher; the bird disappearedand was not seen again, despite reports to thecontrary. By the end of the four-day period, it isestimated that over 3,000 birders had travelledto Dawlish to see the murrelet, making it one ofBritain’s largest twitches ever.
Dawlish, and the Warren, coped well withthe influx of birders; no problems arose withviewing or parking, and the unseasonal trade inthe local cafés was much welcomed. According
Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain
to several local people, abird that was without doubtthe murrelet had beenaround Coryton and BoatCove for several days priorto 7th November, but theyhad assumed that it was ayoung Common Guillemot.
Detailed descriptionOverall impressionThe bird had an unusual andvery distinctive jizz, unlike any-thing that I had seen before.Although obviously a smallauk, it could at times appearextremely grebe-like; when notfeeding, it appeared noticeablyupright and it tended to extendits neck forward when swim-ming. It was estimated to beapproximately two-thirds thesize of a Common Guillemot.
UpperpartsThe head, nape, mantle, backand rump looked black at longdistance but at close range thebackground colour resolvedinto more of a charcoal-grey,with fine paler marbling. Thecolour on the tail and wingswas much darker, contrastingwith the rest of the plumage. Athick white line, formed bywhite inner webs to the upperrow of scapulars, extendedalong either side of the mantleand these converged towardsthe lower back but did notmeet. White feathering on therear flanks was sometimes‘fluffed’ out and occasionallyreached the lower scapulars,where an extensive region ofwhite feathering was formedthat extended along the sides ofthe mantle above the wings.
The head pattern showeddark lores, though with a patchof white curving up betweenthe gape and the eye. Darkfeathering below the eyeextended across the ear-covertsand along the sides of the neckto the mantle; this was sharplydemarcated from the whitethroat and fore-neck. Two
as outlined in the text. In particular, plate 78 shows the indistinct whitish ovals on the nape; this and the other photos illustrate the distinctive
differences in head pattern between this species and Marbled Murrelet B. marmoratus – see plates 80 & 81.
Gar
y Tho
burn
Geo
rge
Resz
eter
John
Car
ter
large, diffuse oval patches, whitish but flecked withdark brown, were visible on the nape; separated by adarker stripe down the centre of the nape, these wereobvious when the bird was viewed from behind. Thisfeature was difficult to see on the original imagestaken by DS, as the dark line on the side of the neckhad been bleached out. There was an almost completeeye-ring, the thin but well-marked upper crescentbeing most striking.
UnderpartsAt distance, appeared simply white but with closerviews, the breast was seen to be peppered with smalldark crescents (formed by dark fringing to the whitebreast feathers), although these were less extensivethan the pale fringes to the upperparts. The chin andthroat were white, with sparse, fine dark featherfringes visible at close range.
Bare partsThe bill was entirely dark and appeared long,although the actual length was difficult to establishbecause of the obvious gape-line. The lower mandiblewas straight, the upper mandible clearly decurvedover the distal half, and there was an appreciabledownward curve on the cutting edge of themandibles. There was also a small area of slightlyraised feathering at the base of the upper mandible.
BehaviourThroughout its stay, the bird performed faultlessly,often remaining close inshore and allowing excellentphotographs to be taken. It was a powerful swimmer,often moving several hundred metres offshore in justa few minutes, but always returned to its favouredfeeding areas. It frequently chased sandeelsAmmodytes and ‘brit’ (Clupeidae) almost up to theshoreline and was seen to have a very steep dive, onoccasions even launching from the water in themanner of a penguin (Spheniscidae). It frequentlyheld its wings slightly drooped. When diving, itpivoted about the body just in front of the wings, heldthe wings out from the body, and propelled itselfbelow the surface. Dives typically lasted for 45–60seconds and any fish caught were consumed on thesurface before the next dive. When not feedingactively, it would drift offshore for several hundredmetres and at times it disappeared from view. Typi-cally, it would return to inshore waters within 30minutes to an hour, and begin fishing again within20–50 m of the shoreline.
Prevailing weather conditionsThe prevailing conditions immediately beforethis bird was discovered prevent any chance ofestablishing its likely route or actual arrivaldate. A persistent anticyclone had been presentover Ireland and southern Britain since 1stNovember. Prior to this, a changeable situation
had prevailed for several weeks. The murrelet’sdiscovery did, however, coincide with a largepassage of Little Auks along the east coast. It isunlikely that it arrived with the Little Auks andits discovery at this time was probably coinci-dental.
Range and distributionLong-billed Murrelet breeds in coastal forestsalong the Pacific coast of Russia, and possiblysouth to eastern Hokkaido, Japan, althoughthere are no recent confirmed records there. It isbelieved to winter in the western North Pacificsouth to the seas surrounding Japan, but here itappears to be rare in the ice-free regions.
Although it is poorly known within both itsbreeding and wintering range, Long-billedMurrelet is the most frequently recorded of theNorth Pacific auks in North America away fromthe Pacific coast. At least 50 Long-billed Mur-relets have occurred at inland localitiesthroughout the USA and Canada (Thompson etal. 2003), many of these east of the Rockies,with others reaching the Atlantic coast. Thetiming of many of these extralimital NorthAmerican records falls between late Octoberand early December, suggesting that Long-billed Murrelet is prone to eastward dispersalfrom the breeding areas. Certainly, the timing ofthe Dawlish bird coincides with this establishedperiod of dispersal.
Although the appearance of the Dawlishbird was completely unexpected – many birdershad probably never even heard of Long-billedMurrelet before 11th November – it was not thefirst record for Europe as a juvenile was founddead in a fishing net on Lake Zurich, Switzer-land, in December 1997. Long-billed Murreletwas then treated as a race of Marbled Murrelet,and details were published as this species in BBby Maumary & Knaus (2000). Surprisingly, thediscovery of a third individual followed justweeks after the Dawlish bird’s appearance, atPorumbacu, Romania, in mid December 2006.
The three European birds may possibly havearrived overland via continental Russia. It iscertainly feasible that dispersal to the westoccurs with equal frequency to that across theNorth Pacific and North America, and thiswould represent the shortest and most directroute to Europe. An alternative hypothesis isthat of passage across the Arctic Ocean, alongthe north Russian coast. Both of these optionsare considerably shorter than a route across the
134 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131–136
Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain
North Pacific, North America and the NorthAtlantic (Maumary & Knaus 2000; Hopkins et al 2006).
Identification and ageingThe delay in establishing the identification ofthe Dawlish bird as Long-billed Murrelet wasperhaps not surprising and stemmed from alack of information. Although it was clearly anauk, identification within a North Atlanticcontext considered extremes from Little Auk toCommon Guillemot. Concerns were immedi-ately apparent that it fitted neither of thesespecies – the differences were readily apparentand commented upon by several people whosaw DS’s original photographs. Nevertheless,there were no obvious alternatives and the pos-sibility of a North Pacificalcid, although discussed,seemed remote. Whenobservers with experiencefrom that part of the worldbecame aware of the bird,the correct identificationwas quickly settled.
As yet, few field guidesillustrate this species, whichuntil recently was treated asa race of Marbled Murrelet.Although the two species arequite different in both struc-ture and appearance, thesedifferences were not illus-trated until the races weresplit and treated as fullspecies by the AOU in 1997.The identification of thisspecies in a North Americancontext was discussed indetail by Mlodinow (1997).Since then, it has appearedin Sibley (2003), where it isjust one of two essentiallyNorth Pacific auks tofeature, the other beingAncient Murrelet Synthlibo-ramphus antiquus.
Separation of theDawlish Long-billed Mur-relet from Marbled Murreletnow seems straightforward,based upon several diag-nostic plumage features:
shaped patches on an otherwise dark nape,which are unique to Long-billed Murrelet.
• The lack of a white collar – Marbled shows acrescent of white feathering, extending fromthe throat onto the nape and forming analmost complete collar (plates 80 & 81).
• The small amount of dark feathering belowthe eye, which is much less extensive thantypically shown by Marbled, forming astraighter border along the cheek betweenlight and dark areas (apart from the pale‘blip’ above the lores that both species showto a variable extent).
• The lack of any blackish feathering (breast‘pegs’) extending from the ‘shoulder’.
• The white eye-crescents above and below theeye are prominent, whereas on Marbled
Murrelet they are less conspicuous.In non-breeding plumage, adult Long-billed
Murrelet shows clean white underparts. TheDawlish bird showed pale fringes on the upper-parts and brown barring on the underparts,conspicuous at close range, suggesting that itwas still in juvenile plumage.
TaxonomyLong-billed Murrelet was originally described (asCepphus perdix) by Pallas, in 1811, but wasincluded as a race of Marbled Murreletthroughout much of the twentieth century. Con-sequently, it was largely overlooked in the litera-ture and the images of Marbled Murrelet whichappeared in the popular guides to North Pacificalcids were based upon the nominate form.Friesen et al. (1996) recommended that Long-billed and Marbled Murrelet should be consid-ered separate species, supported by phylogenetic,evolutionary and biological criteria. Marbled andLong-billed Murrelets were split by the AOU in1997 (AOU 1997), and this treatment is widelyaccepted by other taxonomic authorities,including BOU (Sangster et al. 2007).
Acknowledgments
My thanks go to Ivan Lakin and Andrew Stanbury for theircomments on an earlier draft of this article.
References
American Ornithologist’s Union. 1997. Forty-firstsupplement to the American Ornithologists’ UnionCheck-list of North American Birds. Auk 114: 542–552.
Friesen,V. L., Piatt, J. F., & Baker,A. J. 1996. Evidence fromcytochrome b sequences and allozymes for a newspecies of alcid: the Long-billed Murrelet(Brachyramphus perdix). Condor 98: 681–690.
Hopkins, D., Stone, D., & Rylands, K. 2006.The Long-billedMurrelet in Devon – a new British bird. Birding World19: 457–464.
Maumary, L., & Knaus, P. 2000. Marbled Murrelet inSwitzerland: a Pacific Ocean auk new to the WesternPalearctic. Brit. Birds 93: 190–199.
Mlodinow, S. 1997.The Long-billed Murrelet(Brachyramphus perdix) in North America. Birding 29:460–475.
Sangster, G., Collinson, J. M., Knox,A. G., Parkin, D.T., &Svensson, L. 2007.Taxonomic recommendations forBritish birds: Fourth report. Ibis 149: 853–857.
Sibley, D. 2003. Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern NorthAmerica. Christopher Helm, London.
Thompson, C.W., Pullen, K. J., Johnson, R. E., & Cummins,E. B. 2003. Specimen record of a Long-billed Murreletfrom eastern Washington, with notes on plumage andmorphometric differences between Long-billed andMarbled Murrelets. Western Birds 34: 157–168.
136 British Birds 101 • March 2008 • 131–136
Long-billed Murrelet in Devon: new to Britain
Kevin Rylands25 Chelston Road, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 2NN
EDITORIAL COMMENT Bob McGowan, Chairman of BOURC, commented: ‘Once correctly identified,the Long-billed Murrelet at Dawlish resulted in one of the most significant birding events of 2006.A generally unpredicted species for Britain, this North Pacific auk was observed in the same county asthe Ancient Murrelet that appeared in 1990. It is indicative of the vagrancy potential of both speciesthat Long-billed and Ancient Murrelets are casual visitors to interior North America. It is also note-worthy that the only British records of these Pacific alcids have occurred in Devon, though the laterRomanian occurrence perhaps lends support to the Arctic route proposed by Maumary & Knaus(2000).
‘Long-billed Murrelet remains a particularly poorly known species and detailed information on itsbreeding biology is scant. Nests are believed to be mainly platforms of lichens in old-growth forest andsome parts of this habitat across its range are threatened by logging interests and oil exploration. It ison the IUCN Red List of near-threatened species.
‘A comment must be made on the superb quality of many of the images of this bird; these wereconsidered to be among the best ever taken of any rarity and their availability greatly assisted theCommittee’s deliberations.
‘As there were no grounds on which to doubt the bird’s wild origins, the Committee agreed toaccept this species onto Category A of the British List.’
Colin Bradshaw, Chairman of BBRC, commented: ‘Once better views were obtained and the self-doubt and disbelief overcome, it was fairly obvious that this was not a Little Auk, particularly since the head and bill shape were more reminiscent of Common Guillemot. Identification as Long-billedMurrelet depends on knowing what to look for – the oval patches on the nape (rather than MarbledMurrelet’s large white collar), the prominent white eye-crescents and the shape of the area of darkfeathering below the eye are the best features for separating Long-billed from Marbled. A third NorthPacific alcid, Kittlitz’s Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris, is a largely resident species that is readilyeliminated by its short bill and essentially white face outside the breeding season. Ancient Murrelet ismid-grey rather than blackish above and all the other murrelets are solidly dark above.’
