Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010 16

Vol. 50 No. 1 January - February 2010


Vol. 50 No. 1 January - February 2010
Editorial Board
Dr. A.M.K. Bharos Prof. S. Rangaswami
Harish R. Bhat K. Mrutumjaya Rao
Dr. S.P. Bhatnagar A.N. Yellappa Reddy
Dr. A.K. Chakravarthy
Dr. Rajiv Saxena
Dr. Ranjan Kumar Das
Dr. S. Devasahayam Dr. A.B. Shanbhag
Arunayan Sharma
B.S. Kulkarni
S. Sridhar
Arvind Mishra
Dr. Geeta S. Padate Dr. Abraham Verghese, FRES (London)
Publisher : S. Sridhar
CONTENTS
 Note from the Publisher
 Enigma of Family Silviidae - the Old World Warblers
 Articles
 Black-crested Bulbul (Pycnonotus melanicterus) - An
addition to the avifauna of Kalesar National Park, District
Yamunanagar, Haryana, India, by P. C. Tak and J. P. Sati
 Calling Pattern in Coppersmith Barbet
(Megalaima haemacephala), by Hiren Soni
 The “cryptic” warblers in Kanha Reserve, central
India, with a detailed commentary on identifications
and modern guides, by Kumar Ghorpadé
 Correspondence
 Sighting records of Ruddy-breasted Crake (Porzana fusca)
and Slaty-breasted Rail (Gallirallus striatus) in Vidarbha, by
Raju Kasambe, Neeraj Gade and Rohit Chakravarty
Note from the Publisher
Dear fellow Birdwatchers,
Enigma of Family Silviidae -the Old World Warblers.
In this issue we have published a critical comment by Kumar
Ghorpadé, a senior ornithologist of our times. Ghorpadé has
expressed his serious reservations on the suggestion of the
possible occurrence of Large-billed W arbler (Acrocephalus
orinus) in Kanha. He has also lamented the trend of some
amateurs proclaiming ‘new findings’ without thorough research
or articulating theories devoid of industriously gathered facts
or prudently analysed data.
The taxonomy of family Sylvidae (Old World Warblers) is patently
misunderstood with protracted and confused history of systematic
classifications. Successive changes in its classification are
continuing even to this day, especially in the light of recent
molecular genetic data. Acrocephalus is more or less a
morphologically uniform, species rich genus of this family, with
37 species which are mainly brownish or grey brown. In contrast,
they are highly varied in size but less so in vocalizations. Recent
sequence data of cytochrome b genome however has revealed
three main phylogenic clades belonging to genus Acrocephalus;
plain species, striped species and large species. These
categories are said to match well with conventional wisdom.
Molecular information derived from marker genes has relatively
reduced problems of character identification and convergence
in taxonomic studies. Molecular data has also lent a hand in
resolving problems of phylogeny and taxonomy, but they cannot
do so exclusively. Much research is still to be conducted over the
coming years, making particular use of developing field
molecular genetics. Ornithologists of our country will need all
their persuasive skills plus lots of genetic data to solve the
problems associated with the identification of ‘cryptic’ warblers.
Acrocephalus orinus, the ‘cryptic’ warbler in question is known
by only type specimen from an individual captured in late March
2006 at an artificial sedge bed on a sewage farm in SC Thailand,
until then this bird was known from type specimen collected on
13th November 1867, at Rampur, Sutlej Valley, Himachal Pradesh.
Nothing is known about its breeding, stopover or wintering sites.
It has been suggested that this specimen represented an
isolated population of A. stentoreus or an aberrant A. dumetorum;
recent reexamination of morphology and mitochondrial DNA,
while showing specimen to be similar to A. dumetorum,
nevertheless support treatment as a separate species.
However, A. orinus differs from A. dumetorum primarily in longer
broader bill (with swollen lower mandible), slightly darker and
more rufous tinged upper parts (fresh plumage), pointed
retricies, very small first primary, larger foot and claw. Moreover,
it is often confused with Booted-tree W arbler (Hippolais
caligata), yet another winter visitor.
The classical debate of taxonomists has assumed further
significance with the findings of D.T. Parkin et al in 2004, which
has placed A. orinus in the fourth clade identified as the “great
reed-warbler group”. Until recently A. orinus has been thought
to be possibly related to Paddyfield warbler (A. agricola) or
Blunt winged Warbler (A. concinens). A recent reappraisal of A.
orinus, incorporating molecular and biometric data, placed this
intriguing taxon within the group of small “plain” Acrocephalus
warblers; it was closest to Blyth’s Reed-warbler (A.
dumetorum), but differed from it by 7.8% in DNA sequence.
Thus Ä. orinus appears to be a valid species and clearly
separate from the fourth clade identified by Parkin and
colleagues. Therefore, the key to identification is analysis of
DNA Sequence. The dissenting groups ought to engage in
substantive talks, so that a peaceful and dignified resolution of
the issue of identification of the ‘cryptic’ warbler is
accomplished. In doing so, the ambiguities and cynicisms can
be expunged once and for all and the reputation of Indian
Ornithology could be sustained.
On the other hand, amateur birdwatchers, who follow birds
in their wild habitats should not shirk from arriving at names
- for therein is the fun and pleasure of birdwatching. But
when not sure, they can suffix the name with “?”, and continue
enjoy birdwatching. The task of delving into stuffed feathers
in a museum or matching nucleotides in a laboratory should
be left to the more serious minded. Even then, taxonomy is
bound to be dynamic; the change factors being taxonomists
themselves. What else can explain the several revisions and
reappraisals of a single species ‘nomenclature’ with time?
But to a hobbyist, what’s any way in a Latin name? All the
same, none can deny the fact that amateurs have contributed
immensely to ornithology and conservation - right or wrong
names. For that reason, we ought to leave the nitty-gritty
of naming and renaming of birds to the s y s t e m a t i s t s -
if on ly they ar e still ar ound!
Thanking you,
Yours in Bird Conservation
S. Sridhar, Publisher, NLBW
Printed and Published bi-monthly by
S. Sridhar at Navbharath Enterprises, Bangalore
for Private Circulation only.
Address for Correspondence :
Newsletter for Birdwatchers
No 10, Sirur Park B Street, Seshadripuram,
Bangalore 560 020. Tel. 080 2356 1142, 2346 4682
E-mail : <navbarat@gmail.com>
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
Black-crested Bulbul (Pycnonotus melanicterus)
- An addition to the avifauna of Kalesar National Park,
District Yamunanagar, Haryana, India
P. C. Tak and J. P. Sati, Northern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India,
218 Kaulagarh Road, DehraDun, Uttarakhand., 248195. Email pctakzsi@gmial.com; jpsatizsi@yahoo.co.in
Presently, the Zoological Survey of India Dehra Dun, under
its ‘Approved Plan of Research Work’, is conducting a series
of ‘General Faunistic Surveys’ in Kalesar National Park
(Kalesar NP) in district Yamunanagar of Haryana state. The
authors are also participating regularly in these field surveys
at monthly interval. The park has been assigned IBA site
code IN-HR-03 under the criteria A1 (Globally Threatened
species) & A3 (Biome-Restricted Assemblages) by Islam
and Rahmani (2004). It is situated in northern Shiwalik tract
to the west of Yamuna River in NE Haryana, India and is c.
200 km from Delhi; c. 150 km from Chandigarh; and c. 100
km from Dehra Dun. The altitude of the park ranges from
200 to 1,200 m and receives average rainfall of 970 mm.
The temperature in the park area varies from 30 C in winter
to 440 C in summer. It is the largest protected area in Haryana
and is spread over an area of 46.8 km2 (11,570 acres).
The Kalesar forest is primarily a Sal (Shorea robusta) forest
with other predominant tree species such as: Khair (Acacia
catechu), Shesham (Dalbergia sissoo), Semal (Bombax
ceiba), Amaltas (Cassia fistula), Bahera (Terminalia
belerica), Rohani (Mallotus sp.), etc. Commonly occurring
shrub species of the area are: Adhatoda sp., Murraya sp.
Zizyphus sp., Dendrocalamus strictus etc. The important
grasses being: Saccharum sp., Chrysopogon sp.,
Heteropogon sp., Erianthus sp., etc.
On 26th August 2009, while carrying out the general faunistic
survey work in Bara Sot- Kohni Mor area of Kalesar with
GPS reading [on an etrex GPS of Garmin make]: Elevation
343 m; N 30 20.085; E 077 04.410, at around 1000 hrs we
spotted a single bulbul puffing its wings after bath, in water
accumulated in a depression along the seasonal stream
(Sot) and shifting from one twig to another in fairly thick
undergrowth of mixed shrubs. At first, we thought that it
was nothing but Red-vented Bulbul (P. cafer), which was
common this morning in the area. But, to confirm that
whether it is P. cafer or P. leucogenys (both of which are
otherwise common in the area), we observed the bird with
the aid of field binoculars [8 x 40 power of ‘Nikon’ make],
the forwardly directed black crest on head of this bird was
clearly visible. For a while, this led us towards the P.
leucogenys. But, when we examined head region of this
bird in a side view for its white cheek-patch, unexpectedly
we found that the white cheek-patch of P. leucogenys was
not present. This increased our inquisitiveness. In the
meantime, we approached the bird a little closer. Now, the
bird was in a full view with its pale yellow eyes (conspicuous
at close range) contrasting with glossy black head, throat
1
and erect and forwardly pointed crest; olive-yellow upper parts;
yellow under parts, becoming darker on breast; and largely
brown tail. Doubtlessly, this bird was identified as Black-
crested Bulbul, Pycnonotus melanicterus (Gmelin, 1789) [after
Manakadan & Pittie (2001)] (Photo). It is also known as Black-
headed Yellow Bulbul (Fleming et al. 1984; Ripley 1961) or
Black-capped Bulbul (Wijesinghe 1991). There are three
recognized races from the Indian subcontinent: P. m.
flaviventris with black erect, pointed and forwardly directed
crest, and black throat is widely distributed; P. m. gularis
lacks crest but has ruby-red throat and occurs in Western
Ghats; and P. m. melanicterus (the nominate race) with yellow
throat which is concoloured with remaining under parts is
found in Sri Lanka (Grimmett, 1998). Black-crested Bulbul
(Pycnonotus melanicterus) belong to the Least Concern (LC)
category as evaluated by BirdLife International (2009)- the
official Red list Authority for birds for IUCN.
Black-crested Bulbul is found in southern Asia from India
and Sri Lanka east to Indonesia. This is a bird of forest and
dense scrub. It is about 19 cm in length with the foregoing
diagnostics. The flight is bouncing and woodpecker-like.
Juveniles are duller. It builds its nest in a bush; two to four
eggs is a typical clutch-size. It feeds on fruits and insects.
In the Indian subcontinent, it is a fairly common resident of
Himalayas from Simla in Himachal Pradesh to Arunachal
Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, S. Assam hills, disjunctly E
Ghats (Orrisa to Andhra) and hills of Madhya Pradesh
(Pachmarhi, Chhindwara and Bastar districts), from the terai
up to 1500 m (2400 m), uncommon in the southwest from
plains up to 1000 m, locally to 1200 m; E. Bangladesh
(Sylhet, Tippera and Chittagong); South China and SE Asia.
It occurs in forest with plenty of undergrowth, dense
secondary jungle, and scrub country (Ali and Ripley 1971;
Grimmett et al. 1998; Kazmierczak 2000; Grewal et al.
2002; Rasmussen and Anderton 2005).
It is a member of bulbul family (Pycnonotidae) of passerine
birds. The family Pycnonotidae is represented by a total of
168 species throughout the world, of which 40 species belong
to the genus Pycnonotus (Silby and Monroe 1993). The
genus Pycnonotus is represented by 12 species in the Indian
sub-continent Grimmett et al. (1998). Of these, only four
species, viz., Pycnonotus cafer (Red-vented Bulbul), P.
jocosus (Red-whiskered Bulbul), P. leucogenys (Himalayan
Bulbul), and P. leucotis (White-eared Bulbul) are known from
Haryana state (<envisbnhs.org 2006>). As far as the avifauna
of Kalesar National Park and W ildlife Sanctuary is
concerned, there are only two bird lists: one by Kalsi (1998)
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
dealing with 161 species and the other by Sharma (2006)
incorporating 304 species.
However, in all these foregoing checklists the Black-crested
Bulbul (P. melanicterus) does not feature. Hence, the present
sight record of this species from Kalesar National Park is
not only an addition to the avifauna of the park but also is
an extension of its distributional range to the state of
Haryana.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. Ramakrishna, Director, Zoological
Survey of India for encouragement throughout and to Shri P.
T. Bhutia, Officer-in-Charge, Zoological Survey of India,
Dehra Dun for various facilities. Thanks are also due to all
the members of the various survey parties for their unstinting
help in field. Last but not the least, we are thankful to the
Chief Wildlife Warden, Haryana for giving permission to
undertake various surveys and to the Wildlife Department
of Haryana state for various courtesies.
References
Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. 1971. Handbook of the birds of India and
Pakistan (vol. 6). Bombay: Oxford University Press.
BirdLife International. 2009. Species factsheet: Pycnonotus
melanicterus, Downloaded from http://www/birdlife.org on
2/9/2009.
Fleming, R. L., Sr., Fleming, R. L., Jr., and Bangdel, L. S. (1984).
Birds of Nepal. Third edition. Avalok, Kathmandu.© 2006
copyright @ envisbnhs.org
Calling Pattern in Coppersmith Barbet
(Megalaima haemacephala)
HIREN SONI, Lecturer (Animal Science), Ashok & Rita Patel Institute of Integrated Study & Research in
Biotechnology & Allied Sciences (ARIBAS), New Vidyanagar – 388 121 (Gujarat), E-mail: hirensoni@yahoo.com
Communication
Communication is an integral part of animal behaviour. Birds
communicate with each other primarily by means of visual
and/or vocal signals accompanied by sound, which is an
ideal method for communication over long distances too.
Vocal signals play an important role in the life of birds in a
variety of aspects like pair maintenance, parent-offspring
interactions, cohesiveness among flock or family members,
and threat situations. Birds use songs for territory
advertisement and mate acquisition, whereas calls are given
in specific contexts such as contact, mating, threat,
begging, flight and alarming conditions (Kumar, 2003; Setthi
and Bhatt, 2008). A number of avian species communicate
with a set of acoustic signals. Each of these signals is
thought to be unique, having both its own physical structure
and its own inherent ‘messages’ and associated ‘meanings’
(Smith, 1965, 1968). Birds possess a unique repertoire of
2
Grewal, B., Harvey, B. and Pfister, O. 2002. A Photographic Guide
to the Birds of India and the Indian Subcontinent, including
Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka & The
Maldives. Berkeley Books Pte Ltd, 130 Joo Seng Road, #06-
01/03, Singapore 368357. Pp.1-512.
Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. 1998. Birds of the
Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press.
Islam, M. Z. and Rahmani, A. R. 2004. Important Bird Areas in
India: Priority sites for conservation.Indian Bird Conservation
Network: Bombay Natural History Society and BirdLife
International (UK). Pp. xviii+1133.
Kalsi, R. S. 1998. Birds of Kalesar Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana,
India. Forktail, 13(1998): 29-32.
Kazmierczak, Krys. 2000. Storks In: A field guide to the Birds of
India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and
Maldives. Om Book Service.
Manakadan, R. and Pittie, A. 2001. Standardised common and
scientific names of the birds of the Indian subcontinent.
Buceros, 6(1): i-ix + 1-37.
Rasmussen, P.C. and Anderton, J.C. 2005. Birds of South Asia.
The Ripley Guide. Vol 1 and 2. Smithsonian Institute and
Lynx Edicions, Washington D.C. and Barcelona.
Ripley, S. D. 1961. A Synopsis of the Birds of
India and Pakistan. Second edition,
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.
Silby, C. G. and Monroe, B. L. Jr. 1993. A
Checklist of Birds of the World. http://
www.earthlife.net/c-vitae.html
Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991. Checklist of Birds of Sri
Lanka, Ceylon Bird Club, Colombo.
sounds, and studies have shown that they have the ability
to use vocalizations to convey contextual information about
motivation levels (Gottfried et al., 1985).
Sound signals in birds may be divided into songs and calls.
Functionally songs that are generally produced by the male
during the breeding period, play a role in territory
establishment and maintenance and in mate attraction, while
calls are used in all seasons by both sexes and play an
important role in their social life, namely social contact,
threats and danger. These are more deeply involved than
songs with immediate issues of life and death (Geoff, 1996;
Marler, 2004). Although vocal communication has been well-
studied in songbirds, nowadays the primary focus has been
on temperate breeding season vocalizations, particularly on
complex songs (Hinde, 1969). Recently, with increasing
research on tropical wintering migrants, more is known about
communication outside the breeding season. The complexity
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
of avian social organization in the non-breeding season is
becoming apparent, with vocalizations playing an important
role (Catchpole and Slater, 1995; Kroodsma and Miller,
1996).
Sometimes individuals of certain bird species defend
territories, employing simple call-notes to advertise
territories, and more complex songs during prolonged
negotiations of territory boundaries. Songs may serve as
an indicator of a bird’s body conditions too. Vocalizations
are also important in establishment of territories, which is a
prerequisite for overwinter survival in some migrant species
of birds. Thus vocal behaviour influences local population
dynamics too (Katti, 2001).
Need for Study
Songs and calls are one of the fascinating aspects of bird
biology. Many neurobiologists, ethologists and ecologists
use bird songs as a model to understand various aspects of
phonation, sexual selection and behavioural ecology of birds.
In the Indian Subcontinent, these types of studies are
uncommon except some imperative studies in past (Katti,
2001; Kumar, 2003; Ramanujam, 2003; Setthi and Bhatt,
2008). Studies on the acoustic communication of bird
species in India, however, have been rather few as yet. Only
few Indian bird species, such as Oriental magpie robin
(Copsychus saularis), Red vented bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer),
Black headed starling (Sturnus pagodarum), Hill myna
(Gracula religiosa) and Greenish leaf warbler (Phylloscopus
trochiloides) have been studied in detail (Kumar, 2003).
Besides, India has a large number of songbirds, which are
known for their elaborate, complex and varied songs and
calls. In India, systematic studies on the structure and
sociobiological significance of bird signals are scanty and
have been carried out in only a few species (Kumar and
Bhatt, 2000, 2001; Katti, 2001; Ishtiaque and Rahmani,
2005). Thus, many Indian bird species are yet to be studied
with respect to their detailed acoustic behaviour and the
need therefore arises to fill this gap.
Till date, many Indian bird species are still waiting for a
proper study of their acoustical characterization including
Barbets. In the light of the above background, the author
planned to study the call repertoire of Coppersmith barbet.
The information retrieved (number of calls, call duration, call
frequency and time-interval / call-pause) during the present
study would be a contributory tool to previous studies on
acoustic communication and vocal signaling among selected
Indian bird species. Perhaps, the present effort will help us
to understand the calling pattern in Coppersmith barbet
(Megalaima haemacephala Muller) in detail.
Description of Species
A family of birds comprising the Asian barbets, the
Megalaimidae (Subfamily Megalaimatinae), was once united
with all other barbets in family Capitonidae (Short and Horne,
2002). There are 26 species of Asian barbets living in wooded
areas from Tibet to Indonesia including India. All the members
3
of this family are placed in the genus Megalaima, except
Fire-tufted Barbet (Psilopogon pyrolophus) and the Brown
Barbet (Calorhamphus fuliginosus) (Wikipedia, 2009a).
The Coppersmith Barbet, Crimson-breasted Barbet or
Coppersmith (Megalaima haemacephala Muller) is a sparrow-
sized bird (~17 cm), more dumpy, heavy-billed grass-green
with crimson breast and forehead, and yellow throat with
green streaked yellowish underparts; best known for its
metronomic call like a coppersmith striking a metal with a
hammer. The bird is a widespread resident of South Asia
and some parts of South-East Asia including Indian
Subcontinent; mostly inhabit dry and moist deciduous
biotopes, gardens, parks, groves and sparse open
woodlands; chisel-out a hole inside a tree to build their nests.
The species is primarily an arboreal in habit and a frugivorous
in diet, but may feed on insects too (Ali and Ripley, 1995,
1996). The red fore-head, blue head-sides, yellow eye-ring
and throat-patch with streaked underside and green
upperparts are one of the fairly distinctive characteristics of
an adult bird; while juveniles are somewhat duller and lack
the red patches on their heads (Ali, 2002; Ripley, 2005).
The sexes are alike; found solitary, in pairs, or in small
groups (loose parties); occasionally on fruiting Ficus (Banyan
and Peepul) trees, be it in a wild outlying forest or noisy
city; fond of sunning themselves in the morning on bare top
branches of tall trees; often flitting about to sit next to each
other. The flight is straight, with rapid flaps with short
truncated tail (distinctly triangular in flight silhouette)
(Wikipedia, 2009b).
Pattern of Vocalization
The call of a Coppersmith barbet is a familiar, loud,
monotonous, metallic ringing tuk…tuk…tuk (or tunk) or
resonant mechanical tok…tok…tok with a slower rate,
reminiscent of a copper-sheet being beaten by a
coppersmith, giving the bird its name; being repetitive
monotonously for longer periods, starting with a subdued
tuk and building upto an even volume and tempo; the latter
varying from 1.5 to 2.0 per second (Ali, 2002; Kazmierczak,
2000). The beak remains shut during each call - a patch of
bare skin on both sides of the throat inflates and collapses
with each tuk like a rubber bulb, with much body and tail
shaking. The bird is not very vocal in cold weather - a spell
of rain or cold immediately silences them, but it is “one of
India’s most familiar sounds in the hot season” (Grewal
et.al., 2002).
Study Area
The present observation was made at Anand Sewage-fed
Pond (ASFP), Anand, Gujarat (220 35’ 01.29’’N Latitude;
720 57’ 00.10’’ E Longitude), which is a permanent sewage
disposal site, administered by Anand Municipality for the
last 30 years; situated about 2 km away from Anand town
on its north. The entire area is adjoined by National Highway
No. 8 northwards, by outskirt fringes of Anand town on east
and south, and by lush green natural landscape westwards.
The terrestrio-aquatic landscape is endowed with four sewage
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
Fig. 1. Location map of Anand Sewage-fed Pond (ASFP),
Anand, Gujarat
bodies (segregated but canalized by interconnected
channels). It attracts many migratory waterfowls like Ducks,
Geese, Plovers, Sandpipers, Spoonbills, etc. including
Greater flamingos, which inhabits the area for about 6 to 8
months in a single annual cycle. Besides the migratory
waterbirds, many of the resident species like Cormorants,
Egrets, Herons, Ibises, Jacanas, Lapwings, Moorhens,
Stilts, Storks, Waterhens, etc. stay throughout the year.
An average depth of the entire wetland measures around 2
to 3 feet, surrounded by mixed scrub forest, wasteland,
and some intermittent patches of an agricultural land,
interspersed with permanent human settlement. The
profuse growth of scrubs and trees harbours a good number
of some resident terrestrial birds too. The entire area spans
about 4 to 5 sq km, traversed by a permanent railway line
tracks (Mumbai-Ahmedabad). The water quality of the
wetland is found to be rich in organic matter, which might
play a vital role in providing a perpetual food source to the
prevailed aquatic biota including waterbirds (Fig. 1).
Data Collection
During the early morning hours of 26th April 2009, I was
conducting an avifaunal survey around ASFP. After surveying
diverse landscapes of an area for an hour, suddenly I heard
a call of Coppersmith barbet. I focussed my binoculars (10
x 1000m, Tasco(R), Kansas, U.S.A.) through tree canopies
and covers around me to spot an individual. After a little
effort, I succeeded in locating an adult (a mature) individual
of Coppersmith barbet. The bird was perching on the most
top outer canopy of a tree viz. Ficus racemosa (Syn. Ficus
glomerata Roxb., Family - Moraceae), popularly known as
‘Cluster Fig Tree’ or ‘Goolar Fig’; native to Australasia,
South-East Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. I observed
the bird persistently for five minutes. During my observation
period, the bird was found searching for the food (probably
4
figs and insects) among branches of a tree. After feeding on
figs (and possibly insects too), it settled on a single branch
in shadowed canopy under the safe cover. Initially, it was a
bit difficult for me to trace-out the bird, but later I could manage
as the bird had reconciled itself in a perceptible spot.
After a while, the bird started calling. The entire call-period
of a bird lasted for about fifty eight minutes (07.58 to 08.56
hrs) with intermittent calls. During the calling period, the
total number of calls in each call-phase, calling period (call
duration in seconds), call-frequency (number of calls per
second) and the time-interval between two successive call-
periods (in seconds as well as in minutes) were documented.
The data was entered in MS-Excel (MS-Office 2003(R)) and
analyzed later to obtain the minimum, maximum, mean ( X )
and standard deviation (S.D.) with the help of a registered
version of MathType-52(R) (2001) (Design Science, Inc., CA,
U.S.A.). In the present article, the data on calling pattern of
Coppersmith barbet has been presented in the form of a
dependant observation, as only one individual of the bird
species was followed for the present study. During my efforts,
I could succeed in assortment of very meager data on calling
pattern of Coppersmith barbet, as the individual of a
mentioned bird species flew away distantly from the
observation spot after an hour.
Outcome
Table 1 shows that the bird (Coppersmith barbet) had
generated intermittent calls (n = 16) within a time period of
58 minutes (3480 seconds) (07.58 to 08.56 hrs), The
minimum number of calls produced by the bird was only 2
(at 8.30 hrs); while the maximum number (279) were recorded
at 8.33 hrs, with an augment of 277 calls per observation
period, which could be an indication of call-expansion
strategy (increase in the number of calls by unit time) by the
bird. Correspondingly, the minimum duration of a call was
found to be only 0.8 second, which gained peak with 118.5
seconds later, which may signify an extensive calling period
of 117.7 seconds in the form of a call-lasting phase. Similarly,
the lowest call-frequency of a birdcall was found to be only
2.05 calls per second (at 7.58 hrs), whereas the utmost peak
was exhibited by 3.08 calls per second (at 8.45 hrs), which
could be an intimation of call-lagging approach by the bird.
This observation may reveal that as the time-length increase,
so as the call-frequency (number of calls per unit time), which
may prove the interdependent relation between time and call
(Fig. 2).
During the present study, it was also interesting to note that
in-between two consecutive call-periods, the bird exhibited
a call-pause. Initially, during the peak morning hours, the
pause between two calls was consistent (120 to 180
seconds), but with the progress of time, the period of call-
pause peaked by almost 7.1 fold (1260 seconds). The least
call-pause period recorded was from 60 seconds to 120
seconds with an erratic silence by the bird with 240 to 360
seconds. The present observation may reflect the sporadic
call-pause stratagem by Coppersmith barbet irrespective of
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010 5

contiguous factors like ecology, environment and biology of
the species. During the observation period (N), in total the
bird produced 1044 calls within 453.6 seconds at an average
of 2.37 calls per second (D). The total time-interval among
all the calls was found to be 56 minutes (3360 seconds) on
a cumulative stand at an average of about 2 minutes (120
seconds) used by the bird as a spare-time for calling (Fig.
3). On an average, the studied bird (Coppersmith barbet)
was found to produce 65.25 (±70.53) calls within 58 minutes;
each call lasted for 28.4 (±30.41) seconds; 2.37 (±0.22)
calls per second, and utilization of 210 (±293.12) seconds
as a call-pause period between two succeeding call-periods
(Table 1).

Table 1. Detailed analyses on calling pattern in Coppersmith Barbet

Time No. of Calling Period Call Frequency Time Interval Time Interval
(hr.min)Calls (Secs) (Calls / Sec) (Secs) (Mins)
[am]
7.58 23 11.2 2.05 180 3
8.01 146 66.1 2.21 180 3
8.04 16 6.6 2.42 1260 21
8.25 113 49.5 2.28 120 2
8.27 77 34.0 2.26 180 3
8.30 2 0.8 2.50 60 1
8.31 114 50.0 2.28 60 1
8.32 47 20.1 2.34 60 1
8.33 279 118.5 2.35 180 3
8.36 41 18.8 2.18 120 2
8.38 24 9.9 2.42 120 2
8.44 46 19.6 2.35 360 6
8.45 4 1.3 3.08 60 1
8.49 52 22.0 2.36 240 4
8.53 31 12.9 2.40 180 3
8.56 29 12.3 2.36 0 0
N= C= c= D= T= t=
58 minutes 1044 453.6 2.37 3360 56

Min (<) 2 0.8 2.05 60 1

Max (>) 279 118.5 3.08 1260 21
Mean ( X ) 65.25 28.4 2.37 210 3.5
S.D. 70.53 30.41 0.22 293.12 4.89

N: Total duration of calling period (Minutes); C: Total number of calls; c: Total duration of calls (Seconds); D: Number of
calls per second; T: Total time-interval of all calls (Seconds); t: Total time-interval of all calls (Minutes); Min: Minimum;
Max: Maximum; S.D.: Standard Deviation

Significance
The present findings reveal some of the factual information
about the calling pattern in Coppersmith barbet. The
observations made during the present study may enrich our
knowledge regarding the communication value of calls and
signals in hole-nesting birds like Coppersmith, and be used
as supplementary information to study the interface between
behavioural, ecological and environmental factors. Such
types of studies on the bird calls (vocalizations) may be
enhanced further and promoted by ornithologists of the State
as well as the Country to facilitate research on differentiation
of sexes (based on the pattern of calls and signals by either
mate) in morphologically identical bird species like Barbets,
Cuckoos and Warblers. From the present study, it may be
inferred that the calling pattern in Coppersmith barbet is
merely an independent vocal behaviour (calls and signals),
irrespective of an adjacent environmental, ecological as well
as biological factors. In conclusion, I would like to state that
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
such types of studies are still at a premature stage in some
provinces of Indian Subcontinent, as the birdcalls create a
number of problems by themselves. Therefore, such types
of observations should be treated just as a preparatory
groundwork as a suggestive segment in the field of
ornithology in the Indian Subcontinent and its adjacent
regions.
References
Ali, S. 2002. The Book of Indian Birds. 13th Revised Edition. Oxford
University Press, Mumbai. 326 p.
Ali, S. and S.D. Ripley. 1995. A Pictorial Guide to the Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent. Bombay Natural History Society. Oxford University
Press, Mumbai.
Ali, S. and S.D. Ripley. 1996. A Pictorial Guide to the Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent. 2nd Edition. (Reprint with Corrections). Bombay Natural
History Society. Oxford University Press, Mumbai.
Catchpole, C.K. and P.J.B. Slater. 1995. Bird Song – Biological Themes
and Variations. Cambridge University Press, U.K.
Geoff, S. 1996. Bird songs and calls of Britain and northern Europe. In:
Bird Songs and Calls of Britain and Northern Europe. Harper Collins,
London,
Gottfried, B.M., K. Andrews and M. Haug. 1985. Breeding robins and nest
predators: Effect of predator type and defense strategy on initial
vocalization patterns. Wilson Bulletin. 97: 183–190.
Grewal, B., B. Harvey and O. Pfister. 2002. Photographic Guide to the
Birds of India. Periplus Editions. p. 85.
Hinde, R.A. 1969. Bird Vocalizations: Their Relations to Current Problems
in Biology and Psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Ishtiaq, F. and A.R. Rahmani. 2005. The forest owlet (Heteroglaux blewitti):
Vocalization, breeding biology and conservation. Ibis. 147: 197–205.
Katti, M. 2001. Vocal communication and territoriality during the non-
breeding season in a migrant warbler. Current Science. (Special
Section: Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve). 80 (3): 419-423.
Manuscript for publication should be sent (in duplicate) by post or courier to :
Newsletter for Birdwatchers
No 10, Sirur Park B Street, Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560 020, India.
along with a soft copy (in MS Word format only) via E-mail to <navbarat@gmail.com>
6
Kazmierczak, K. 2000. A Field Guide to the Birds of India. Pica Press,
East Sussex, U.K. 352 p.
Kroodsma, D.E. and E.H. Miller. 1996. Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic
Communication in Birds. Cornell University Press, London.
Kumar, A. 2003. Acoustic communication in birds - Differences in songs
and calls, their production and biological significance. Resonance.
(June): 44-55.
Kumar, A. and D. Bhatt. 2000. Vocal signals in a tropical avian species,
the Red vented bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer): Their characteristics
and importance. Journal of Bioscience. 25: 387–396.
Kumar, A. and D. Bhatt. 2001. Characteristics and significance of calls
in Oriental magpie robin. Current Science. 80: 77–82.
Marler, P. 2004. Bird calls: A cornucopia for communication. In: Nature’s
Music: The Science of Birdsong (Eds. Marler, P. and H. Slabbekorn.),
Elsevier, California. pp. 132–176.
Ramanujam, M.E. 2003. On the “Long call” of the Indian Great Horned or
Eagle-Owl Bubo bengalensis (Franklin). Zoos’ Print Journal. 18
(7): 1131-1134.
Ripley, S.D. 2005. Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide. Vol. 2.
Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Editions. pp. 279-280.
Setthi, V.K. and D. Bhatt. 2008. Call repertoire of an endemic avian
species, the Indian chat Cercomela fusca. Current Science. 94
(9): 1173-1179.
Short, L.L. and J.F.M. Horne. 2002. Family Capitonidae (Barbets). In:
Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 7. Jamacars to
Woodpeckers. (Eds. Del Hoyo J., A. Elliott and D.A. Christie, 2004)
(ISBN 84-87334-37-7) Lynx Editions, Barcelona.
Smith, W.J. 1965. Message, meaning and context in ethology. American
Naturalist. 99: 405–409.
Smith, W.J. 1968. Message-meaning analysis. In: Animal Communication
(Ed. Sebeok, T.A.). Indiana University Press, Bloomington pp. 44–
60.
Wikipeida. 2009a. Web source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalaimidae.
Accessed on July 5, 2009.
Wikipeida. 2009b. Web source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Coppersmith_Barbet. Accessed on July 5, 2009.
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
The “cryptic” warblers in Kanha Reserve, central India, with
a detailed commentary on identifications and modern guides
Kumar Ghorpadé, Post-Graduate Teacher & Research Associate, Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Krishi Nagar, Dharwar 580 005, Karnataka, India.E-mail: kumar.ghorpade@yahoo.in
The suggestion made of the possibility of occurrence of
Acrocephalus orinus Oberholser, 1905 (= A. macrorhynchus
Hume, 1869; Large-billed Reed-Warbler, Hume’s Reed-Warbler)
in the Kanha Tiger Reserve (Madhya Pradesh) by Raju et al.
(2009) deserved critical comment by a Systematic Ornithologist
with adequate working experience on Indian Ornithology. I make
an attempt here to do likewise, using this claim to also highlight
the seriousness of making absolutely correct identifications
based on specialist expertise and sufficient data back-up, as I
had pointed out earlier (Ghorpadé 2002a,b). See also
Himmatsinhji’s (1998) earlier comments on Ghorpadé (1998).
Hume (1869) and Oberholser (1905) have not been consulted
by me yet. As Dickinson (2003: 586) footnoted, A. orinus
Oberholser (1905: 899) was proposed as a replacement name
(nom. nov.) for A. macrorhynchus Hume (1869: 357, as
Phyllopneuste). He then (1871: 31) transferred it to Acrocephalus
which was precoccupied by an earlier identical binomen (of
Müller 1853). Dickinson also suggested orinus (Hume’s Reed
Warbler) as probably being extinct, in his World Checklist. My
doubt about A. orinus in Kanha has been vindicated by Raju et
al. (2009b) in the follow-up article with more photos but
inadequate “morphometrics”! Nothing about the 1st primary and
other more diagnostic characters to confirm A. dumetorum, this
“guess” supposedly backed up by Balakrishnan’s 28-year
expertise with live birds he has ringed thousands of “in various
parts of India.” No proof given also that the warblers illustrated
in both their articles were the same species!
With the unfortunate trend of recent times, in India particularly,
of an “ahimsa” attitude in biological sciences (no killing),
scientific enquiry and refined methodology have taken a ‘life-
threatening blow’ that hurts our expertise and ultimately our
careers and our utility to public needs and good science (see
also Prathapan et al. 2009). Replacement of in the hand
specimens by sight records (some supplemented by
photographs of variable quality) has turned serious Ornithology
(taxonomy) into a guessing game for enthusiastic amateurs
armed with binoculars, cameras and a fertile imagination to
proclaim several “new” findings for which they demand credit
and “fame.” The presumption of current amateurs and laymen,
still novices (even with their modern ‘DIY’ equipment), of their
being equal to long experienced professional scientists and
technicians, is a dangerous trend of recent decades. As also is
their nonchalant dismissal of the need for thorough research via
observation and experiment to prove theories, based on facts
industriously gathered and analysed. The Rasmussen &
Anderton (2005) guide is a distinct improvement over earlier
such ‘DIY manuals’ that were created minus scientific rigour (by
‘citation inbreeding’) or original research. When these presumed
“new, true and important” (?) amateur findings are formally
published, as was this record which is the focus of this
commentary, this in turn demands critical enquiry by real experts
trained in the techniques for decades (in classroom, laboratory,
7
library, museum, field, and scientific meetings) to confirm or
question these sight records (see also Rasmussen & Anderton
2005b, 2: 27-30). These authors also cautioned (cf ibid., 2: 19-
20) that “Study skins are essential references for bird illustrators,
because photographs do not provide necessary information on
scale and proportions, they may distort features, and they cannot
be relied on for color comparisons. Most published photographs
lack information on provenance, many are of ill-kept captives,
and photos of birds from elsewhere (and thus often different
subspecies) are often misleadingly presented in books of a
particular area. Many bird taxa for the region have never yet been
photographed” [especially all ‘races’ of each polytypic species—
K.G.]. “. . . few photographs exist for many lesser-known birds,
especially the skulking species of forest undergrowth. While
the best bird illustrators can create accurate and life-like
depictions from bird skins and photographs alone, field
experience and the sketches, notes, and photographs that
result from it are priceless” [emphasis mine—K.G.].
Bates & Lowther were our early expert bird photographers. They
wrote (1952b: xxi) something in their fine book on Kashmir’s
breeding birds which must impact current photographers of
ours. They quoted Stuart Baker as commenting that “our
knowledge of the nesting habits of nearly 12 per cent [ = ca
150± species—K.G. ] of the birds of India is still a complete
blank—an astounding proportion; while there are many more
birds about which our knowledge is incomplete, even as to the
simplest facts.” Much, he says, still remains to be learnt by our
field naturalists regarding incubation and other details. Bates
& Lowther go on to write—”Bird photographers are essentially
field naturalists and many of these required details are to be
gleaned from observation through their hiding-tents.
Unfortunately there are numbers of naturalists who never
venture into print. Would they only impart their knowledge
through some such medium . . . the percentage quoted above
would be greatly reduced if not altogether eliminated.” Bates &
Lowther (1952a) wrote also on the history of bird photography
in India, and, that other accomplished photographer, Sâlim Ali’s
close friend and benefactor, Loke Wan Tho, reviewed Bates &
Lowther’s book (Loke 1952a) on Kashmir birds and wrote on
flash photography (Loke 1952b). The obituaries of Lowther
(Bates 1952) and of Bates (Ali, 1962) are also recommended
to current birders. A note by the editors of the JBNHS (Sâlim Ali,
Setna & Santapau) then, as a tailpiece to Bates & Lowther’s
(1952a: 784) article, mentions E. Comber (1900, JBNHS 13:
279) advising long long ago that “Written descriptions of the
materials, form and structure of nests can be enormously
increased in value if supplemented by pictures of them taken
while in situ; and now that the means of taking snap-shots is
so simplified and brought to such perfection, every field
naturalist should provide himself with one.” Data on the nesting
and food of our bird species is a major requirement even today.
The “Diary on the nesting behaviour of Indian Birds” by Sathan
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
& Pandi (see review in Indian Birds 5: 56-57) could be a healthy
and welcome trend towards filling this lacuna, if the data
presented by them is credible and scientifically factual.
The data presented by Raju et al. (2009a,b) was based on
some sightings made in April-May 2008 and April 2009, by David
Raju who managed to take some photographs. These
observations were made in the Kanha reserve situated in the
SE. corner of the now curtailed Madhya Pradesh State and
located between Mandla and Balaghat to its N. and S.
respectively. As a precise indication of the biogeography of this
area, it lies in the Central Highlands area, in its eastern half
(sub-area) and more precisely in the Maikala Range—Chhota
Nagpur sub-sub-area (see Ghorpadé 2001: map) dominated
by sal forest (Shorea robusta). The river Wainganga that flows
from south to north is the biogeographical barrier that separates
the W. and E. Central Highlands sub-areas, i.e., the teak
(Tectona grandis) from sal ecosystems, respectively. Raju et
al. (2009a,b) give a few notes on measurements, coloration,
microhabitats (bamboo clumps, mango and sal trees, grass)
and calls, besides behaviour. They invited comments from
Messrs Harvey, Kennerley and Round, none of whom actually
confirmed it as A. orinus? They mentioned that “initial feedback”
suggested it as a “Clamorous Reed-Warbler.” No scientific
name was given but this now is A. stentoreus (Hemprich &
Ehrenberg), 1833, s. str.; it actually being extralimital! Then, by
a process of “elimination” they arrived at an A. orinus
“possibility.” I do not see any data which unequivocally supports
orinus; the photos of Raju et al. (2009a) show what looks like
A. brunnescens. Bates & Lowther (1952b: 118-120, pl. 29)
detailed the nesting of this species and their photo of the bird
on the nest is no different from Raju’s (note bill, tail tip, face
markings). The April 2009 sighting and trapping then led the
authors to presume the warblers to be A. dumetorum based
on Balachandran’s opinion (vide supra et infra).
Acrocephalus orinus was recently purportedly “confirmed” as
being a good species through evidence from molecular biology,
of the only type specimen, by Bensch & Pearson, 2002 (not
seen by me), a trapping in Thailand by Round et al. (2007) and
discovery of another museum specimen by Pearson et al.
(2008). The “pattern and process” of Indian Ornithology I have
imbibed (and biogeographical ‘tracks’ recognized), during my
4+ decades of bird study, makes the Thai record questionable
to me of a species which may actually be a resident West
Himalayan lower elevation one nearing extinction (or already
extinct?) through loss of habitat and competition with other
similar food searching warblers and loss of nesting
microniches? An earlier sighting, of what has been “officially
confirmed” by some ornithologists and the B.N.H.S. as A. orinus,
by Sumit K. Sen near Calcutta (Narendrapur, Chintamoni Kar
Sanctuary) on April Fool’s Day 2007 was also cited as
“supporting evidence” of probable populations of orinus being
“widespread” in India. Raju et al. (2009a) then end giving
unsupported speculations on possible migratory patterns of
orinus as well as of possible breeding, just from a single
contestable sighting, and insufficient literature review! I have
seen the Round et al. (2007) paper analyzing the molecular
biology of orinus and seemingly related species of
Acrocephalus, but their data analysis, using only DNA and
8
measurements that do not present infallible data, is still open
to question. My “Letters” dismissing the Sibley & Monroe
“revolution” in bird phylogeny (Ghorpadé 1998a,b,c) have been
vindicated ultimately (the Grimmett et al. 1999 sequence now
being negated). Pure molecular biology “characters” will not
give final conclusions on phylogeny and relationships. Richard
Dawkins (2006: 270-283) explained this DNA input in taxonomy
lucidly and how molecular resemblances mainly help clear the
“bugbear of convergence” for the taxonomist. But ‘trees’
(cladograms) possible through DNA sequencing, for that most
parsimonious (“economic meanness”), are a huge number of
possibilities (permutations and combinations) in relation to
the number of taxa used for DNA research. Cyber ‘short-cuts’
are possible to “explode large numbers” but if the other
diagnostic characters (morphological, bio-ecological,
behavioural, etc.) are not synthesized (as ‘total evidence’) along
with molecular ‘computer games,’ true relationships elude the
critical, honest biosystematist. Torsten Dikow (2009), working
on the phylogeny of robber-flies (Insecta: Diptera: Asilidae) of
the world also concluded that “a DNA sequence study based
on limited exemplars of a hyperdiverse insect taxon is a
misguided exercise.” Dawkins (2006: 275) wrote that “taxonomy
was one of the most rancorously ill-tempered of biological fields”
and that his late bete noire, Stephen Gould, had characterized
taxonomy with the phrase “names and nastiness.” But, as a
long serving member of this “beleaguered band of brothers,
like the early Christians” (Dawkins op cit.) I do not trust or depend
only upon DNA sequencing (which protein is best?); the
biogeography and evohistory, besides others mentioned
above, must also be analysed in conjunction. The best proof of
common ancestry (evolutionary relationship) is derived from
the maximum number of characters shared by two taxa (species
or higher). DNA sequences are not necessarily “the gospel
documents of all life” (Dawkins op cit., p. 272) and we need to
learn to decipher them better, using all other diagnostic
characters also possible (an ‘omnispective classification’) to
unravel the mystery and timetable of evolution and speciation,
using only still living species and devoid of a host of ‘missing
links’ that are now extinct. Hence, I am still unconvinced that
orinus is a valid species and not based on a possibly aberrant,
sole, type specimen (data on the Mussoorie specimen being
not available yet to me, presented by Pearson et al. 2008).
Further searches in the type-locality area (Western Himalaya
biogeographical sub-area) for living populations (?) of “orinus”
need to be carried out.
Let us now put down the actual facts with respect to A. orinus
and investigate the truth of the matter. Our “Father” of Indian
Ornithology, the celebrated A.O. Hume, first stumbled upon this
enigmatic, rare, species of reed warbler when he collected a
single specimen at Rampur (ca 31º 26’ N., 77º 37’ E.; NE. of
Simla) located in the valley of the Sutlej river, then in the Punjab
States of British India, and now in Himachal Pradesh, on 13th
November 1867 (not “2007” as misprinted in Raju et al., 2009a:
130). The DNA analysis by Bensch & Pearson (2002), the finding
of another specimen of orinus in the Tring Museum (England)
from Mussoorie (misplaced with A. dumetorum, Blyth’s Reed
Warbler specimens) taken in October 1869 (vide Pearson et al.
2008) and the trapping of a single live specimen in Thailand
(Round et al. 2007) are the only subsequent, tenuous, “hard” (?)
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010 9
data. The sighting by Sen near Calcutta is yet another “soft” centenary falls this coming Christmas day).
record that must be corroborated with examination of specimens
My own most reliable literature sources today are the 2-volume
from that area (at least trapped and released) if it occurs again
abridged account of Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), which has
and may be has populations there also (of brunnescens ? see
accurate paintings (most plates, though 2-dimensional) and
Saha et al. 1971). Accidental, ‘vagrant’ records of species outside
expert synoptic summaries taken mostly from the 10-volume
of their normal ranges (freaks, accidents) are scientifically
Indian Handbook (Ali & Ripley 1968-1974) which latter is still
insignificant, and unimportant data, please note. No taxonomic
the most comprehensive tome to date and dependable,
diagnostic characters have been specified anywhere for A. orinus,
trustworthy. The ‘Ripley Guide’ now admirably supplements
even though Sen listed nine which could apply to other
and updates that masterpiece, though the maps are sadly
Acrocephalus species also. Rasmussen & Anderton (2005: 493)
restrictive, too careful and excluding (but see Rasmussen &
however highlight that orinus is “very large billed . . . russet-
Anderton 2005, 2: 26-27, and Rasmussen 2005a for an
brown above with weak whitish lores . . . bill longer and broader
explanation). Then, as a quick taxon check, Ripley’s (1982)
[than Blyth’s—K.G.] with entirely swollen [emphasis mine—K.G.]
New Synopsis gives me an instant checklist of our avifauna,
lower mandible. And that the holotype has “wing rounded,
my copy extensively penciled with changes in nomenclature,
suggesting it is not a long distance migrant . . . perhaps endemic.”
and other “addenda, errata, corrigenda.” But, being a trained
The best indication of specific diagnostics for orinus is the scientist myself, the most reliable and essential “printed tools”
painting by Lewington in Rasmussen & Anderton (2005, 1: 305, are original papers and notes published during the last 250
pl. 147, fig. 1). This shows a distinctly different looking years which Aasheesh Pittie has so admirably and painstakingly
Acrocephalus, like A. aedon, the Thick-billed Warbler, also is compiled as a CD database. I also thank him for drawing my
(ibid., pl. 146, fig. 7) and keeps open the possibility of orinus attention to Helbig & Seibold (1999), and helping with some
being a valid living (or extinct ?) species. Unless we have more other literature relevant to this commentary.
specimens, a working series, one can never be sure basing
Then, apart from summary data in books, the original papers
(or assuming) facts on a single specimen. The other specimen
(in series of several parts) I consult for, especially, taxonomic
from Mussoorie (see Pearson et al. 2008) may help but not
background and analyses of species, are the works of Hugh
much information is available on that. Phylogenetic,
Whistler & Norman Kinnear (Eastern ‘Ghats’ survey, 17 parts,
biogeographical, and evohistorical analyses of Indian bird
JBNHS Vols 34-39; 1930, 1932-1937) which are a
genera (and higher taxa) remain undone and limited, and
comprehensive base for peninsular Indian birds; and then of
therefore our comprehension of the “pattern and process” of
Biswamoy Biswas (Birds of Nepal, 12 parts, JBNHS 57-60, 63;
Indian Ornithology lies dormant and poorly understood even
1960-1964, 1967) for Himalayan and continental Indian
today, though Hugh Whistler did have some clue (see Whistler,
species; and of Humayun Abdulali (BNHS bird catalogue, 41
quoted in Ghorpadé 2002b: 14-15).
parts, JBNHS 65-102; 1968-2005, the last few parts completed
What data do we have in published literature? Raju et al. by S. Unnithan) for an all-India taxonomic perspective. Of the A.
(2009a) do not attempt any review save cite two recent stentoreus species-group, Abdulali (1986) had little material
supplementary records published this century based on (31 ex. of brunnescens, 3 ex. of amyae) and he was very hazy
specimens observed, live or dead. Disinterest in a about real identities. But of brunnescens the BNHS bird
comprehensive literature review is another unfortunate lacuna collection has material from Baluchistan, Pakistan, Kashmir to
I notice in most modern bird watchers here—who remain only Gujarat and Bombay (perhaps a breeding population exists in
that . . . “watchers.” Their ammunition now are the many colourful mangroves there?). Abdulali also measured some 90
Guides ‘manufactured’ for rank novice amateurs (e.g., Grimmett specimens of A. dumetorum and his tail length data was more
et al. 1999 and regional ‘spinoffs’; Kazmierczak 2000, etc.) that wide (47-56mm) and covers the data given for the three trapped
offer only eclectic, summarized, bird data in our subcontinent examples in April 2009 (viz., 54-57mm) and answers the
with colour paintings that differ from book to book and cannot question at the end of that article.
be relied upon for specific, accurate IDs. These especially of
Incidentally, the BNHS collection needs to be added to and made
what still continue to be called “subspecies,” even if they inhabit
‘complete’ as Abdulali had dreamt of and had urged a try, through
distinct allopatric ranges separated by geographical ‘barriers’
exchanges with the Tring Museum in England and others, or by
and so remain reproductively isolated (e.g., the case of Darwin’s
gifts and further sampling. But the current legal hassles in India
Galapagos finches, etc., revelation), besides exhibiting clear
are an unfair and irritating obstacle to taxonomy and science.
diagnostic characters even if these are ‘minute’ and difficult to
The other major bird collection with the Zoological Survey of
confirm without “hard” specimens in the hand (cf Ghorpadé
India, Calcutta is still uncatalogued, though a couple of parts
2002b,c, 2004a). “A bird in the hand is worth . . . . .” As Arthur
were published decades ago (see Roonwal 1941, 1947 in
Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, had the latter
Rasmussen & Anderton 2005: 638). Abdulali (1986: 142) did
quip about the significance of the “observation of trifles . . .”
not list any specimens of the Ceylonese meridionalis (type-
Older ornithologists had, however, treated these current “races”
locality is Jaffna) but mentioned specimens of brunnescens from
as good species and Pamela Rasmussen (2005b) has finally,
Hyderabad, Orissa, Kolaba, Ratnagiri and Kerala, these having
but hesitatingly (?), begun un-lumping many bird ‘species’ here
“a slight rufous wash above and also on the underparts.” He
burdened with many so-called subspecies, this surmised
could not find any “differences” in the amyae specimens from
infraspecific category created by Ernst Hartert and others of
NE. India and Burma, but the populations in the Indochinese
the Rothschild ‘gang,’ a century ago (see Stresemann 1975:
peninsula across the Irrawaddy river barrier should be a different
250-268, also read about the great R.B. Sharpe, whose death
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
species. Biswas (1962: 411) found no more specimens of
brunnescens (or amyae, a synonym?) from Nepal other than
Hodgson’s collection made long ago. Whistler & Kinnear (1933:
561) also received no specimens of this reed warbler from the
Eastern “Ghats” (I have proposed “Droogs” for these old hills
which are not true ghats) survey but mentioned seeing material
from Malabar, Coorg, Kollegal, Travancore, Wynaad and
Vijayawada (Kolleru Lake). They also observed that the number
of tail feathers in the “warbler group” had “unsatisfactory
importance” and “obscures their relationships.” This reed warbler
has been seen all over our peninsula.
My present location, Dharwar, has brought my focus on the
relevant papers dealing with the birds of this little-studied area,
and these old writings carry sumptuous, detailed, introductory
pages enthralling one with the character of the country surveyed!
Capt. E.A. Butler (1881: 405) summarized data on Acrocephalus
“stentorius,” Large Reed Warbler, in the Deccan and South
Mahratta Country thus: “Cold weather visitant. Rare. Affects
reed-beds, sugarcane fields, and standing crops” where it
catches its insect prey, obviously. Earlier, the Rev. S.B. Fairbank
(1876: 259) found “A. stentorius [sic!] (= brunnescens)” in
Ahmednagar among rushes. Vidal (1880: 67) recorded it in the
south Konkan at Malvan, Vengurla and Khed. Anand Prasad
(2003: 125), a pseudonym or pen-name of this Englishman, in
an excellent compendium of the “W. Maharashtra” bird literature,
writes about Acrocephalus stentoreus as “a fairly common winter
visitor throughout, with at least some breeding occurring” [nests
found on Tapti river in Dhulia district and these probable in the
Bombay area, breeding season from May to August. Migratory
dates range from 9th November to 24th March in Poona district
(see also Davidson 1881)—K.G.]. Perhaps the most industrious
and focused recent research on the birds of a selected area, for
a long time, in peninsular India, is the labour of my friend Heinz
Lainer (2004) in Goa. About “A. stentoreus” he writes (p. 183)
that it is a fairly common winter visitor to coastal regions mainly
and “strongly bound to the vicinity of water.” He says it “kept
always solitary” and dates recorded span 10th October and 5th
April in the 20± years of his observations in that State. Ticehurst
(1926a: 496) commenting on Stuart Baker’s New Fauna volumes
(2nd edn) doubted the occurrence of amyae in Sind (now in
Pakistan), these being breeding birds recorded there, but
supported Baker’s opinion that “more breeding birds are required
to elucidate the two forms (brunnescens and amyae). So, we
now need to find these great reed warblers nesting in India and
gather original data. Any orinus breeding still in the Sutlej valley
? Need to investigate.
A careful review of the pertinent literature at hand on this A.
orinus question has turned up the following results of my
taxonomic analysis. What is the position of the genus
Acrocephalus J.A. & J.F. Newmann, 1811, in our subregion ?
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005: 489) write “Some species lack
obvious diagnostic field marks making identification
treacherous.” Both the Indian Handbook and the Ripley Guide,
excellent works, recognize 11-15 species and “subspecies” in
this subcontinent. Dickinson (2003: 583-586) lists 32 species
and 86 taxa (i.e., including “subspecies”) in all from the world.
The most closely related genera, phylogenetically (?) are
Hippolais Conrad von Baldestein, 1827, and Phragmaticola
10
Jerdon, 1845 (vide Helbig & Seibold 1999). But, the definitive
“taxonomic revision” of this species-complex of “Great Reed-
Warblers” is the perhaps little known (at least rarely cited) but
taxonomically supreme analysis of Stresemann (Sâlim Ali’s
“guru”) & Arnold (1949). The first four paragraphs of this review
paper summarize the taxonomic problems and ‘concepts’ (e.g.,
Rassenkreis), and the text, with revealing maps, recognizes 1)
Acrocephalus arundinaceus (Linnaeus), 1758 (W. Palaearctic,
winters in subsaharan Africa; “race” zarudnyi Hartert, 1907 once
taken in N. Baluchistan), 2) A. orientalis (Temminck & Schlegel),
1847 (E. Palaearctic, winters in Indo-China, Malaysia, Indonesia,
N. Australia), 3) A. stentoreus (Hemprich & Ehrenberg), 1833,
s. str. (Egypt, Sinai, the Levant, Eritrea), 4) A. brunnescens
(Jerdon), 1839 (Middle East to the Indian subcontinent, “large,
pale”; with races amyae Stuart Baker, 1922 in NE. India, “rich;”
and meridionalis (Legge), 1875 in Sri Lanka, “small, dark;”
some winter in India and Sri Lanka?)—the quotes are from
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005, 1: 302). Incidentally, A. orinus
is not in this species-group at all! Though Ali & Ripley (1973),
Ripley (1982) and Abdulali (1986) surprisingly and erroneously
listed it as A. (stentoreus) orinus, which Baker (1924) did not,
nor did Rasmussen & Anderton (2005, see also above). The
checklist of Inskipp et al. (1996) I found very disappointing
taxonomically, for example note their considering orinus as a
synonym of dumetorum (?), on the authority of Clive Byers!
Even though Vaurie (1955, Amer. Mus. Novit., # 1753, pp. 1-19)
had stated that orinus was closer to agricola and concinens,
not dumetorum. Round et al. (2007) again being inconclusive.
But see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005: 493) and Bensch &
Pearson (2002). Stresemann & Arnold’s paper will educate
readers adequately about problems in correct IDs of these
reed warblers. They also stated that these reed warblers “are
in all probability descendants of some group of bush-haunting
warblers (closely related to the present genus Hippolais)”—
Iduna Keyserling & Blasius, 1840 is now proposed to include
our rama (Sykes), 1832, caligata (Lichtenstein), 1823 and
pallida elaeica (Lindenmayer), 1843. Only languida (Hemprich
& Ehrenberg), 1833 remains in Hippolais here.
Acrocephalus brunnescens was named for populations in our
north-west and the Himalayas which birds (“considerably larger
and paler”—Rasmussen & Anderton 2005: 492; see also notes
on “Taxonomy: further study needed.”) are migrants. The type-
locality however is “Carnatic, near Trichinopoly” so the holotype
was a migrant bird? But some others as well were ‘lumped’
sedentary (so being short winged?) ones resident (?) in central
and peninsular India and Sri Lanka. Whistler (1931) presented
a comprehensive account of the brunnescens group in our
subcontinent. And the editors had added Sâlim Ali’s notes on a
great reed warbler nesting in mangroves off Bombay. Whistler
concluded that it was difficult to define the status of the “Indian
Great Reed-Warbler” accurately, in the absence of more local
records and that movements are dependant on rainfall received
and presence of reed beds in every locality. He ended “Whilst
in parts of India the bird is a resident or a local migrant there is
a great influx of winter visitors from Kashmir and the extralimital
breeding range away to Transcaspia.” The taxonomy of this
group is still unresolved; the wide range and their breeding in
reeds as well as in mangroves (see Stresemann & Arnold 1949)
suggests a species-complex probably now ‘lumped’ as
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
brunnescens (earlier believed to be stentoreus). The Kerala
population could well be the Ceylonese meridionalis as
Dickinson (2003: 584) and Rasmussen & Anderton (2005:
492) indicated? Ali & Whistler (1936) confirmed meridionalis
but that brunnescens being resident in Kerala (specimens
from Kottayam, Kumili, Vembanad Lake and Karupadanna) or
not they felt was doubtful. They had specimens from near
Periyar ‘lake’ (actually a dam) taken on 7th March as the latest
wintering (?) date. They also wrote that after moult in September
the birds looked grey on top, later becoming duller and browner.
P.V. George (1961) recorded regular nesting (5 nests) in
Vembanad Lake near Trivandrum in August 1971 and Sâlim
Ali (?) in an editorial note wrote that the single specimen
collected by George did not permit racial identification though
A. s. meridionalis (Legge) [sic!] was known to be resident in
Ceylon (Legge 1873, 1875). J. George (1994) had a note on
A. stentoreus stating that “A nest has been observed in July”
and that it is an uncommon breeding resident around
Bangalore. Whistler (1944: 170-171) noted that meridionalis
was a low country bird in both dry and wet zones in Ceylon.
Specimens available to him made him write “there may be a
small and very dark Ceylonese race” and that brunnescens is
“common in Travancore.” Saha et al. (1971) also found nests
of brunnescens in the Salt Lakes near Calcutta from May to
September (see also photographs). Chowdhury & Chowdhury
(2005) listed a “stentoreus” winter visiting Narendrapur Wildlife
Sanctuary near Calcutta which is also brunnescens. Baker
(1924: 390) wrote of brunnescens—”this form of stentoreus is
a true migrant, leaving the plains of India in the end of April and
breeding in the Himalayas in the lakes and swamps between
6,000 and 10,000 feet,” and being “not gregarious.” Sâlim Ali
(1969: 363-364) later implied that brunnescens in Kerala was
resident and it was common in winter as migrant populations
arrived there. He also wrote “Presumably also nesting in
Khandesh, Central India and the neighbourhood of Bombay
city” which should be important news to discoverers of “orinus.”
A. brunnescens has been recorded as occurring and breeding
in many parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (Whymper 1908,
Osmaston 1913, Currie 1916, Field 1922) and, of course, in
the far north-west (Whitehead 1909, Ticehurst 1922a, 1926b).
Sonagrams of populations in different parts of India may offer
clues to proper IDs and species names, as Pamela
Rasmussen has responsibly initiated and demonstrated here
(see Rasmussen & Anderton 2005, 1: 22-25). The Clamorous
Reed Warbler is A. stentoreus (s. str.) and this has very loud
calls and lives in colonies before local dispersal in winter.
The single Acrocephalus bird seen in a broad leaved tree very
high up by Raju could in fact be brunnescens which is “The
only large reed-warbler likely in most of region” (Rasmussen
& Anderton 2005: 492). Good work Raju but note that there is
plenty more to do to understand this species-complex of
Acrocephalus here, as I am attempting to demonstrate. Need
disciplined database acquisition by all you birders (see also
the advice by Ticehurst 1922b)! Raju et al. (2009b) imply that
the warblers they trapped, photographed and measured could
be A. dumetorum. But no mention of the first primary feather,
which is diagnostic for this species. I also see no proof that
the warblers seen and photographed in 2008 and 2009 are
one and the same species! The 2009b paper birds look like
Sykes’ Tree Warbler (Iduna rama) and except for the long
11
undertail coverts they fit the diagnostics given in Rasmussen &
Anderton (2005: 494-495).
Here above I have given most of the interesting data known
about brunnescens for readers to imbibe and then understand
my analysis. Our greatest south Indian ornithologist, T.C. Jerdon
(1863: 155) wrote : “It frequents high reeds and grasses, high
grain fields and gardens, where it hunts . . . makes its way
adroitly through thick grass or bushes, concealing itself when
observed and being with difficulty driven out.” The excellent pair
of volumes by T.J. Roberts on The Birds of Pakistan are very
knowledgeably compiled and he writes of brunnescens that
single males on passage are found calling and singing well
inside cover, are usually silent while foraging but make harsh
loud calls “chak, chak” when disturbed. Found in unusual
localities like suburban gardens in late April and early May. When
present in hundreds in reed beds in waterbodies they make an
immense cacophony of noise.
With my volunteer “student” Riyazuddin I recently observed a
fairly large colony of brunnescens in the large D.C. Road tank
just outside Cuddapah town (in Andhra Pradesh). Riyazuddin
had first seen a single brunnescens hunting insects on a
Pongamia tree on D.C. Road tank bund on 16th October 2007.
Then from 14th to 18th December 2007 both of us noticed 100+
birds in bulrushes there, making loud calls at dusk. Later
Riyazuddin kept observing this reed-warbler (from 2-50 birds)
all through January and February to 12th March 2008 in two tanks
on the outskirts of Cuddapah town. I also found that Riyazudin’s
earlier bird notes (given to me for our forthcoming Cuddapah
district avifauna paper) indicated that he saw this reed-warbler
at the D.C. Road and Ontimitta tanks, and Poltal jungle, as way
back as 9th October 1992 and then in October and November
1993 and 1995. These were single birds seen in damp areas,
reed beds, Acacia trees, and bushes, but rarely. Ali & Ripley
(1973: 103) had incidentally noted that “On passage may be
seen in dry situations (acacia jungle, cultivation, etc.).” Bharat
Bhushan (1994) listed it in his thesis on Eastern Ghats
Ornithology but gave no specific localities or any other data,
apart from names and numbers (see Ghorpadé 2004b). Ours
hence appears to be the first record (12 sightings: 9.x.1992 to
12.iii.2008) of A. brunnescens in Andhra Pradesh south of
Hyderabad and the Godavari and Krishna river deltas (see
maps). A file sent online to me by Santharam is a checklist of
birds (by V. Santharam & S. Rangaswami) seen in Rishi Valley
School in Chittoor district, near Madanapalle, up until August
2004, and includes “Acrocephalus stentoreus” but with no further
data. Riyazuddin and I have surveyed Cuddapah district
extensively during the past 17 years for bird species (Ghorpadé,
2004a,b) and now have a large manuscript in preparation for
publication (Ghorpadé & Riyazuddin, in prep.) which will
announce several new species records from Rayalseema,
including many of the Yellow-throated Bulbul (Pycnonotus
xantholaemus) as well, from yet undocumented locations.
Kazmierczak (2000: 252, map 5, pl. 146), who has given the
best maps, complete but uncritical, says these reed warblers
are difficult to identify and the main diagnostic characters are
the head pattern, tone of upperparts, primary projection and
voice. Raju’s photos show all white underparts and the lower
bill variously pale or dark at tip. The single bird seen high up in
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
broad leaved trees and in bamboo brakes may be significant
microhabitat ‘evidence.’ Raju must attempt to search for other
warblers’ nesting sites now near waterbodies in Kanha and at
least a small colony must be around using suitable selected
microhabitats for feeding and perhaps breeding also? A.
brunnescens has also been recorded near the Salt Lakes,
Calcutta and Sen can do more footwork there to search for
colonies and possible breeding. Even if orinus is not confirmed,
more data on brunnescens (complex?) would be very welcome,
especially nesting records and calls.
My own educated analysis—one cannot be certain without
examination of specimens—is that what David Raju (2009a
and Sumit Sen?) saw were in all probability A. brunnescens
(Indian Reed Warbler, Jerdon’s Reed Warbler; not Clamorous
Reed Warbler!) which is again still a theoretically ‘lumped’
species-complex here needing more intensive taxonomic
research based on series of specimens. Raju et al. (2009b)
pictures are also not conclusive for A. dumetorum and the form
of the first primary feather would have settled the matter if the
authors had known (?) of its importance and let readers know.
Precise identifications generally require voluminous research
bases, deep study, a series of specimens, and this is not
realized by non-taxonomists and amateur bird spotters and
clickers, or even economic entomologists, who demand instant
IDs and presume all of these easy to do (‘DIY’) just with guides
and photographs today. Similarly, ‘instant’ online solutions or
answers to impatient ‘chatters’ and net-savvy (‘-trapped’ ?)
birders is not possible for us specialists because every question
or problem requires much re-‘search,’ which takes a lot of time
that we cannot provide or find outside of our ongoing projects
and personal study goals. And this Q & A is expected to be
done ‘free.’ Science is not a quickfix job, my good birders, do try
and understand. Ornithology is a serious Science; ‘birding’
just a game (or weekend pastime), as are now plentifully being
‘sold’ on the idiot-box and cyber software. Whistler and Abdulali
had recognized the anthesis long ago, with caution.
There are several other references on this species-group (see
e.g., Williamson 1968, Svensson 1992) that could offer more
insight, but one thing is clear: the identifications in this taxon
are so very difficult, needing specimens for study and
documentation, that presuming confirmation of A. orinus or
dumetorum through a few inadequate photographs and
insufficient data backed up by non-specialist taxonomists without
work experience (see above) in this particular genus or species-
group (this is essential in taxonomy) appears unfortunate to
me. Why is there such a hurry? More observations and collecting
of at least two specimens for study (this should be permitted by
the MoEF), and observation of behaviour, recording of calls,
microhabitat selection, nidification requirements, and
photographs showing clear diagnostics, would give us all a
better chance of confidently arriving at, not hesitatingly stumbling
upon (by democratic voting!), the correct determination.
Great to see such field work being done, and published, though
(a promising trend) but scientific back-up is sadly missing.
Toiling field ornithologists in British India (Hodgson, Jerdon,
Hume, Baker, Sâlim Ali, etc.) then had the back-up (by surface
post only!) of scholarly specialists in London (Blanford, Oates,
Sharpe, Ticehurst, Whistler, etc.), in Calcutta (e.g., Blyth,
12
Biswas), or in Bombay (Kinnear, later only Abdulali—‘the last of
the Mohicans’), with adequate resources (collection, literature)
and equipment. Currently the situation in the Indian sub-
continent is pathetic, and no comparison. ‘DIY’ being the magic
‘mantra’ now for anybody and everybody—‘the . . . blind men
and the elephant.’
References
Abdulali, H. 1986. A Catalogue of the Birds in the Collection of the
Bombay Natural History Society—30. Muscicapidae (Sylviinae). J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 83: 130-163.
Ali, S. 1962. OBITUARY: Lieut.-Col. R.S.P. Bates, I.A., (Retd.). J. Bombay
nat. Hist. Soc., 59: 271-274, pl.
Ali, S. 1969. Birds of Kerala. xix+444pp. Oxford University Press,
Madras and London.
Ali, S. & Ripley, S.D. 1973. Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan,
together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Sri
Lanka. Volume 8, xvi+277 pp., 8 pls, 57 figs, 67 maps. Oxford
University Press, London, Bombay, New York.
Ali, S. & Whistler, H. 1936. The Ornithology of Travancore and Cochin.
Part IV. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 38: 484-514.
Baker, E.C.S. 1924. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and
Burma. Volume II, xxiii+561 pp., 8 pls, 86 figs.
Bates, R.S.P. 1952. OBITUARY: E.H.N. Lowther. J. Bombay nat. Hist.
Soc., 50: 913-914, pl.
Bates, R.S.P. & Lowther, E.H.N. 1952a. The history of bird-photography
in India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 50: 779-784, 7 pls.
Bates, R.S.P. & Lowther, E.H.N. 1952b. Breeding Birds of Kashmir.
xxiii+367 pp., 5 col. pls, 80 halftone pls (151 photos). Oxord
University Press, London.
Bensch, S. & Pearson, D.J. 2002. The Large-billed Reed Warbler
Acrocephalus orinus revisited. Ibis, 144: 259-267.
Bhushan, B. 1994. Ornithology of the Eastern Ghats. 284 pp. Ph.D.
thesis submitted to the University of Bombay, India.
Biswas, B. 1962. The Birds of Nepal. Part 7. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc.,
59: 405-429.
Butler, E.A. 1881. A Tentative Catalogue of the Birds of the Deccan and
South Mahratta Country. Stray Feathers, 9: 367-442.
Currie, A.J. 1916. Some Birds found in the Gurdaspur District, Punjab. J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 24: 601-605.
Davidson, J. 1881. Rough list of the Birds of western Khandesh. Stray
Feathers, 10: 279-527.
Dawkins, R. 2006. The Blind Watchmaker. xxi+340 pp. Penguin Books,
London. [Chapter 10—The One True Tree of Life, pp. 255-284].
Dickinson, E.C. 2003. The Howard and Moore complete Checklist of the
Birds of the World. 1039 pp. Princeton University Press, Princeton
& Oxford.
Fairbank, S.B. 1876. List of Birds collected in the vicinity of Khandala,
Mahabaleshwar, and Belgaw, along the Sahyadri Mountains, and
near Ahmednagar in the Dakhan. Stray Feathers, 4: 250-268.
Field, F. 1922. Rough list and notes on the Birds found breeding in the
Gonda District, Oudh. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 28: 753-772.
George, J. 1994. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Bangalore. (v)+92
pp. Birdwatchers’ Field club of Bangalore.
George, P.V. 1962. On the Indian Great Reed Warbler, Acrocephalus
stentoreus (Hemprich & Ehrenberg) breeding in Kerala. J. Bombay
nat. Hist. Soc., 58: 797-798.
Ghorpadé, K. 1998a. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—12.
Pitta 81: 3-4.
Ghorpadé, K. 1998b. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—13.
Pitta 82: 3-4.
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50 (1), 2010
Ghorpadé, K. 1998c. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—14.
Pitta 83: 3-4.
Ghorpadé, K. 1998d. Commentary by a Bird-watching Naturalist—2.
Lists, Records and Horsley Hills Ornithology. Newsletter for
Birdwatchers, 38(3): 53-54.
Ghorpadé, K. 2001. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—44.
Pitta 122-123: 3-4, map.
Ghorpadé, K. 2002a. A question of identity—of Bulbuls and Bush Larks.
Newsletter for Birdwatchers, 42: 117-118.
Ghorpadé, K. 2002b. An Open Letter to the Editors of Buceros on
species limits in Indian sub-continent birds. Humea (field ornithology),
3: 1-29, map.
Ghorpadé, K. 2002c. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—57.
Pitta 140: 3-6, map.
Ghorpadé, K. 2004a. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—64.
Proemial account of bird surveys made on and around the Eastern
Ghats near Cuddapah: Part I. Pitta (n.s) 1(4): 3-6.
Ghorpadé, K. 2004b. Letter from an Insect-hunting Ornithologist—65.
Proemial account of bird surveys made on and around the Eastern
Ghats near Cuddapah: Part II. Pitta (n.s) 1(7): 3-5.
Ghorpadé, K. & Riyazuddin, S. in prep. The Ornithology of Cuddapah
district, peninsular India. Parts I-X.
Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. & Inskipp, T. 1999. A Guide to the Birds of India,
Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
888 pp., 153 col. pls, maps, figs. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Helbig, A.J. & Seibold, I. 1999. Molecular Phylogeny of Palearctic-African
Acrocephalus and Hippolais Warblers (Aves: Sylviidae). Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 11: 246-260, 3 figs.
Himmatsinhji, M.K. 1998. Some observations of a bird enthusiast.
Newsletter for Birdwatchers, 38: 78-79. [with an Editor’s footnote
that is completely wrong!—K.G.]
Hume, A.O. 1869. [Untitled]. Ibis, 2(5): 355-357.
Hume, A.O. 1871. [Untitled]. Ibis, 4: 31.
Inskipp, T., Lindsey, N. & Duckworth, W. 1996. An Annotated Checklist
of the Birds of the Oriental Region. (x)+294 pp. Oriental Bird Club,
Sandy (U.K.).
Jerdon, T.C. 1863. The Birds of India, being a natural history of all the
birds known to inhabit continental India. Volume 2, Part 1, iv+439 pp.
Kazmierczak, K. 2000. A Field Guide to the Birds of India, Sri Lanka,
Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. 352 pp.,
96 pls, illus. Om Book Service, New Delhi.
Lainer, H. 2004. Birds of Goa. A reference book. ii+244 pp., map, figs.
The Goa Foundation, Mapusa.
Legge, W.V. 1873. Additions to the Avifauna of Ceylon. Stray Feathers,
1: 487-492.
Legge, W.V. 1875. Notes on Ceylonese Ornithology and Oology, with
additions to the Avifauna of the island. Stray Feathers, 3: 361-378.
Loke, W.T. 1952a. BOOK REVIEW: Breeding Birds of Kashmir. J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 50: 644-646.
Loke, W.T. 1952b. Photographing birds with the highspeed flash. J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 50: 785-786, 5 pls.
Oberholser, H.C. 1905. Birds collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott in the
Kilimanjaro Region, East Africa. Proc. U.S. natn Mus., 28: 823-936.
Osmaston, A.E. 1913. The Birds of Gorakhpur. J. Bombay nat. Hist.
Soc., 22: 532-549.
Prasad, A. 2003. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Western Maharashtra.
Buceros, 8(2+3): 1-174.
Prathapan, K.D., Rajan, P.D. & Poorani, J. 2009. Protectionism and Natural
History research in India. Current Science, 97: 1411-1413.
13
Raju, D., Praveen, J. & Prince, M. 2009. A possible record of Large-billed
Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus orinus from Kanha Tiger Reserve,
central India. Indian Birds, 4: 130-132, 6 figs.
Rasmussen, P.C. 2005a. On producing Birds of South Asia. Indian
Birds, 1: 50-56.
Rasmussen, P.C. 2005b. Biogeographic and conservation implications
of revised species limits and distributions of south Asian birds. Zool.
Med., Leiden, 79: 137-146, 3 figs.
Rasmussen, P.C. & Anderton, J.C. 2005. Birds of South Asia. The
Ripley Guide. Volumes 1 & 2, 378 + 683 pp., illus., 180 col. pls.
Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Editions, Washington, DC and
Barcelona.
Ripley, S.D. 1982. A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan, together
with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Sri Lanka.
xxvi+653 pp. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.
Roberts, T.J. 1992. The Birds of Pakistan. Volume 2. Passeriformes:
Pittas to Buntings. xxxv+617 pp. maps 286-568, figs 1-16, pls 24-
47. Oxford University Press, Karachi & Oxford.
Round, P.D., Hansson, B., Pearson, D.J., Kennerley, P.R. & Bensch, S.
2007. Lost and found: the enigmatic large-billed reed warbler
Acrocephalus orinus rediscovered after 139 years. J. Avian Biol.,
38: 133-138, 2 figs.
Saha, S.S., George, P.V., Ghosal, D.K., Mookerjee, H.P., Poddar, A.K.,
Ghose, R.K., Das, P.K., Gogate, V.G. & Biswas, B. 1971. Notes on
some interesting birds from the Salt Lakes, near Calcutta. J. Bombay
nat. Hist. Soc., 68: 455-457, 2 pls.
Sen, S.K. 2007. Rediscovery. Large-billed Reed Warbler. http://
www.kolkatabirds.com/orinus.htm.
Stevens, H. 1924. Notes on the Birds of the Sikkim Himalayas. Part III. J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 29: 1007-1030.
Stresemann, E. 1975. Ornithology from Aristotle to the present. xii+432
p. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (U.S.A.). [ Original
German edition publ. 1951]
Stresemann, E. & Arnold, J. 1949. Speciation in the group of Great
Reed-Warblers. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 48: 428-443, 6 figs, pl.
Ticehurst, C.B. 1922a. The Birds of Sind. Ibis, Ser. 11, 4(3): 526-572.
Ticehurst, C.B. 1922b. Bird collectors in India. J. Bombay nat. Hist.
Soc., 28: 790-791.
Ticehurst, C.B. 1926a. Some notes on the second edition of the Fauna
of British India—Birds, Vols. I and II. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 31:
490-499.
Ticehurst, C.B. 1926b. The Birds of British Baluchistan. Part I. J.
Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 31: 687-711.
Vidal, G.W. 1880. First List of the Birds of the South Konkan. Stray
Feathers, 9: 1-96.
Whistler, H. 1931. The Indian Great Reed-Warbler [Acrocephalus
stentoreus brunnescens (Jerdon)]. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 35:
450-454.
Whistler, H. 1944. The Avifaunal Survey of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica,
23(3+4): 119-321.
Whistler, H. & Kinnear, N.B. 1933. The Vernay scientific survey of the
Eastern Ghats (Ornithological Section). Part V. J. Bombay nat.
Hist. Soc., 36: 561-590.
Whitehead, C.H.T. 1909. On the Birds of Kohat and Kurram, northern
India. Ibis, Ser. 9, 3(9): 90-134.
Whymper, S.L. 1908. Nesting of the Indian Great Reed Warbler
(Acrocephalus stentoreus) in India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 18: 495.
Williamson, K. 1968. Identification for Ringers. 1. The Genera Cettia,
Locustella, Acrocephalus and Hippolais. 3rd edn, British Trust or
Ornithology, Tring (U.K.).

CORRESPONDENCE
SIGHTING RECORDS OF RUDDY-BREASTED CRAKE
(Porzana fusca) AND SLATY-BREASTED RAIL (Gallirallus
striatus) IN VIDARBHA, by RAJU KASAMBE*, NEERAJ
GADE** and ROHIT CHAKRAVARTY#, *G-1, Laxmi
Apartment, 64, Vidya Vihar, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur-440022,
**G/2, Satysai Apartments, Near Somalwar High School,
Khamla, Nagpur-440025. #46, Om Sai Building, Anant Nagar,
Surana Layout, Nagpur-440013, Maharashtra
Ruddy-breasted Crake (Porzana fusca):
Parag Deshmukh and Rohit Chakravarty were birding on 11th
April 2009 at Ambazari tank near Nagpur city. When they saw two
Crakes foraging together in the marshy area of the back waters.
There was one Baillon’s Crake (Porzana pusilla) and one
Ruddy-breasted Crake (Porzana fusca)(see photograph above).
It was photographed by both Parag and Rohit. Next day it was
sighted and photographed by Tarique Sani at the same location.
Though, Grimmett et. al. (2000) mentions it as widespread
resident, the map shows otherwise. It is probably because of
the shyness of the bird that it is missed by bird watchers. Hence
the Pocket Guide has shown only few sighting records in the
mainland India and one sighting in Central India.
D’Abreu (1923) had not included the Ruddy-breasted Crake in
his handlist of the birds of Central Provinces (now Madhya
Pradesh and Vidarbha). Probably this is the first report of Ruddy-
breasted Crake in Vidarbha.
Slaty-breasted Rail (Gallirallus striatus):
Raju visited Bor Wildlife Sanctuary; district Wardha on 31st May
2008 along with birder friends, namely, Aditya Joshi and Koustubh
Thomare. When he was searching for a Royal Bengal Tiger family
hidden in a patch of tall elephant grass he saw a bird foraging
which looked like a White-breasted Waterhen (Amaurornis
phoenicurus). He took photographs of the bird. W hen the
photographs were analysed on his personal computer it came
out to be a Slaty-breasted Rail (Gallirallus striatus), previously
called Indian Blue-breasted Banded Rail (Rallus striatus). It was
Rufous-chestnut to the upperside of its head and sides of neck.
Rest of upperparts was dark brown. It had its chin and throat
white, breast ashy blue. It had partly red bill and olive grey legs (Ali
and Ripley, 1987). It foraged like a White-breasted Waterhen.
According to Ali and Ripley (1987) it moves about locally under
stress of drought and flood. It is distributed in “Kutch, Madhya
Pradesh, eastern Nepal, Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri duars, North-
East. Southward through Bangladesh and peninsular India to
Kerala. It affects reedy swamps and mangroves, margins of
village tanks, inundated paddy cultivation, etc”.
Grimmett et. al. (2000) has shown only few sighting records in
the peninsular India and one sighting which is probably in
Nagpur in their Pocket Guide. D’Abreu (1923) had included the
Blue-breasted Banded Rail (then called Hypotaenida striata
striata) in his handlist of the birds of Central Provinces (now
Madhya Pradesh and Vidarbha), but mentioned that “it is
probably to be found but which I have not yet observed or
identified with certainty”. This is therefore an important sighting
record for Nagpur as well as in Central India.
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Mr. Mikolaj Koss (Poland) for the help in the identification
of the Parasitic Skua. Thanks to all the birder colleagues for
accompanying the authors during the respective birding trips.
References:
Ali, S. & Ripley, S. D. (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of Indian and
Pakistan. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. Vol.4. pp.94-95.
D’Abreu E. A. (1923): A hand-list of the birds of the Central Provinces
distinguishing those contained in the Central Museum at Nagpur
together with notes on the nidification of the resident species. Govt.
Press. Nagpur. pp. 1-65.
Grimmett R., Inskipp C., Inskipp T., (2000): Birds of the Indian Subcontinent,
Oxford Univ. Press.1-384.
Front Cover : A Portfolio of Waterbirds: 1) Cattle Egret
(Bulbulcus ibis), 2) Black Ibis (Pseudibis papillosa), 3) Eurasian
Spoon Bill (Platalea leucorodia), 4) Spot-billed Pelican (Pelecanus
philippensis). A l l p ho t o gh r a ps b y S hi v a da r sh a n B a l s e
Back Cover: 5) Baill on’s Cr ake (Porzana pus illa) and
Ruddy-breasted Crake (Porzana fusca). Photo by Rohit
Chakravar thy, 6) Bl ack -cr est ed Bul bul (Pycnonot us
mel anic terus). Photo by Rajiv Lather