from the rarities committee’s · pdf file404 british birds99 • august 2006 •...

404 British Birds 99 • August 2006 • 404–419

The ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ complex com-prises five taxa that were, until recently,considered conspecific. Most authorities

now consider that there are three separatespecies: Soft-plumaged Petrel Pterodroma mollis(with two subspecies, mollis and dubia), Fea’sPetrel P. feae (with two subspecies, feae anddeserta) and Zino’s Petrel P. madeira. These taxawere traditionally known as a single species,‘Soft-plumaged Petrel’, and this paper refers tothem collectively as the ‘soft-plumaged petrel’complex. Although this name is somewhat con-fusing, there is no obvious alternative thatneatly packages the three species together, andwhich is equally well understood and accepted.In his review of the taxonomy, distribution andidentification of the group, Harrop (2004)

established a baseline against which past andfuture European records of these three speciescan be judged; in part, this paper is intended tobuild upon those foundations.

The two Fea’s Petrels photographed at sea offScilly in 2001, and described elsewhere in thisissue (pp. 394–000), were subject to extremelydetailed analysis. The main aim of this paper isto analyse the descriptions of all the remainingaccepted British records, up to and including2000, to establish whether there is any evidenceto suggest that more than one species is occur-ring. This analysis thus concentrates on therecords before the first accepted Fea’s Petrel, inJuly 2001; a period when separation charactersof the three species were less well understoodand when field observations were, by default,

From the RaritiesCommittee’s files:

Do we know what British ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ are?

Jimmy SteeleABSTRACT Sightings of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ Pterodroma mollis/madeira/feaein British waters have increased significantly in the last 20 years, and there

has been a growing realisation that all the British birds show a suite ofcharacters associated with Fea’s Petrel P. feae. Fea’s Petrel has recently beenaccepted onto the British List, and there are now three accepted records for Britain, all seen in the Southwest Approaches, in July 2001,August 2001 and September 2004 (see pp. 394–000).The steady accumulation of records

has focused attention on the criteria necessary to assess claims of this species.This paper summarises the current situation, reviews the identification of Fea’s Petrel in comparison with Zino’s P. madeira and Soft-plumaged Petrel

P. mollis, and attempts to establish those characters which are required for records to be accepted, either at the species level or as being of

the ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ complex.

less focused on key criteria than they would betoday. Assigning records to species level isexplicitly not the aim of this paper; however, bylooking for consistent themes and exceptions inthe records as a whole, some interesting pat-terns emerge.

The occurrence of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ inBritish watersThe first British record of ‘soft-plumagedpetrel’, seen by Tim Inskipp off Dungeness,Kent, on 15th October 1983, was reportedwithout fanfare as a ‘gadfly petrel’ in the Recentreports section of BB (Brit. Birds 77: 38; Rogerset al. 2004). The second for Britain, off Porthg-warra, Cornwall, on 12th–14th August 1989(Rogers et al. 1992, 1994), was seen by manymore people and was greeted with widespreadincredulity. Had the Porthgwarra bird (or, pos-sibly, birds) also been seen by only a singleobserver, it might have created much less of astir. It was, however, seen by a steadilyincreasing band of observers on the second day,and became almost twitchable by the third day,when it was assumed that a single individualwas following the circuitous feeding movementsof other seabirds off Porthgwarra (Rogers et al.1992). There is no doubt that the number ofobservers who submitted high-quality descrip-tions helped to smooth its path through BBRC.When that record was first accepted, in the early1990s, it was tempting to consign it to the‘remarkable seabird’ category, along withAleutian Tern Onychoprion aleutica, AncientMurrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus andperhaps Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel Oceanodromamonorhis. The third record, concerning twobirds off Flamborough Head,East Yorkshire, in September1991 (Rogers et al. 1995)appeared, on the face of it, evenmore remarkable. However,another east-coast record, inNorthumberland in September1993, followed by two birds inthe Irish Sea – singles offBardsey, Gwynedd, in September1994 and Formby Point, Lan-cashire, in September 1995, sug-gested that ‘soft-plumagedpetrels’ were occurring withincreasing frequency in Britishwaters (Rogers et al. 1996, 1997).Appendix 1 summarises all

accepted records of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’recorded in British waters up to and including2004.

Events in Ireland were closely matchingthose in Britain, with single birds reported fromOld Head of Kinsale, Co. Cork, in August 1989and August 1992; Cape Clear, Co. Cork, inAugust 1990 and August 1993; St John’s Point,Co. Down, in August 1991; Galley Head, Co.Cork, in September 1991, August 1992 andOctober 1992; and Mizen Head, Co. Cork,where two were seen on 24th August 1994(Appendix 2). Interestingly, both Dymond et al.(1989) and Enticott (1999) included a Ptero-droma petrel seen in September 1974 off CapeClear as a ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ (and this hassubsequently been accepted as Zino’s/Fea’sPetrel by IRBC), suggesting that their occur-rence in British and Irish waters may not be anentirely ‘new’ phenomenon.

A remarkable six birds appeared in 1996,spread widely throughout British waters fromCornwall and Scilly to southwest Wales, northernScotland and the North Sea. With a further threerecords from Ireland, 1996 proved to be a water-shed for ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ in Britain. Therest is history. Accepted records now extend allaround the British coast, even reaching beyond60°N off Shetland, the most northerly record todate. The English east coast has accounted for asignificant proportion of records, but the coastsof southwest England remain the most likelyregion to encounter these birds in Britain.Despite the early sightings, the rapid rise inrecords through the 1990s is difficult to reconcilewith anything other than a genuine change ofstatus in British and Irish waters.

405British Birds 99 • August 2006 • 404–419


Jn1 Jn2 Jn3 Jl1 Jl2 Jl3 A1 A2 A3 S1 S2 S3 O1 O2 O3 N1 N2 N3

Fig. 1. Accepted records of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ Pterodromamollis/madeira/feae recorded from British (dark) and Irish (pale)

waters, organised in ten-day periods between June and November.

18

15

12

9

6

3

0

Interestingly, a similar pattern of increase offthe east coast of the USA was apparent over analmost identical period. Here, birds were mostlyseen from boats off the coasts of North Car-olina and Virginia, from 1988 onwards (Tove1997). One seen and photographed off NovaScotia in 1997 was the first record for Canada(Hooker & Baird 1997).

The global status of Zino’s, Fea’s and Soft-plumaged PetrelWith a breeding population estimated recentlyto be some 65–80 pairs (cf. 20–30 pairsaccording to BirdLife International 2000),Zino’s Petrel remains one of the world’s rarestseabirds, although its conservation status hasrecently been downgraded from Critical toEndangered as a result of more breeding pairsbeing discovered on Madeira(http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp). This globalrarity, together with the fact that the breedingseason on Madeira extends from late Marchthrough to October, when the young fledge (aperiod that coincides with most ‘soft-plumagedpetrel’ records in British waters), makes theappearance of Zino’s Petrel in the westernNorth Atlantic at this time unlikely, although byno means impossible.

Fea’s Petrel is classified as Vulnerable byBirdLife International (2004). The nominatesubspecies breeds on the islands of Fogo, SantoAntão, São Nicolau and Santiago in the CapeVerde archipelago, where the population is esti-mated to be around 500–1,000 pairs (Snow &Perrins 1998). In addition, the subspecies P. f.deserta breeds on Bugio in the Deserta Islandsof Madeira, where its current population is esti-mated to be some 170–260 pairs (BirdLifeInternational 2004). On the Cape Verdes, themain laying period is from mid December tolate February, while in the Desertas the mainlaying period is from mid July to mid August(cf. Zino’s Petrel, which generally lays betweenmid May and mid June; Snow & Perrins 1998).

Unlike the two previous species, Soft-plumaged Petrel breeds on oceanic islands inthe southern hemisphere, where the populationis believed to number some tens of thousandsof pairs. The nominate form breeds on Goughand Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic,while P. m. dubia is a common breeding bird onMarion, Prince Edward, Crozet and KerguelenIslands in the Indian Ocean, and on the

Antipodes Islands, south of New Zealand. Cur-rently, there is just one accepted record of Soft-plumaged Petrel in the Western Palearctic: atEilat, Israel, on 25th March 1997. There are noclaims of this species from the North Atlantic.

Assessing records of the ‘soft-plumaged petrel’complex To many birders with a particular interest inseabirds, a ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ is one of themost enigmatic and exciting birds on theBritish List. It is distinctive, globally rare and, inits own way, spectacular to watch; and its occur-rence is difficult to predict. However, for thosefortunate enough to see one, there remains anagging problem. The taxonomic issues and theassociated identification problems mean that,unless individuals are seen extremely well and,ideally, photographed, doubt must remainabout whether they can be assigned to a givenspecies with total confidence.

In most cases, the identification of Soft-plumaged Petrel can be addressed with a fairdegree of confidence in terms of plumage andstructural features, although some birds remainproblematic. Separation of Fea’s and Zino’sPetrels is a completely different proposition,particularly without photographic or biometricevidence, and (arguably) positive identificationis effectively impossible from land. The key sep-aration features rely entirely on biometrics andstructure (see Harrop 2004). Despite some quitelarge differences, such information is extremelydifficult to assess reliably in the field. Increas-ingly, the problem has been addressed by usingthe probability of occurrence to categoriserecords: the possibility of Zino’s is eliminatedon the basis of its global rarity and all birds areassumed to be Fea’s. On the face of it, thisdoesn’t seem unreasonable, based on theirstatus as we know it (see above); however, it isworth remembering that Fea’s Petrel is itself aglobally rare bird, and that so little is knownabout either taxon that it is possible that bothspecies occur in British waters.

In terms of record assessment and statistics,BBRC has a problem. The Committee couldsimply go with the flow and just accept that anynon-photographed ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ isactually Fea’s Petrel; or it could take a hard lineand consider that anything without a perfectphotograph is not identifiable. The question isnot as trivial and introspective as it usually iswith problems such as this. The change in status





Table 1. Light conditions, underpart and breast colour, tail shape and tail colour extracted from selecteddescriptions of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ Pterodroma mollis/madeira/feae seen in British waters between 1989

and 2000, and accepted by BBRC. Scientific names of species mentioned: Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus.

Light Underparts/breast Tail shape Tail

12th–14th August bright and sunny, ‘white and clear’ ‘fairly long ‘almost white’1989, Porthgwarra behind, overcast ‘no breast-band’ and tapered’ ‘contrasting pale’Cornwall on 14th ‘dark patch on ‘paler than back’

breast sides’

6th September 1991, sunny against, ‘greyish-brown ‘tapering rear end’ ‘white-based,Flamborough, East though highish, shoulder patch’ silvery grey’,Yorkshire (two then in favour otherwise ‘pure ‘outer thirdobservations) white from throat paler than centre’

to undertail-coverts’

5th September 1993, fair and sunny, ‘clean white’ ‘longer than Manx’ ‘slightly paler thanHauxley, with low light upperparts’Northumberland from behind

5th September cloudy, ‘clean white’ ‘tapered and long ‘contrasting 1993, Farne Islands, fading light rear end, long tail’ pale grey’Northumberland

10th September ‘good’, sunny ‘white, no ‘very attenuated ‘slightly lighter than1994, Bardsey, (oblique) with breast-band’ rear end’ mantle and contrastingGwynedd some low cloud withdarker band

on upper rump’

of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ in northern waterscan, perhaps, be attributed to environmentalchanges such as sea temperatures or feedingconditions. This change in status may thereforehave a political dimension, for example as anindicator of wider environmental change. Thisis easier to explain if individuals within thiscomplex are described in terms of a namedspecies (thus, like it or not, granting them polit-ical status), rather than a scientifically realistic,but less tangible ‘either/or’.

MethodsA qualitative approach has been used for thisanalysis. Every record of ‘soft-plumaged petrel’between 1989 and 2000 that has been assessedand accepted by BBRC has been comprehen-sively reviewed. It is an indication of both thedistinctiveness of the birds and the quality ofthe descriptions that relatively few records havenot been accepted during this period. Data onthe key separation features for the three species,mollis, feae and madeira, have been extracted inthe form of the narrative phrases used byobservers in their descriptions. When submis-sions were received from more than oneobserver, all key phrases were extracted, butonly those that best described the feature con-

cerned are included in the tables (tables 1 & 2).Where clear discrepancies between descriptionsexist (for example, if one observer said that thebird was sharp-winged and the other said it wasround-winged), then both are reported. Gener-ally, the most precise descriptions are reportedbut for some very similar descriptions they haveeither been amalgamated to give a more conciseappraisal of the feature, or reported together. Insuch cases, great care has been taken to ensurethat the original meaning has not beenchanged.

The key areas for which data are reportedhere are as follows:

1. Separation of Soft-plumaged Petrel fromFea’s and Zino’s PetrelsParticular attention is paid to the pattern of theunderparts, specifically any suggestion of abreast-band, and tail colour. Tail shape is prob-ably less relevant but is also reported. Headpattern is not used owing to lack of sufficientdetail in descriptions.

2. Separation of Fea’s Petrel and Zino’s PetrelOverall size, bill structure and wing shape areanalysed. These are all highly subjective features.



Table 1 cont. Light Underparts/breast Tail shape Tail

8th September overcast, ‘no breast-band, ‘quite pointed’ ‘pale grey,1995, Formby but sharp possibly smudge almost whitish’Point, Lancashire on breast sides’

11th June 1996, overcast and dull, ‘white, no breast ‘narrow and tapered’ ‘paler thanGwannap Head, misty further out, -band, partial upperwing Cornwall visibility over a mile or otherwise’ and mantle’

25th June 1996, bright morning ‘grey on breast side, ‘rather attenuated’ ‘paler grey than upperSea Area ‘Fair Isle’ sunlight from behind no breast-band’ wings, as mantle’

18th August 1996, bright, but light thin ‘smudge on ‘pointed tail’ ‘very pale,at sea, cloud cover, lateral nape, almost white’west of Scilly indirect sunshine no breast-band’

13th September bright low evening ‘clear white’ ‘long, tapered ‘paler grey than the1996, Newbiggin, sun from directly rear end’ (pale grey) mantle,Northumberland behind contrasting with

dark rump-patch’

20th September sharp, but mostly ‘no semblance of ‘tapered to a ‘contrasting pale grey’1996, Farne Islands cloudy (7/8), breast-band’ blunt end’

against the light

4th October 1996, variable (seen on smudge on neck ‘tapering with ‘distinctly pale grey’Strumble Head, three occasions) sides suggesting rounded end’Pembrokeshire sunny spells, slight breast-band

light from behind

26th June 1997, overcast ‘white, like Manx’ ‘long and pointed’ ‘much paler grey thannorth Norfolk ‘grey neck-sides’ rest of upperparts’

some observers feltit was ‘almost white’

24th August 1998, bright but cloudy clean white, ‘tapering rear end’ ‘appeared white Newbiggin no breast-band’ or pale grey’

12th June 1999, overcast, bright ‘white, definitely could not be ‘pale grey, paler Flamborough no breast-band’ determined than upperparts’

‘greyish neck-sides’

17th August 1999, dull, showery, strikingly white ‘appeared pointed’ ‘looked like a pair Prawle Point, overcast of wings’ because ofDevon pale head and tail

24th & 31st August bright, ‘all white, with steely ‘long, thin tapering ‘very pale, even white’1999, at sea, evening light grey shoulder- rear end’ and ‘palest part off Scilly patches’ One observer of upperparts …

described this as powder blue’‘incomplete breast-band’, another saying‘grey breast-sides… no breast-band’.

26th August 1999, good, slightly ‘completely white… ‘long and clenched’ ‘clearly paler grey Porthgwarra against initially? indistinct darker than uppers’

breast-sides’

19th November dull drizzly ‘white from chin ‘tapering to ‘pale grey and1999, Farne Islands to tail tip’ sharp point’ contrasting

with mantle’

19th November 1999, very poor ‘clean white’ not described no contrastSt Mary’s Island, Northumberland reported

The presence of other species for direct com-parison can often be a critical issue when esti-mating size and structure, as any experiencedseawatcher who has watched juvenile skuasStercorarius on passage can testify. Whether thiswas the case was not always clear from thedescription, so a fairly conservative approachhas been taken and this is reported only whereit is explicit from the description that directcomparison was possible. Light conditions,which may affect the perception of tail colourand, possibly, the presence/absence of a breast-band, are also included within the separationfeatures for Soft-plumaged Petrel. Other char-acters, including underwing and upperwingcolour, and flight pattern, were also reviewed,but are reported separately and are not relevantfor specific identification.

FindingsTable 1 describes the prevailing light conditionsduring observations, and includes commentson underpart and breast colour, along with tailshape and colour. It is clear that no recorddescribes anything other than a clear andunmarked central breast. Some descriptionsmention a grey patch on the sides of the neck

and upper breast, a feature characteristic of thetwo North Atlantic taxa, but many make nomention of this, simply describing clean whiteunderparts. One observer, describing a bird offScilly in 1999 used the term ‘incomplete breast-band’ but other descriptions of the same birdindicate very clearly that this refers to no morethan the grey neck-sides.

Tail colour is described well by mostobservers and almost all describe it as palerthan the rest of the upperparts, varying from‘paler grey’ through to ‘almost white’. Light con-ditions varied considerably and this will haveaffected the observer’s perception of the coloursobserved. Tail shape is described variably,although in a few instances there is relativelylittle information on this feature in the descrip-tion. Where it is described, the terms ‘long’,‘tapered’, ‘rounded’ and ‘pointed’ are widelyused.

Table 2 presents data on the presence ofcomparison species, in addition to commentsrelating to the size and overall structure, billstructure and wing shape. Of these, direct sizecomparison is probably the most useful andleast subjective. Size comparisons almost invari-ably relate the size of the bird to Manx Shear-



Table 2. Comments on comparison species, size, bill structure and wing shape extracted from selecteddescriptions of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ Pterodroma mollis/madeira/feae seen in British waters between 1989

and 2000, and accepted by BBRC. Scientific names of species mentioned: Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis,Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea, Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus, Manx Shearwater

P. puffinus and Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla.

Direct Size Bill structure Wing shapecomparison

12th–14th August yes: Manx/Sooty ‘similar to Manx’, ‘stubby/hefty’ ‘undeniably long’1989, Porthgwarra ‘possibly heavier- ‘long, swept-back,Cornwall bodied’ slimmer than Manx’

‘sickle/scythe shape’

6th September 1991, yes: Fulmar ‘nearest to Manx’ ‘large and dark’ ‘shorter/broader thanFlamborough, Manx, sharp tips’ orEast Yorkshire ‘long tapered wings(two observations) with broad bases and

sharp tips

5th September 1993, no ‘as Manx, but ‘pointed tips’Hauxley, bulkier and ‘proportionately Northumberland broader-winged’ shorter than Manx?’

5th September 1993, no ‘similar to Manx’ ‘longer thanFarne Islands, Manxie…Northumberland swept back’

10th September yes: Manx ‘similar to Manx,1994, Bardsey, but longer in bodyGwynedd and wings’



Table 2 cont. Direct Size Bill structure Wing shapecomparison

8th September 1995, no ‘similar to Manx’ ‘swept back to tips’Formby Point,Lancashire

11th June 1996, Yes: Manx ‘similar to Manx ‘narrower and slightlyGwennap Head, Shearwater’ longer than ManxCornwall with pointed hand’

25th June 1996, no ‘slightly smallersea area ‘Fair Isle’ than Manx’

18th August 1996, no ‘slightly larger ‘chunkier than ‘long in arm andat sea, west of Scilly than Manx Manx’ hand, pointed tip’

13th September yes: Manx/Sooty ‘similar to Manx, ‘long, narrow and1996, Newbiggin, slightly smaller very pointed’Northumberland than Sooty’

20th September yes: Fulmar ‘similar to Manx’ ‘long, swept back,1996, Farne Islands all wings’

4th October 1996, yes: Manx ‘similar to Manx’ ‘longer than ManxStrumble Head, ‘longer wings’ and fairly pointedPembrokeshire tips’

26th June 1997, no ‘slightly larger than ‘deep and hefty’ ‘longer-wingednorth Norfolk Manx, longer wings’ than Manx, hand

30% longer than arm’‘points slightly rounder than Manx’‘extremely long andpointed hand’

24th August 1998, yes: Fulmar ‘slightly larger than ‘substantial’ (one ‘broad-based Newbiggin Manx, longer wings, observer), and tapering…

wings as long as specifically not pointed tips’Fulmar’ determinable

by others

12th June 1999, no ‘slightly larger ‘long, pointed,Flamborough than Manx’ broader than Manx’

17th August 1999, no ‘similar to Manx, ‘long wings, pointed Prawle Point, if not a little larger’ tips’ ‘extremely Devon pointed at tips’

24th & 31st August no ‘similar to Manx’ ‘stubby’/’stuck on’ ‘long-winged 1999, at sea, off Scilly and slender’

26th August 1999, yes: Cory’s ‘appeared somewhat ‘thin and pointedPorthgwarra Shearwater larger than Manx, wings’ ‘hand roughly

smaller than Cory’s’ equal in length to arm’

19th November 1999, yes: Kittiwake ‘approximately ‘quite broad… ‘long, pointed wings’Farne Islands the same size as tubenose

Kittiwake… Manx structure’Shearwater size’

19th November 1999, no ‘considered to be ‘proportionatelySt Mary’s Island, slightly larger longer and thinner Northumberland than Manx’ than Manx, pointed

tips’ ‘arm equalto hand in length’



203 & 204. Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae, Bugio, Madeira,August 2005.A clear view of the dark underwing is acritical point in terms of assigning a bird seen on a seawatch or from a boat to the ‘soft-plumaged petrel’

complex.The pattern of the underparts, with a clean white breast and, at most, grey sides to the neck, is one ofthe key features by which, given good views, Soft-plumaged Petrel P. mollis can be eliminated.

Hug

h H

arro

pH

ugh

Har

rop

water Puffinus puffinus, the species to which it issuperficially most similar in a British context.Overwhelmingly, the descriptions use thephrase ‘similar to Manx Shearwater’ or a deriva-tive of this. Other descriptions stress the simi-larity to Manx Shearwater but include moredetail, such as ‘possibly heavier-bodied’ for the1989 Cornwall bird; ‘similar to Manx but longerin body and wings’ when describing the 1994Bardsey bird; while the 1996 Northumberlandbird is described as being ‘very similar to Manx,slightly smaller than Sooty Shearwater P.griseus’. Only one record, of one seen in sea areaFair Isle in June 1996, suggests a smaller bird;but this particular individual was observedfrom a boat, where observation conditions andsize evaluation can be particularly difficult, andwhere there were no comparison species avail-able.

There are eight descriptions that include adirect comparison with a seabird of similar sizeand structure, as well as a description of a birdseen alongside a Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla. Ofthese, two were seen with Manx Shearwateronly, two with both Manx and Sooty Shearwa-ters, three with Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis andone (seen from a boat, which may make com-parisons more difficult to judge) with Cory’sShearwater Calonectris diomedea. All stress thesimilarity to Manx Shearwater, although four ofthem suggest either a slightly larger or heavierbird, and all eight emphasise the longer wingsof the petrel in comparison; in several instancesspecifically noting the greater wing length com-pared with Manx. One of the birds seen offFlamborough in 1991 has somewhat contradic-tory elements regarding the wing shape andstructure. One observer commented on thelong, pointed wings, while another consideredthe wings to be shorter and broader than Manx,though still with pointed tips. In this casethough, the bird is also described as beingbulkier than Manx Shearwater.

Bill structure was rarely described. This isoften a difficult feature to judge on a seabird atany range, or against a dark sea; moreover, theimportance of bill structure to the identifica-tion process has not, until recently, been fullyappreciated. The few records which do providedetails of bill structure describe it as‘stubby/hefty’ (Cornwall, 1989), ‘large and dark’(East Yorkshire, 1991) or ‘chunkier than Manx’(Cornwall, 1996). One that flew close inshorepast several north Norfolk sites in overcast con-

ditions in June 1997 was particularly well docu-mented, and the bill is described as ‘deep andhefty’. The lucky observer of a very close andwell-described bird which flew past the FarneIslands in November 1999 commented on thesize of the bill and even saw the tubenoseappearance quite clearly. In most cases,however, even in the best of field conditions, theprecise bill structure may never be apparent.

Wing shape has been suggested as a usefulidentification feature to separate Fea’s fromZino’s Petrel; this again is a subjective character,and difficult to describe with real accuracy.Nevertheless, it would be interesting if there wasany consistency across the records. It is a featurethat has clearly impressed observers (table 2),and every description has described wing shape.Some have emphasised the length and wing set– ‘longer than Manxie, swept back’ – while mosthave emphasised the wing-tip shape with‘pointed tips’ appearing in many descriptions.Overall summaries are frequent; commentssuch as ‘long, narrow and very pointed’, used todescribe the 1996 Northumberland bird, couldsummarise a number of descriptions. Onedescription, from Northumberland in 1993,questions whether the wings may have beenproportionately shorter than those of ManxShearwater, but also mentions the pointed tips.Descriptions of the well-watched 1997 northNorfolk bird also differ. One observer describesthe wings as more rounded than Manx, whilewhat was undoubtedly the same bird seen a fewminutes later was described as having an‘extremely long and pointed hand’. The dubiousvalue of wing structure as a field character isdiscussed in some depth by Harrop (2004), andthis is well illustrated by inconsistencies in thedescriptions of the Norfolk record. Descriptionsof the same individual suggest that observers’perception of the ratio of ‘hand’ to ‘arm’ varieswidely, from the hand being 30% longer thanthe arm, to the two being of equal length. Thissheds some light on the reliability of assess-ments of structure, even by highly experiencedobservers.

Other aspects of the descriptions Flight and behaviourEven in fairly calm conditions, the characteristicPterodroma flight is an extraordinary, almostflap-free, switchback flight, with frequent tow-ering glides. It is quite unlike that of otherseabirds likely to occur in British waters and





205 & 206. Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae, Bugio, Madeira,August 2005. From above, the markedly paler tail of Fea’sand Zino’s Petrels P. madeira is a key feature in ruling out Soft-plumaged Petrel P. mollis. Eliminating Zino’s Petrel ismuch more problematic, and relies chiefly on structure, notably differences in bill structure and wing structure.

Even in high-quality photographs such as these, and plates 203 & 204, it is not easy; but the bill of Fea's is relativelychunky, the tube-nostrils being quite prominent with the suggestion of a short and rather square notch betweenthe nostrils and the back of the large hooked tip on the upper mandible.This pattern is not as clear cut as has

been described, however, and is difficult to determine, even on this image.

Hug

h H

arro

pH

ugh

Har

rop

many descriptions of the British records discussthis in some detail. Although some less experi-enced observers may see similarities betweenthis flight behaviour and that of the larger shear-waters, or even Fulmar, in British waters only‘soft-plumaged petrel’ really throws itself aboutwith the characteristic Pterodroma gusto. This isa feature that is perhaps better seen during aland-based seawatch than from the deck of amoving boat. There are subtle variations amongthe described flight patterns, some birdsappearing to tower less, in particular thoseinvolved in feeding activity, while someobservers considered that the sequence of tow-ering and zig-zagging followed a repetitive cycle.Good descriptions of flight pattern are criticalfor assigning the birds to the genus but, as far aswe know, are not at all useful when assigningindividuals to species. Some subtle differenceshave been described between Soft-plumagedand Fea’s Petrels, but it is doubtful whetherdescriptions from observers with anything otherthan huge experience of both species, in dif-fering conditions, could be used reliably. Theflight of Zino’s Petrel has not been described inthe literature in any meaningful way.

Head patternHarrop (2004) considered that there may bediagnostic differences in the head patterns ofthe various taxa, and in particular between Soft-plumaged and Zino’s/Fea’s Petrels. Head patternwas something that all of the British observersfound very difficult to describe, and mostdescriptions contain no useful detail. Being ableto use head pattern as an aid to field identifica-tion on birds seen from land seems unlikely atthis point, unless the views are outstanding.

UnderwingGetting a good view of a predominantly darkunderwing is of fundamental importance if abird is to be placed in the ‘soft-plumaged petrel’complex, but is of no (known) value when sep-arating the three species from each other. Notmany potential confusion species have a darkunderwing, although observers should bear inmind that dark-morph (‘blue’) Fulmars andpale-morph skuas (which frequently towerwithout flapping when flying with the wind)could both provide genuine pitfalls for theunwary. The underwing really is extremely darkand was clearly a striking feature for all of theobservers of the British records; and this is a

pre-requisite for acceptance. The amount ofdetail beyond this is rather variable, and theway it is described varies enormously with lightconditions. Those seen in brighter light, partic-ularly where there is fairly strong light behindthe observer, have shown more detail, rangingfrom a pale wedge on the leading edge of theunderwing to a complex pattern of light anddark, dominated by dark. This is usually in theform of a broad dark bar running up themiddle of the underwing, with a paler areaalong the leading edge, and a limited, slightlypaler area on the bases of the primaries andouter secondaries.

Upperparts and upperwing patternThis feature has shown the greatest variationamong the descriptions. As for the underwing,the pattern seen appears to be highly dependenton the light. Approximately half of all submis-sions emphasise the rather uniform upperwing,the colour tones of which are described as grey-or, in some cases, slightly brown-toned. In mostof these cases, a paler mantle and darker wingsare noted but include little additional detail.The remainder of the descriptions mention adark ‘M’ across the wings, this pattern beingmost obvious on birds seen in strong light frombehind the observer or, paradoxically, in verydull light. This wing pattern is certainly afeature of Fea’s and Soft-plumaged Petrels, butvariation is evident when studying the range ofpublished photographs, and may be related toprevailing light conditions. Quite whetherZino’s Petrels show this pattern in the field isunknown but photographs in the hand suggestthat they may do.

DiscussionNone of the records discussed here can beassigned to species with complete confidence.However, now we know that Fea’s Petrel doesturn up in British waters, on the basis of thethree records accepted so far, the contextchanges. It is important to reiterate that thepurpose of this paper is not to assign each indi-vidual to species, but to establish whether thereis any strong evidence suggesting that morethan one form is likely to be involved.

Is there any evidence that Soft-plumagedPetrel occurs in British waters?In terms of the three key characters discussedabove, the uniformity of the descriptions



reviewed here is quite striking. No bird has everbeen consistently reported as having a completeor even a partial breast-band by all observers(see above). Many observers commented on thestartling whiteness of the entire underparts,usually in contrast to the dark underwings.Grey sides to the neck were not always reported:perhaps because observers were concentratingon other, more important, characters; perhapsbecause they were actually difficult to see; orperhaps they were simply not looked for. Viewswere not always particularly close, but somebirds were close to shore, and in virtually everycase it is perfectly reasonable to expect that if abreast-band was present, even one that wasweak, poorly defined or incomplete, it wouldhave been seen reasonably easily.

The validity of tail colour as a feature is alsoopen to some interpretation. The contrast incolour between the body and tail, which isshown by both Fea’s and Zino’s Petrels, reportedby many observers, may not always be obvious(Madge 1990; Harrop 2004), particularly inharsh light. In the case of Soft-plumaged Petrel,however, the contrast between the tail and bodyappears to be fairly minimal. If a bird shows acontrastingly paler tail, this should be a stronglysupportive feature for Fea’s or Zino’s Petrel.Among the British records discussed here, theuniformity of descriptions of tail colour is quitestriking. Only one description did not mentiona significantly paler tail. Tail length and shapeare much less reliable but still relevant features,and only two descriptions failed to comment onthese; in one case probably because of the long

distance involved and in the other perhapsowing to poor light. Otherwise, all birds hadlong, pale and tapered or rounded tails, whichwould be expected with the two North Atlanticspecies.

Although Soft-plumaged Petrel can show aslightly paler tail and incomplete breast-band,the tail contrast is generally poorly marked, andthere is usually a significant breast-band. Inother words, while the identification criterianeed to be interpreted with caution on anyindividual bird, there is a ‘normal’ patternemerging. If any of the well-seen British birdswere not typical of one of the two northernspecies, we might expect to see some discrepan-cies creeping in – for example, the tail contrastnot being noted, even when the breast wasthought to be clear, or vice versa. What we actu-ally have is a series of descriptions, virtually allof which specifically mention both (i) cleanwhite underparts and (ii) a long, tapered, palegrey tail. In the exceptional cases where thesefeatures are not described, there is usually a per-fectly good reason why they have not been. Onthe basis of the records reviewed here, there isso little variation among the descriptions thatSoft-plumaged Petrel can be effectively ruledout as a possibility. There is nothing to suggestthat Soft-plumaged Petrel has been seen inBritish waters.

Is there any evidence that Zino’s Petrel mayoccur in British waters?This is a much more difficult proposition. Inorder to draw conclusions, it is worth first con-



Table 3. Summary of weights and biometrics of Fea’s Pterodroma feae and Zino’s Petrels P. madeira,with those of Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus for comparison.

Species Weight (g) Wing (mm) Total body Wingspan (mm)length (mm)

Published Range of Published Range of Published Publishedrange reported range reported range range

means means

Fea’s Petrel 275–355 311 262–273 263–270 330–360 860–950

Zino’s Petrel 175–231 204 247–259 247–254 320–333 800–860

Manx Shearwater 350–535 375–447 – – 300–380 710–850

Measurements for weight and wing measurements come from original source material or reviews of sourcematerial. For Fea’s and Zino’s Petrels, these include Zino & Zino (1986), Bretagnolle (1995) and Monteiro &Furness (1995). Weight data for Manx Shearwater is taken from Cramp & Simmons (1977). Total body length forFea’s and Zino’s Petrels comes from source material based on live birds (Zino & Zino 1986), while total lengthvalues for Manx Shearwater and all wingspan values are taken from Mullarney et al. (1999) and from Beaman &Madge (1998), and should be taken as estimated rather than precise measurements.

sidering the biometrics of the two forms, andcomparing them with the most usual compar-ison species, Manx Shearwater (table 3).

Biometrics can be difficult to interpret andironically, it is easier to compare measure-ments for the two North Atlantic Pterodromaspecies, for which data are scarce, than tocompare their biometrics with those of ManxShearwater, where there exists a range of datafrom different sites and at different times ofyear. Furthermore, the different structure ofshearwaters means that wing length is not par-ticularly useful when comparing Manx Shear-water with Fea’s and Zino’s Petrels; ‘wingspan’gives a better feel for these differences and thisis included in table 3. Not being a standardbiometric measurement, wingspan is likely tobe approximate, but will still give a reasonableindication of relative sizes and is more usefulin the context of field records. The publishedranges for weight and wing are tabulated, aswell as a range of reported means, as the pub-lished data do not allow more detailed statis-tical analysis. Nevertheless, what is presentedshould perhaps give enough of a picture toenable us to make some judgements about theBritish records.

The most striking differences are those inbody weight, with Zino’s being a lightly builtspecies, and Fea’s averaging more than 50%heavier. Comparison of wingspan suggeststhat Fea’s is a particularly long-winged bird.Given the relative values, it is possible thatZino’s may appear almost as big as ManxShearwater and could perhaps give theimpression of being fractionally longer-winged, but it seems inconceivable that Zino’swould look bigger and substantially longer-winged if direct and accurate comparisonswere possible. Conversely, Fea’s would beexpected to be similar in size to Manx Shear-water but with perceptibly longer wings.

Among those British records where directcomparison (with Manx Shearwater) was pos-sible, all birds were described as similar to Manxin size, or fractionally larger and with percep-tibly longer wings. Of the remaining descrip-tions, all stressed the similarity in size to Manxor felt that birds were slightly larger, but clearlyless emphasis should be placed on these. Onlytwo descriptions suggested that the bird mayhave been smaller or shorter-winged than ManxShearwater. One commented on the overallbulk being greater than Manx, despite stating

that the wings were ‘proportionately shorter’but, in this case, the descriptions of the samebird from other observers emphasised thelonger wings. The other observation was from aboat and there were no comparison speciespresent. In the latter case, the difficult circum-stances of the observation mean that it wouldbe unwise to place too much emphasis on thesize assessment.

There are suggested differences in the wingformula of the two species, with Zino’s possiblyhaving a rather blunter wing-tip than Fea’s. Thisis surely an unreliable field character on anindividual bird, but it is worth noting that in 15of the records discussed here the ‘pointedness’of the wing-tips is highlighted as a feature.There are some minor discrepancies but, again,the circumstances of the observations anddescriptions from other observers can generallyaccount for these.

Unless the bird is seen exceptionally well, thebill can be a particularly difficult feature to seewell on a passing bird, and still more difficult tobe confident about. Seven descriptions describethe bill sufficiently well to merit comment. Alluse terms such as ‘large’, ‘stubby’ or ‘hefty’, sug-gesting a rather robust or thick bill in the caseswhere it was reported. There is no clear evi-dence to suggest that smaller-billed birds wereseen, as in the other cases the bill was not seenwell enough for comment. Of course, an alter-native explanation is that they were just notlarge enough to catch the eye. It takes only aquick glance at the plates in Harrop (2004) tosee how unreliable this feature is likely to be inthe field without a photograph.

ConclusionsAlthough it has proved impossible to assign anyof these individuals to one particular specieswith complete confidence, the weight of evi-dence suggests that the well-observed Britishrecords of ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ refer to Fea’sPetrel. There is no evidence at all of birdsshowing features suggestive of Soft-plumagedPetrel in British waters. Although it is a muchmore difficult problem, there is also nothingspecific to suggest that Zino’s Petrel hasoccurred either. Even where there are minoranomalies relating to one feature in a descrip-tion, these are either contradicted by anotherobserver’s description, or occur where there areother features strongly suggesting Fea’s Petrel.Although it is quite possible that either or both



of the other species might occur, there isnothing specific to suggest that any of theBritish records so far might relate to one ofthem. This is quite different from saying thatany of the earlier records are acceptable as thefirst Fea’s Petrel for Britain; this requires ahigher level of proof that is simply not avail-able.

Until such time as there is clearly docu-mented evidence of individual records, or anumber of observations of birds displayingfeatures that contradict the established charac-ters, it is probably reasonable for mostobservers to assume that a ‘soft-plumagedpetrel’ seen around Britain’s coast is likely tobe Fea’s Petrel. This is not only because Zino’sPetrels are so rare, but also because the weightof documented evidence, where it exists, isconsistent with our current knowledge of Fea’sPetrel, the one species which has been provedto occur.

We are left with the dilemma of how torecord these sightings statistically, both in thefuture and for the past. This situation is uniquein British terms: only one species has beenproved to occur and, of the other two, oneinhabits the southern hemisphere and the otheris one of the world’s rarest birds. There areexamples of species pairs where there is asimilar problem. For example, consider Grey-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus, which hasoccurred in Britain on a number of occasions,and Bicknell’s Thrush C. bicknelli, whichremains a potential vagrant and is extremelydifficult to identify confidently in the field (andthe current taxonomic status of which is still amatter for debate). BBRC has never consideredrecords of Grey-cheeked Thrush as possiblyBicknell’s, and since Bicknell’s has not yet beenshown to occur BBRC will continue to acceptall records as apparent Grey-cheeked Thrushes.In an attempt to achieve consistency, the ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ perhaps need to be addressedin a similar way.

A policy of ‘Fea’s until proven otherwise’may appear to lack complete scientific rigour,but on the other hand, it is closer to BBRC’sstatement of purpose (to maintain a statisticallyvalid database of records of rare birds). BBRCwill need to come to a decision as to how weshould record the previous and subsequentrecords. Debate would be welcome; but mean-while, if you do see a ‘soft-plumaged petrel’,please enjoy it!

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Andrew Harrop and Colin Bradshawfor comments on ear lier drafts. I also thank currentmembers of BBRC for their comments on later drafts.Themany observers who submitted records, most of whichwere very considered and detailed and almost all of whichwere simply exciting to read, also deserve my thanks formaking the review of their efforts enjoyable. Kieran Fahyand Killian Mullarney provided data on accepted recordsof ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ in Ireland.

References

Beaman, M., & Madge, S. 1998. The Handbook of BirdIdentification for Europe and the Western Palearctic.Christopher Helm, London.

BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World.Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona andCambridge.

— 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends andconservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge.

Bretagnolle,V. 1995. Systematics of the Soft-plumagedPetrel Pterodroma mollis (Procellariidae): new insightsfrom the study of vocalizations. Ibis 137: 207–218.

Cramp, S., & Simmons, K. E. L. (eds.) 1977. The Birds of theWestern Palearctic.Vol. 1. OUP, Oxford.

Dymond, J. N., Fraser, P.A., & Gantlett, S. J. M. 1989. RareBirds in Britain and Ireland. Poyser, Calton.

Enticott, J.W. 1999. Britain and Ireland’s first ‘Soft-plumagedPetrel’ – an historical and personal perspective. Brit.Birds 92: 504–518.

Harrop,A. H. J. 2004.The ‘soft-plumaged petrel’ complex: areview of the literature on taxonomy, identification anddistribution. Brit. Birds 97: 6–15.

Hooker, S. K., & Baird, R.W. 1997.A Fea’s Petrel off NovaScotia; the first record for Canada. Birders Journal 6:245–248.

Madge, S. 1990. Soft-plumaged Petrels at sea. Birding World3: 138–139.

Monteiro, L. R., & Furness, R.W. 1995. Fea’s PetrelPterodroma feae in the Azores. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 115:9–14.

Mullarney, K., Svensson, L., Zetterström, D., & Grant, P. J.1999. The Collins Bird Guide. Collins, London.

Rogers, M. J., and the Rarities Committee. 1992. Report onrare birds in Great Britain in 1991. Brit. Birds 85:507–554.

— & — 1993. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in1992. Brit. Birds 86: 447–540.











— & — 2004. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in



2003. Brit. Birds 97: 558–625.— & — 2005. Report on rare birds in Great Britain in

2004. Brit. Birds 98: 628–694.Snow, D.W., & Perrins, C. M. 1999. The Birds of the Western

Palearctic. Concise Edn. OUP, Oxford.

Tove, M. H. 1997. Fea’s Petrel in North America. Part 1.Birding 29: 207–214.

Zino, P.A., & Zino, F. 1986. Contribution to the study of thepetrels of the genus Pterodroma in the archipelago ofMadeira. Bol. Mus. Mun. Funchal 180: 141–165.



Jimmy Steele, 16 Oaklands, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE2 4BW

Appendix 1. Dates and locations of all ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ Pterodroma mollis/madeira/feae recorded fromBritish waters and accepted by BBRC, including the three records accepted as Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae.

Location Date Accepted as Ref.

Sea area Sole, 16km W of St Mary’s (Scilly) 6th September 2004 Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2005Sea area Sole, 16km W of St Mary’s (Scilly) 28th August 2004 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2005Flamborough (East Yorkshire) 24th October 2003 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2004Flamborough (East Yorkshire), 23rd September 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003Whitburn (Co. Durham) and Farne Islands (Northumberland)North Ronaldsay (Orkney) 21st September 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003Sea area Sole, 10 km S of St Mary’s (Scilly) 8th September 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003Flamborough (East Yorkshire) 1st September 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003& Whitburn (Co. Durham)Flamborough & Filey (East Yorkshire) 26th August 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2004Flamborough (East Yorkshire) 23rd September 2001 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003Sea area Sole, 96 km SW of St Mary’s (Scilly) 12th August 2001 Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2005Walney Island (Cumbria) 22nd July 2001 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003Hope’s Nose & Berry Head (Devon) 17th July 2001 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2003Sea area Sole, 12 km S of St Mary’s (Scilly) 8th July 2001 Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2005St Mary’s Island & Farne Islands 19th November 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2001(Northumberland)5 km S of St Agnes (Scilly) 31st August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2001Porthgwarra (Cornwall) 26th August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 20001.5 km S of Bishop Rock (Scilly) 24th August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2002Prawle Point (Devon) 17th August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2000Flamborough (East Yorkshire) 12th June 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2002Newbiggin-by-the-Sea (Northumberland) 24th August 1998 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1999Blakeney Point, Cley, Sheringham and 26th June 1997 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1998Mundesley (Norfolk)Strumble Head (Pembrokeshire) 4th October 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1997Farne Islands (Northumberland) 20th September 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1997Newbiggin (Northumberland) 13th September 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 19973.2 km SW of Bishop Rock (Scilly) 18th August 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1998Sea area Fair Isle 25th June 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1997Gwennap Head (Cornwall) 11th June 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1998Formby Point (Lancashire) 8th September 1995 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1997Bardsey (Gwynedd) 10th September 1994 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1996Hauxley & Farne Islands (Northumberland) 5th September 1993 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1997Flamborough (East Yorkshire) Two birds 6th September 1991 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1995Porthgwarra (Cornwall) 12th–14th August 1989 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 1992Dungeness (Kent) 15th October 1983 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Rogers et al. 2004



Appendix 2. Dates and locations of all ‘soft-plumaged petrels’ Pterodroma mollis/madeira/feae recorded fromIrish waters and accepted by IBRC. IBR = Irish Bird Report.

Location Date Accepted as Ref.

Galley Head (Co. Cork) 19th July 2003 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds (in press)Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 11th September 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 7: 390Melmore Head (Co. Donegal) 29th August 2002 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 7: 390Old Head of Kinsale (Co. Cork) 23rd September 2000 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 7: 8256 km northwest of Arranmore, at sea 18th August 2000 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 7: 220Bridges of Ross (Co. Clare) 30th August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 546Greenore Point (Co. Wexford) 23rd August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 546Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 18th August 1999 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 546Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 8th September 1998 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380Helvick Head (Co. Waterford) 6th September 1998 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 24th August 1997 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 288Bridges of Ross (Co. Clare) 31st July 1997 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 288Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 22nd August 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 65St John’s Point (Co. Down) 22nd August 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 65Galley Head (Co. Cork) 27th July 1996 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380Brandon Point and Kerry Head (Co. Kerry) 26th August 1995 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 5: 499 & 6: 65Bridges of Ross (Co. Clare) 25th August 1995 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 5: 449Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 27th July 1995 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 5: 449Mizen Head (Co. Cork) Two birds 24th August 1994 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 5: 328Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 11th August 1993 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 5: 328Galley Head (Co. Cork) 1st October 1992 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380Galley Head (Co. Cork) 21st August 1992 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380Old Head of Kinsale (Co. Cork) 4th August 1992 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380Galley Head (Co. Cork) 17th September 1991 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 6: 380St John’s Point (Co. Down) 20th August 1991 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 4: 574Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 26th August 1990 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 4: 574Old Head of Kinsale (Co. Cork) 14th August 1989 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel Irish Birds 4: 575 & 6: 65Cape Clear Island (Co. Cork) 5th September 1974 Zino’s/Fea’s Petrel IBR 23: 6 & Irish Birds

6: 65

from the rarities committee’s · pdf file404 british birds99 • august 2006 •...

Documents