Pheasant Coucal Centropus phasianinus attacking birds caught in a mist net.

On 17 July 1990 we visited the Pacific Adventist College (PAC), National Capital District, in the hope of catching some Mannikins Lonchura spp. We set a 20 m, 4-panel mist net at a site where mannikins had been observed feeding on the ground. We then left the net for an hour. On our return we had caught 12 birds (10 Grey-headed Mannikins L.caniceps and 2 Chestnut-breasted Mannikins L.castaneothorax). Two Pheasant Coucals Centropus phasianinus had been attracted to the net, presumably by the flutterings of the trapped mannikins. One of the coucals was actually in the net but escaped as we approached. It had attacked and killed two juvenile Grey-headed Mannikins by pecking at the head and neck, but had not been able to get the mannikins out of the net. After extracting the birds, we again left the net. RR returned after about half-an-hour. We had caught no more birds, but a Pheasant Coucal was sitting close by the net where it was apparently visible to the mannikins as these were now flying higher than they had earlier and so missed the net.

Previously, RH had noted Pheasant Coucals sitting under mist nets set in his garden on Matirogo Point, Port Moresby, but no birds had been found dead in the nets.

(Originally published in Muruk, co-authored with Robin Restall)

Feeding Behaviour of Sacred Kingfisher Halcyon sancta

On 1 July 1990, at Jais Aben Resort, Madang Province, I watched two Sacred Kingfishers Halcyon sancta, feeding. One of the birds had a more prominent white supercilium which allowed me to keep track of each bird, as they were not in view the whole time. My observations lasted from 11:35 - 12:49 (74 minutes) and only ended when both birds were disturbed by a party of people sitting under the tree from which they were hunting.

Both Sacred Kingfishers employed a "sit and wait" approach. They perched on the lower branches of a large rain-tree, c. 8 - 10 m above the ground. They always perched in the shade, although they did not always use the same perch. At times they were within 3 m of each other although there appeared to be no intraspecific aggression. From their perch they dropped at an angle of between 30o and 45o from the vertical. Six forays were to the ground, which was the short grass of the hotel grounds. Two forays, both by the same kingfisher were into the foliage of a bush on the shoreline. Seven forays, out of nine observed, resulted in prey being caught.

Sacred Kingfisher "A" was in view for 53 minutes. During this time it made five forays, all to the ground. All were successful although only three of the prey items were seen for long enough by me to identify them. They were a beetle, a small (c. 3 cm long) lizard and a grasshopper. The kingfisher returned to a perch, not necessarily the one from which it had dropped, to consume its prey. Each of the above prey items was banged against a branch a few times and turned round in the bill before being swallowed. The grasshopper and lizard were swallowed head first. The other two prey items were small and swallowed too quickly for me to see them. On one occasion, when returning to a perch, kingfisher "A" landed near a Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys which chased it to another perch.

Sacred Kingfisher "B" was in view for 36 minutes. During this time it made four forays, two to the ground and two to the foliage of a bush. Only two were successful, one to the ground and one to the bush. On neither occasion could the prey be identified. It handled its prey much as kingfisher "A", returning to a perch, banging the prey against a branch and turning it around in its bill before swallowing.

Originally published in Muruk 5:110

Asian Waterfowl Census : Port Moresby Area, 1990.

The Asian Waterfowl Census (AWC) is co-ordinated by the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB) and Asian Wetlands Bureau (AWB). The aims of the AWC are "to obtain information on waterfowl populations at wetlands in Asia during the mid-winter period (January), as a basis for evaluation of sites and monitoring populations" and "to encourage greater interest in wetlands and waterfowl amongst governmental, non-governmental and private individuals and thereby promote the conservation of wetlands in Asia". In 1989 twenty countries participated, 1319 sites were covered and 6.9 million waterfowl of 222 species were recorded (Scott & Rose 1989).

PNG is not part of Asia, but was included in the Directory of Asian Wetlands (DAW) (Scott 1989). This was presumably because Irian Jaya, the western half of the island of New Guinea is a province of Indonesia which is in Asia, so the eastern half of the island, PNG, was also included. PNG's avifauna is distinctly Australian, with less than 50% of south-eastern Asian waterfowl (as on the AWC form for that region) and if the long distance migrants (waders and terns) are ignored, then only 33% of waterfowl are common to PNG and south-east Asia. However, in 1990 PNGBS members were invited to participate in the AWC for the first time.

January is not the best month to conduct a census of waterfowl in PNG. It is the height of the wet season in most parts of the country. High rainfall causes extensive flooding in the lower reaches of most rivers, greatly increasing the area of wetland. Access to some sites becomes difficult if not impossible. The waterfowl also tend to disperse over a greater area, depressing numbers at accessible sites. Numbers of waterfowl are usually augmented each wet season by migrants from Australia. The late eighties were wet years in Australia, so birds have not moved to find more suitable habitat. Concentrations of waterfowl, in the Port Moresby area, are greatest towards the end of the dry season, October - November, when the wetland is smallest.

Between 11 - 14 January 1990 five members of the PNGBS (Will Glynn, Roger Hicks, Edel & Lex Kraaijo and Niklas Wahlberg) visited seven wetland sites in the Port Moresby area, six of which were included in the DAW. Each of these sites has been regularly visited by PNGBS members over the last five years, at least. Counts have been made regularly at Moitaka Settling Ponds and Hisiu Beach.

Fifty-two species were recorded in the course of the census. Over the previous year only 12 other wetland species were recorded at these sites. These included two vagrants, one passage migrant and two Australian breeding species, leaving only seven species which might have been expected on the census days. No large concentrations of any species were noted, for the reasons outlined above.

The following observations were noteworthy for the Port Moresby area. At a high-tide roost near the village of Lea Lea we saw c. 50 Grey-tailed Tattlers, c. 80 Greenshanks and most unexpectedly six White-headed Shelduck. At Kanosia Lagoon we counted nine Wood Sandpipers and three Oriental Pratincole. There were also eight Red-rumped Swallows hawking over the lagoon. The rarest species recorded, for PNG, was probably the single adult Great Cormorant seen at Moitaka settling ponds where a Little Bittern was heard and a Black bittern seen. Individuals of all egrets recorded, at all sites, were in breeding plumage, although no nest sites were found. Australasian Grebes were noted nesting or with young at most freshwater sites and the behaviour of a pair of Little Ringed Plovers, of the resident race, suggested they were probably breeding at Kanosia Lagoon.

Scott, D.A. (ed). 1989. A Directory of Asian Wetlands. IUCN
Scott, D.A. & P. Rose. 1989. Asian Waterfowl Census 1989. IWRB

Originally published in MURUK 5(1): 8-11

A Red Little Curlew or something else?

The first Little Curlews Numenius minutus of the 1989 southwards passage were seen on 6 October on the UPNG playing fields and were seen almost daily, by several observers, until 28 October. They favoured a rugby pitch that was watered regularly. The flock size varied from a minimum of two (when any were present) to a maximum of 18 on 20 October. A flock of presumably the same birds was seen at Moitaka SP, only 4 km as the Little Curlew flies, from UPNG on 20 October.

The "red" Little Curlew was first noted on 16 October amongst a flock of six normally-plumaged Little Curlew and was always seen in the company of Little Curlew. From 16 - 20 October it was observed daily and was last seen on 25 October.

This "red" bird was obviously a curlew, having a black bill, sightly decurved near the tip, which was similar in size and shape to other Little Curlew. Its legs were blue-grey. It had a dark crown with a pale central crown stripe and an obvious, broad, buff supercilium, broadest behind the eye. The "face", neck, breast and belly were cinnamon with no strong streaking. This colour continued onto the flanks, which also appeared unmarked, and onto the underwing coverts (noted in flight). The feathers of the mantle and upper wing coverts also had a cinnamon background colour, giving the bird an overall reddish appearance.

The "red" bird was very similar to the Little Curlew with which it associated, but differed in the following ways. The most obvious distinguishing feature was its colour, rich cinnamon, that was strongest on the breast, flanks and underwing coverts, but which suffused the whole plumage. This bird could be picked out with the naked eye across the width of a rugby pitch (c. 50 m). It stood half-a-head taller than its contempories, although its legs seemed the same length as other Little Curlew. Its wings appeared to extend beyond its tail when standing, and when in flight appeared longer than other Little Curlew. The buff supercilium appeared more pronounced, possibly because the surrounding plumage was darker.

There are only two small Curlews. The Little Curlew breeds in Siberia and winters in Australia (Hayman et al. 1987). It occurs annually in the Port Moresby area, usually in small numbers with most records occuring in October and November (Hicks 1990). The Eskimo Curlew N. borealis is its North American equivalent, which is extremely rare, if not extinct. There have been no confirmed sightings recently and no records for Australasia (Hayman et al. 1987). As might be expected none of the observers of the "red" bird have had any experience of Eskimo Curlew, but all are familiar with Little Curlew. Several features of the "red" bird fit Eskimo Curlew, i.e., its colour especially the cinnamon underwing coverts, its apparent tallness and long wings. However, comparison with field guides (Hayman et al. 1987, National Geographic 1983) and with photographs of Eskimo Curlew indicate a lack of corroborating plumage features (except colour) i.e. lack of heavy barring on breast and flanks.

We think the "red" Little Curlew was just that, an erythrystic bird, but for a while it had our hearts pounding. And it certainly was an attractive bird.

Hayman, P., J.Marchant & T.Prater. 1987. Shorebirds. An idnetification guide to the waders of the world. Helm.
Hicks, R.K. 1990. Arrival and Departure dates in the Port Moresbby area of migrants from the north. Muruk 4: 91-104.

Originally published in Muruk 6(3) co-authored with Dr I. Burrows

Whitehead's Swiftlet Collocalia whiteheadi on Manus?

On a recent visit to Manus, 11 - 14 May 1989, three types of swiftlet Collocalia spp with white rumps were observed, where only two had previously been recorded (Coates 1985). These were identified as follows.

1) The commonest swiftlet was small with narrow pointed wings and a pointed tail. It had dark brown upperparts except for a neat, small, oblong (broader across the body than along it) white rump. The underparts were paler brown and a bit smudgy on the belly. This was identified as White-rumped Swiftlet C. spodiopygia, a species I had previously seen on New Britain and Bougainville. On Manus it was recorded in all habitats visited, from Lorengau at sea-level to rain forest at 200 m. It was the most numerous bird I recorded.

2) This type was similar in size and shape to the White-rumped Swiftlet and also with a small, neat white rump. This was distinguished by a glossy sheen on the upperparts (not always discernible) and a clean white belly sharply demarcated from a darker breast, which I find is a more reliable field characteristic than glossiness. This was identified as a white rumped form of Glossy Swiftlet C. esculenta, probably stresemanni. It was much less numerous than White-rumped Swiftlet and seemed to favour valleys with running water through forest or secondary growth.

3) The third form was larger than the preceding two, having a stockier body, broader wings and a square tail. Its upperparts were dark brown with a large, square, smudgy, ill-defined white rump. The belly was smudgy brown on a dirty white background, becoming more uniform on the breast. It was regularly recorded in small numbers along ridge tops in the interior of the island and always associated with White-rumped Swiftlets.

In shape and size it closely resembled Uniform Swiftlet C. vanikorensis, which has been recorded on Manus, although I did not see it on this trip. Four very similar swiftlets have been recorded in PNG, although two of these, Mountain Swiftlet C. hirundinacea and Three-toed Swiftlet C. papuensis, are endemic to mainland New Guinea (Beehler et al. 1986, Coates 1985). Both Uniform Swiftlet and Whitehead's Swiftlet have ranges extending north of Papua New Guinea (Beehler et al. 1986) although only Whitehead's Swiftlet has a white-rumped form, the New Ireland subspecies, leletensis. This subspecies is known only from a single specimen from the Lelet plateau, New Ireland (Coates 1985).

I think this third type of swiftlet I observed on Manus may be Whitehead's Swiftlet of the New Ireland subspecies. This would extend this subspecies' range 250 km westwards and would be a new species for Manus. However swiftlets are not the easiest species to identify in the field. These observations are presented in the hope that subsequent bird watchers will carefully observe the swiftlets on Manus and either confirm or refute my identification.

Beehler, B.M., T.K. Pratt & D.A. Zimmerman. 1986. Birds of New Guinea. Princeton University Press.
Coates, B.J. 1985. The Birds of Papua New Guinea. Vol 1. Dove Publications.

Originally published in MURUK 5(2):64

In Search of the Manus Endemics.

Manus is one of the more remote of Papua New Guinea's provinces, lying about 250 km north of Madang and the same distance west of New Ireland. It was to this splendid isolation that we flew in early May 1989 for a long weekend away from Port Moresby. Of course while we were there we hoped to see some of the island's endemic birds. Depending which book you read there may be five or six of these: Meek's Pygmy Parrot Micropsitta meeki, Manus Boobook Ninox meeki, Superb Pitta Pitta superba, Manus Rufous Fantail Rhipidura semirubra (sometimes considered only a race of Rufous Fantail), Manus Pied Monarch Monarcha infelix and White-naped Friarbird Philemon albitorques. Manus and its birds have featured relatively little in PNGBS publications to date, so descriptions of the birds we saw are included here to help those who follow.

We arrived at Momote airfield at midday after a flight that had touched down in four provinces and flown over another four. Momote is a large ex-WW2 airfield on the island of Los Negros, which is separated from Manus island by the narrow Lonui Channel. We slowly drove the 25 km to Lorengau, the provincial capital, but only saw White-rumped Swiftlets en route.

Following a lazy afternoon, we went bird watching in the evening at a site recommended by Tony Palliser. It was less than 3 km from Lorengau (see map) and several of the endemics had been seen there. It proved productive for us too. White-rumped Swiftlets were again much in evidence, accompanied by a few Glossy Swiftlets, which also have white rumps here, but are distinguished by cleaner white bellies. Our first new bird was a Black-headed (Bismarck) White-Eye, which was relatively common in areas of secondary growth. It has, as its name implies, a black or dark grey head, including chin and throat, which becomes paler on the nape, shading into the dark green of the upperparts. The white eye-ring was broken in front of the eye and was not as broad as that of the Black-fronted White-Eye, the species with which we are most familiar. The underparts were dusky yellow, brighter on the undertail coverts.

The first endemic we saw, not surprisingly, was a White-naped Friarbird, flying across the valley. In silhouette it was not unlike the Eurasian Jay, albeit with a thinner neck. For a friarbird it was quite striking. It had a dark brown face, crown, mantle, back and wings. The nape and all underparts were pale fawn. It had an amazing range of calls, at times sounding like a Rufous-bellied Kookaburra or a Raggiana Bird of Paradise, neither of which occurs on Manus. It was widespread and we recorded it in all the habitats we visited, including around Lorengau.

The next bird we saw had us puzzled. A cuckoo-shrike landed in a fruiting tree where some Singing Starlings were already feeding. It seemed uniform dark grey with perhaps darker wings, and was noticeably smaller than the starlings. We ruled out Cicadabird at first because we thought it too small, but shortly after it was joined by a female-plumaged Cicadabird. As the starlings appeared normal sized we decided it must be a small subspecies. A second puzzle followed a little later when a third type of swiftlet with a white rump was seen. It was generally larger and stockier than both White-rumped and Glossy Swiftlets, with a large, square, dirty white rump. We think this may prove to be Whitehead's Swiftlet of the New Ireland race. As this may be a new record for Manus, one of only a few records of this subspecies and an increase in the known distribution of this subspecies, this observation will be written up in more detail (Hicks in prep).

Our third new bird was Meek's Pygmy-Parrot, which we heard repeatedly before seeing a small flock foraging along the branches of a large tree. Generally they had mustard yellow heads, although some had dark crowns, and underparts, except for the undertail coverts, which were brighter yellow. The mantle, back, wings and tail were dark green. The legs were orange. They were relatively common and easily seen in both forest and secondary growth. Our second new record for Manus, which will also be written up in more detail, was a pair of Claret-breasted Fruit-Doves feeding in the same fruiting tree as the Cicadabirds and starlings. This rounded off our evening's bird watching.

Disappointingly the remainder of our stay produced no more new birds although we did see Common Golden Whistler and more Claret-breasted Fruit-Doves in rainforest along the highway. Frustratingly the endemic Superb Pitta may have been glimpsed. A bird was flushed from a forest track, all that was noted of this bird was a flash of electric blue on the inner wings and across the back of a pitta-sized bird. What else could it have been? If Superb Pitta is found at this site (see map), then all the Manus endemics can be found within 3 km of Lorengau, as Tony Palliser recorded Manus Boobook and Manus Pied Monarch in the same area.

We would like to thank Tony Palliser who provided information about bird watching on Manus and supplied the very useful map, which we have reproduced here, with some additions.

Species List: Brahminy Kite; Grey Goshawk; Large Sand-Plover; Grey-tailed Tattler; Black-naped Tern; Crested Tern; Claret-breasted Fruit-Dove; Rainbow Lorikeet; Black-capped Lory; Meek's Pygmy-Parrot; Eclectus Parrot; Brush Cuckoo (h); Moustached Tree-Swift; White-rumped Swiftlet; Glossy Swiftlet; Whitehead's Swiftlet (?); Rainbow Bee-eater; Superb Pitta (?); White-bellied Cuckoo-Shrike; Cicadabird; Northern Fantail; Shining Flycatcher; Common Golden Whistler; Yellow-bellied Sunbird; Black-headed White-Eye; White-naped Friarbird; Singing Starling; Metallic Starling. 28 species.

Originally published in MURUK 5(1):34-36

Range extension for Claret-breasted Fruit-Dove Ptilinopus viridis

On a visit to Manus in May 1989, Claret-breasted Fruit-Doves Ptilinopus viridis were noted on two occasions. As this species had not previously been recorded from Manus (Coates 1985) details of these observations are presented here.

On the evening of 11 May 1989, while bird watching c. 3 km outside Lorengau on the Trans-Island Highway, a pair of Claret-breasted Fruit-Doves were observed for nearly 20 minutes while they fed and sat in an unidentified fruiting tree, in the company of a pair of Cicadabirds Coracina tenuirostris, Black-headed White-Eyes Zosterops hypoxantha and a Singing Starling Aplonis cantoroides. The fruit-doves were in view nearly the whole time and I watched them using 10x binoculars from a distance of less than 30 m. The following notes were made: both birds were mainly "fruit-dove" green with a broad, triangular shaped (apex uppermost) claret patch extending from the throat onto the breast. The head was greyer than the body and the undertail coverts were off-white. I did not note the colour of bill nor any markings on the inner wing. This breast patch was smaller on the presumed female, but was not a small crescentic mark as in the northern New Guinea race salvadorii, suggesting these are birds of one of the eastern races vicinus or lewisii. The second observation on 12 May 1989, c. 10 km from Lorengau along the Trans-Island Highway was brief, but long enough to identify the species. Other fruit-doves were seen but not identified. I have previously seen Claret-breasted Fruit-Dove once, on Bougainville in June 1986.

The Superb Fruit-Dove P. superbus, with which I am familiar from the Port Moresby area and the Yellow-bibbed Fruit-Dove P. solomonensis, which I have seen once on Bougainville, have both been recorded on Manus. I identified neither during my stay on Manus, but do not think either could be mistaken for a Claret-breasted Fruit-Dove.

In PNG the Claret-breasted Fruit-Dove has a disjointed range, being found along the north coast of New Guinea east to Madang, in the D'Entrecasteaux islands (Goodenough, Fergusson and Normanby) and the North Solomon Islands (Nissan, Buka and Bougainville) (Coates 1985). In the Bismarck archipelago it is known only from Lihir Island, north of New Ireland (Coates 1985, Burrows 1987). Manus lies c. 250 km north of Madang and c. 600 km west of Lihir, so this observation represents a considerable range extension for this species.

Burrows, I. 1987. Some notes on the Birds of Lihir. Muruk 2: 40-42.
Coates, B.J. 1985. The Birds of Papua New Guinea. Vol 1. Dove Publications.

Originally published in MURUK 5(2):85.