Docstoc

Naturalized Birds of the World

Document Sample
Naturalized Birds of the World Powered By Docstoc
					NATURALISED BIRDS OF THE WORLD
“This page left intentionally blank.”
NATURALISED BIRDS
  OF THE WORLD
    CHRISTOPHER LEVER


        Illustrations by
      ROBERT GILLMOR




         T & A D POYSER
             London
Published  by T & A D Poyser, an imprint of
A&C Black Publishers Ltd,  Soho Square, London  

Copyright ©  text by Christopher Lever
Copyright ©  illustrations by Robert Gillmor

ISBN –––

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or used in any form or by any means – photographic, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information
storage and retrieval systems – without permission of the publishers.

A&C Black uses paper produced with elemental chlorine-free pulp,
harvested from managed sustainable forests.

www.acblack.com

Typeset and designed by Alliance Interactive Technology, Pondicherry, India

Printed and bound by Cromwell Press

         
                                    Contents



List of Tables                                            
Acknowledgements                                          
Preface                                                   
Introduction                                              

Tinamidae (Tinamous)                                      
   Chilean Tinamou Nothoprocta perdicaria                 

Struthionidae (Ostriches)                                 
   Ostrich Struthio camelus                               

Cracidae (Chachalacas, Curassows and Guans)               
  Plain Chachalaca Ortalis vetula                         

Numididae (Guineafowl)                                    
  Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris                    

Odontophoridae (New World Quails)                         
  Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus                          
  California Quail Callipepla californica                 
  Gambel’s Quail Callipepla gambelii                      
  Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus                   

Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges)   
  Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo                         
  Himalayan Snowcock Tetraogallus himalayensis            
  Chukar Partridge Alectoris chukar                       
  Barbary Partridge Alectoris barbara                     
  Red-legged Partridge Alectoris rufa                     
  Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus                 
  Grey Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus                
  Erckel’s Francolin Francolinus erckelii                 
  Grey Partridge Perdix perdix                            
  Common Quail Coturnix coturnix                          
  Blue-breasted Quail (King Quail) Coturnix chinensis     
  Jungle Bush Quail Perdicula asiatica                    
  Japanese Quail Coturnix japonica                        
  Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora                        
  Chinese Bamboo Partridge Bambusicola thoracicus         
   Contents
    Red Jungle Fowl Gallus gallus                                
    Kalij Pheasant Lophura leucomelanos                          
    Silver Pheasant Lophura nycthemera                            
    Reeves’s Pheasant Syrmaticus reevesii                        
    Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus                          
    Green Pheasant Phasianus versicolor                          
    Golden Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus                          
    Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Chrysolophus amherstiae              
    Indian Peafowl (Common Peafowl) Pavo cristatus               

Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)                                
  Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus                                 
  Snow Goose Anser caerulescens                                  
  Swan Goose Anser cygnoides                                     
  Canada Goose Branta canadensis                                 
  Barnacle Goose Anser leucopsis                                 
  Black Swan Cygnus atratus                                      
  Mute Swan Cygnus olor                                          
  Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca                            
  Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea                              
  Muscovy Duck Cairina moschata                                  
  Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata                                 
  Mallard Anas platyrhynchos                                     
  Meller’s Duck Anas melleri                                     
  Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata                                
  Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina                                
  Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis                                  

Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)                                     
  Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber                          
  Chilean Flamingo Phoenicopterus chilensis                      

Threskiornithidae (Ibises and Spoonbills)                        
  Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus                           

Ardeidae (Herons, Bitterns and Egrets)                           
   Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax               
   Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis                                    

Cathartidae (New World Vultures)                                 
  Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura                                  

Falconidae (Falcons and Caracaras)                               
   Chimango Caracara Milvago chimango                            

Accipitridae (Secretary Bird, Osprey, Kites, Hawks and Eagles)   
  Western Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus                       
                                                                    Contents 
Rallidae (Rails, Waterhens and Coots)                                      
   Weka Gallirallus australis                                              
   Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio                                      

Pteroclididae (Sandgrouse)                                                 
   Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse Pterocles exustus                           

Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons)                                             
  Rock Dove (Feral Pigeon) Columba livia                                   
  Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto                             
  Barbary Dove (Ringed Turtle Dove) Streptopelia risoria                   
  Madagascar Turtle Dove Streptopelia picturata                            
  Spotted-necked Dove (Spotted Dove) Streptopelia chinensis                 
  Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis                                   
  Island Collared Dove Streptopelia bitorquata                              
  Zebra Dove Geopelia striata                                               
  Common Ground Dove Columbina passerina                                    
  Emerald Dove Chalcophaps indica                                           
  Caribbean Dove Leptotila jamaicensis                                      
  Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura                                            

Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)                                         
   Galah Eolophus roseicapilla                                              
   Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea                                        
   Tanimbar Corella Cacatua goffini                                          
   Yellow-crested Cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea                               
   Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita                               
   Kuhl’s Lorikeet Vini kuhlii                                              
   Red Shining Parrot Prosopeia tabuensis                                   
   Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans                                     
   Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius                                     
   Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus                                      
   Eclectus Parrot Eclectus roratus                                        
   Rose-ringed Parakeet (Ring-necked Parakeet) Psittacula krameri          
   Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria                                
   Grey-headed Lovebird Agapornis canus                                    
   Fischer’s Lovebird Agapornis fischeri                                     
   Yellow-collared Lovebird Agapornis personatus                            
   Blue-and-Yellow Macaw Ara ararauna                                       
   Chestnut-fronted Macaw Ara severus                                       
   Blue-crowned Parakeet Aratinga acuticaudata                             
   Mitred Parakeet Aratinga mitrata                                        
   Green Parakeet Aratinga holochlora                                       
   Red-masked Parakeet Aratinga erythrogenys                               
   Orange-fronted Parakeet Aratinga canicularis                            
   Contents
    Brown-throated Parakeet Aratinga pertinax                                
    Nanday Parakeet (Black-hooded Parakeet; Nanday Conure) Nandayus nenday   
    Monk Parakeet Myiopsitta monachus                                         
    Green-rumped Parrotlet Forpus passerinus                                  
    Canary-winged Parakeet (White-winged Parakeet) Brotogeris versicolurus    
    Yellow-chevroned Parakeet Brotogeris chiriri                              
    Hispaniola Parrot Amazona ventralis                                      
    Red-crowned Parrot (Green-cheeked Parrot) Amazona viridigenalis          
    Lilac-crowned Parrot Amazona finschi                                       
    Yellow-headed Parrot Amazona oratrix                                      
    Yellow-crowned Parrot Amazona ochrocephala                                
    Orange-winged Parrot Amazona amazonica                                   

Cuculidae (Cuckoos and allies)                                               
  Smooth-billed Ani Crotophaga ani                                           

Tytonidae (Barn Owls)                                                        
   Barn Owl Tyto alba                                                        

Strigidae (Owls)                                                             
   Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus                                         
   Little Owl Athene noctua                                                  

Apodidae (Swifts)                                                            
  Marianas Swiftlet Aerodramus bartschi                                      

Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)                                                     
   Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae                                   

Tyrannidae (Tyrant-Flycatchers)                                              
   Great Kiskadee Pitangus sulphuratus                                       

Meliphagidae (Honeyeaters)                                                   
  Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala                                         

Cracticidae (Butcherbirds)                                                   
  Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen                                       

Dicruridae (Drongos)                                                         
  Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus                                          

Corvidae (Crows and Jays)                                                     
  Tufted Jay Cyanocorax dickeyi                                               
  House Crow Corvus splendens                                                 
  Rook Corvus frugilegus                                                     
  American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos                                        
  Eurasian Jackdaw Corvus monedula                                            
  Common Magpie Pica pica                                                     
                                                          Contents 
Alaudidae (Larks)                                                
   Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis                              

Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)                                           
   Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus                       
   Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer                            
   Sooty-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus aurigaster                     
   Yellow-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier                      

Sylviidae (Old World Warblers)                                   
   Japanese Bush Warbler Cettia diphone                          

Timaliidae (Babblers and Parrotbills)                            
  Melodious Laughing Thrush Garrulax canorus                     
  Greater Necklaced Laughing Thrush Garrulax pectoralis          
  Grey-sided Laughing Thrush Garrulax caerulatus                 
  Masked Laughing Thrush Garrulax perspicillatus                 
  Red-billed Leiothrix Leiothrix lutea                           

Zosteropidae (White-eyes)                                        
  Japanese White-eye Zosterops japonicus                         
  Silver-eye Zosterops lateralis                                 
  Christmas Island White-eye Zosterops natalis                   

Mimidae (Mockingbirds and Thrashers)                             
  Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos                         
  Tropical Mockingbird Mimus gilvus                              

Sturnidae (Starlings)                                            
   Hill Myna Gracula religiosa                                   
   Crested Myna Acridotheres cristatellus                        
   Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus                               
   White-vented Myna Acridotheres javanicus                      
   Black-winged Myna Acridotheres melanopterus                   
   Pale-bellied Myna Acridotheres cinereus                       
   Bank Myna Acridotheres gingianus                              
   Common Myna Acridotheres tristis                              
   European Starling (Common Starling) Sturnus vulgaris          
   Asian Pied Starling Sturnus contra                            

Turdidae (Thrushes)                                              
  Eurasian Blackbird Turdus merula                               
  Song Thrush Turdus philomelos                                  
   Island Thrush Turdus poliocephalus                            

Muscicapidae (Chats and Old World Flycatchers)                  
  White-rumped Shama Copsychus malabaricus                      
   Contents
Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and allies)                         
   House Sparrow Passer domesticus                                   
   Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus                              
   Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis                             

Ploceidae (Weavers and allies)                                       
   Village Weaver (Black-headed Weaver) Ploceus cucullatus           
   Golden-backed Weaver Ploceus jacksoni                             
   Lesser Masked Weaver Ploceus intermedius                          
   Streaked Weaver Ploceus manyar                                    
   Red Fody Foudia madagascariensis                                  
   Northern Red Bishop (Orange Bishop) Euplectes franciscanus        
   Yellow-crowned Bishop (Golden Bishop) Euplectes afer              

Estrildidae (Waxbills, Grass Finches, Munias and allies)             
   Red-cheeked Cordon-bleu Uraeginthus bengalus                      
   Blue-breasted Cordon-bleu (Blue Waxbill) Uraeginthus angolensis   
   Orange-cheeked Waxbill Estrilda melpoda                           
   Red-tailed Lavender Waxbill Estrilda caerulescens                  
   Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild                                    
   Black-rumped Waxbill Estrilda troglodytes                          
   Red Avadavat Amandava amandava                                    
   Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis                              
   Bronze Mannikin Lonchura cucullata                                
   Indian Silverbill (White-throated Munia) Lonchura malabarica      
   Scaly-breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata                          
   Javan Munia Lonchura leucogastroides                              
   Black-headed Munia Lonchura malacca                               
   White-cowled Mannikin Lonchura hunsteini                          
   Chestnut-breasted Mannikin Lonchura castaneothorax                
   Java Sparrow Lonchura oryzivora                                   
   White-rumped Munia Lonchura striata                               

Viduidae (Indigobirds and allies)                                    
   Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura                                  
   Eastern Paradise Whydah Vidua paradisaea                          

Prunellidae (Accentors)                                              
   Dunnock Prunella modularis                                        

Fringillidae (Finches and Hawaiian Honeycreepers)                    
   Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs                                         
   Island Canary Serinus canaria                                     
   Yellow-fronted Canary Serinus mozambicus                          
   Yellow-crowned Canary (Cape Canary) Serinus canicollis            
                                                                             Contents 
   Yellow Canary Serinus flaviventris                                                
   European Greenfinch Carduelis chloris                                             
   European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis                                            
   Red Siskin Carduelis cucullata                                                   
   Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea                                                  
   House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus                                                 

Icteridae (New World Blackbirds)                                                    
   Troupial Icterus icterus                                                         
   Spot-breasted Oriole Icterus pectoralis                                          
   Shiny Cowbird Molothrus bonariensis                                              
   Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta                                            
   Carib Grackle Quiscalus lugubris                                                 

Emberizidae (Buntings, American Sparrows and allies)                                
  Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella                                                  
  Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus                                                      
  Grassland Yellow Finch Sicalis luteola                                            
  Saffron Finch Sicalis flaveola                                                      
  Common Diuca Finch Diuca diuca                                                    
  Yellow-faced Grassquit Tiaris olivaceus                                           
  Cuban Grassquit Tiaris canorus                                                    
  Red-crested Cardinal Paroaria coronata                                            
  Yellow-billed Cardinal Paroaria capitata                                          

Cardinalidae (Cardinal, Grosbeaks, Saltators and allies)                             
  Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis                                            

Thraupidae (Tanagers)                                                               
  Crimson-backed Tanager Ramphocelus dimidiatus                                     
  Red-legged Honeycreeper Cyanerpes cyaneus                                         

Appendix A: Naturalised birds that have had a negative impact included               
  in the World Conservation Union Red List of Threatened Birds

Appendix B: Birds whose status as a naturalised species is uncertain,               
  or about which little is known

Appendix C: Continents and oceanic islands on which alien birds occur, and           
  their faunal regions of origin

References                                                                          

Index                                                                               
                                      Tables


Table . Grey Partridge Perdix perdix releases in Canada, –.             
Table . Grey Partridge Perdix perdix releases in the USA, –.            
Table . Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora imported to New Zealand,
          –s.                                                           
Table . Introductions of Common Pheasants Phasianus colchicus and
          Ring-necked Pheasants P. c. torquatus into Canada, –s.         
Table . Introductions of Common Pheasants Phasianus colchicus and
          Ring-necked Pheasants P. c. torquatus into the USA, –.         
Table . Introductions of Common Pheasants Phasianus colchicus into
          Australia, c. –s.                                              
Table . Introductions of Common Pheasants Phasianus colchicus and
          Ring-necked Pheasants P. c. torquatus into New Zealand, –.     
Table . Releases of Golden Pheasants Chrysolophus pictus in the British
          Isles, s–s.                                                    
Table . Introductions by Acclimatisation Societies of Mallard Anas
          platyrhynchos into New Zealand, –.                            
Table . Introductions of Australian Magpies Gymnorhina tibicen to
          New Zealand, –.                                               
Table . Introductions of Rooks Corvus frugilegus to New Zealand,
          –.                                                            
Table . Introductions of Eurasian Skylarks Alauda arvensis to Australia,
          –.                                                            
Table . Early records of the Common Myna Acridotheres tristis in Polynesia.   
Table . Introductions of Eurasian Blackbirds Turdus merula to
          New Zealand, –.                                               
Table . Introductions of Song Thrushes Turdus philomelos to
          New Zealand, –.                                               
Table . Introductions of House Sparrows Passer domesticus to Australia,
          s–.                                                           
Table . Introductions of House Sparrows Passer domesticus to
          New Zealand, –.                                               
Table . Introductions of the Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis
          to the Marquesas and Society Islands, before –.               
Table . Introductions of the Chestnut-breasted Mannikin Lonchura
          castaneothorax to the Marquesas and Society Islands,
          late th century – .                                             
Table . Introductions of the Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis to
          Australia, –.                                                 
                             Acknowledgements


As usual, I owe an especial debt of gratitude      Lein, J. L. Lockwood, T. B. Oatley,
to the staff of the various libraries in which I   M. A. Ogilvie, O. T. Owre, R. Prys-Jones,
carried out my research, especially Chris          A. Richford, H. Rowell, D. E. Samuel, A. E.
Mills, Paul Cooper, Ann Datta and Alison           Shapiro, L. L. Shurtleff, N. Sitwell, T. Silva,
Harding of the Natural History Museum in           M. Spray, L. Stjepic, C. A. Valle, H. Vargas,
London and Tring, and Gina Douglas of the          J. Vincent, D. R. Wells, D. Wiedenfeld,
Linnean Society of London. Other libraries         D. B. Wingate and H. G. Young.
whose staff were most helpful are the                  For their help and cooperation both before
Alexander Library of the Edward Grey               and during publication I extend my thanks to
Institute of Field Ornithology, Oxford; the        Nigel Redman, Jim Martin, Marianne Taylor,
British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford;           and other members of the staff of A&C
the Royal Geographical Society; and the            Black, and to editors Ernest Garcia and Tim
Zoological Society of London.                      Harris.
   I am also grateful to Frank Hawkins and             Finally, I have once again to express my
Roger Stafford for generously allowing me a        thanks to Pat Berry for her patience in
sight of the draft distribution text for some      deciphering and processing my well-nigh
of the Malagasy region exotics from their          illegible manuscript, and to Robert Gillmor
forthcoming Birds of the Malagasy Region           for again kindly agreeing to provide the
(Christopher Helm), and to the latter for          illustrations.
responding to my various enquiries. Other              As with my previous books, the material
individuals to whom I extend my thanks             resulting from my research for this work has
are R. C. Banks, A. J. Berger, M. J. Blair,        been deposited in the library of the Natural
W. R. P. Bourne, M. A. Brazil, R. K. Brooke,       History Museum in London.
P. A. Clancey, T. Clarke, K. L. Crowell,
F. Cruz, R. A. Cuneo, K. Duffy, C. J. Feare,
D. Goodwin, J. J. D. Greenwood, C. J. Hails,                                 Christopher Lever
B. Hawkes, R. Kennedy, J. R. Krebs, L. Ross                           Winkfield, Berkshire, 
                                          Preface


This book, which updates Lever (), de-          general been ignored: exceptions to the former
scribes when, where, why, how and by whom           include birds imported to the Hawaiian
the various alien birds now established             Islands from the United States mainland, and
throughout the world were introduced, how           to the latter birds that have self-colonised
they subsequently became naturalised, and           some of New Zealand’s subantarctic islands.
what, if any, ecological and economic impact           In – the names and boundaries of
they have had. The criteria for the inclusion       several counties in England, Wales, and Scot-
of a species are that it should have been im-       land were altered. As most of the events de-
ported to a new country either deliberately or      scribed here antedate these changes, the old
accidentally by human agency, and that it           names and boundaries have been adhered to.
should currently be established in the wild in      Outside Britain, however, the new names of
self-maintaining and self-perpetuating popu-        countries and oceanic islands have generally
lations independent of man. These criteria          been used.
provide a good definition of the term ‘natu-            Since Lever (), many new species (e.g.
ralised’. The term ‘feral’ properly describes a     the Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio in
species that has reverted to the wild from do-      the United States) have become naturalised,
mestication, such as the Feral Pigeon Columba       and these are all included in the text. The sta-
livia. Thus ‘feral’ is not, as it is all too com-   tus of one species, the Azure-winged Magpie
monly used, a synonym for ‘naturalised’.            Cyanopica cyanus, in Spain and Portugal has
   Each species account is a monograph on an        recently been reassessed from naturalised ex-
individual bird. (More detailed accounts and        otic to endemic native (see Fok et al. ,
further references will be found in Lever           Anon ). Some species (e.g. the Yellow-
). Natural immigrants have only been in-        crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea in
cluded when an established exotic has self-         Bermuda, the Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus in
colonised a new country, as in the case of the      France, and the Northern Goshawk Accipter
House Sparrow Passer domesticus in Africa and       gentilis, White-tailed Eagle Haliaetus albicilla
Central and South America. The transloca-           and Western Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus in
tion of a species from one part of a country        England and Scotland) included in Lever
where it occurs to another part of the same         () have been excluded here as they are
country where it does not occur, such as the        erstwhile native reintroductions rather than
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus which has          alien introductions.
been transplanted from the western to the              Classification, taxonomy, sequence,
eastern United States, and the natural coloni-      scientific and vernacular names, and details of
sation by an alien of offlying islands, have in       natural range all follow Dickinson ().
                                   Introduction


Birds have always held a peculiar fascination     variety of motives; for sporting purposes;
for humans. They have been admired for the        for sentimental or nostalgic reasons; as an
beauty of their plumage, marvelled at for the     aesthetic amenity; as a potential source of
variety and delicacy of their songs and,          food; as a form of biological control of a pest
perhaps most of all, envied for their power of    species; as scavengers; and, in pre-Columbian
flight. What, then, more natural that, in his      Central America, for their plumage, which
colonisation of the world, man should have        was used for ritualistic and decorative
endeavoured to enrich the birdlife of those       purposes; and for conservation reasons. Some
regions in which he has settled?                  birds have been introduced outside their
   Ecosystems exist in a constant state of flux:   natural range simply out of curiosity as to the
some species die out, adventives and invasives    outcome. Many have escaped from captivity
arrive, and new species slowly evolve through     or domesticity, and several have used man
natural selection. These alternatives occur       as an unwitting means of transportation as
especially when environmental conditions          ship-borne stowaways.
are themselves changing, in particular as a          Birds (as well as mammals and fish – see
result of human activities. New and artificial     Lever , a) have been released for
habitats, created by urbanisation, land recla-    sporting purposes to augment the already
mation for agricultural purposes or commer-       existing local game species; such releases have
cial forestry, or disturbed successional biotic   been made principally in North America and
associations, are formed, thus providing          the Antipodes, and have been primarily
opportunities for colonisation by a host of       of species from the Odontophoridae,
new species. Introductions by man are not         Phasianidae and Anatidae.
inherently different from natural invasions,          Introductions for sentimental or nostalgic
such as that of the Collared Dove Streptopelia    reasons have largely involved song birds
decaocto in Europe; the process of establish-     imported to North America and the
ment and the ecological and/or economic im-       Antipodes by homesick settlers (mainly
pact that follows may be the same for species     Turdidae, Fringillidae and Emberizidae), and
arriving by both means. No two species, even      were made under the auspices of local
if they are close congeners, will necessarily     acclimatisation societies (see Lever ).
have the same colonising ability; thus the           Birds introduced as an aesthetic amenity
Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata has become         have mostly been wildfowl (Anatidae)
widely established in Britain, while the Wood     and the so-called ‘ornamental’ pheasants
Duck A. sponsa – the only other member            (Phasianidae).
of the genus – has been a relative failure,          Introductions of birds as a potential source
although given the same opportunities (Lever      of food have usually been domesticated
, ).                                      species such as the Red Jungle Fowl Gallus
                                                  gallus (the ancestor of the domestic chicken)
                                                  and the Rock Dove/Feral Pigeon Columba
Motives                                           livia. In the nineteenth century, Wekas
Birds (and other animals) have been deliber-      Gallirallus australis were imported from
ately introduced by man outside their natural     Stewart Island, New Zealand, to subantarctic
range, possibly since their early domestication   Macquarie Island as a source of food for
some , years ago (Lever b), for a         visiting whalers and sealers. The provision of
   Introduction

an additional food resource is, of course, a       unknowing means of transportation by
concomitant feature of the introduction of         stowing away on ships; most prominent of
new gamebird species.                              these marine hitch-hikers is, perhaps, the
    Many birds have been introduced as a form      House Crow Corvus splendens, which has
of biological control of (usually insect) pest     been carried in this way to the Arabian Gulf,
species. The House Sparrow Passer domesticus,      South Africa, Australia and elsewhere.
was introduced to the United States in an
attempt to control the larvae of the Snow-
white Linden moth Eunomos subsignarius that        Consequences
were defoliating trees; to Argentina to destroy    A number of far-reaching and often unpre-
a psychid moth Oiketicus kirbyi; and to Brazil     dictable consequences may attend the
to kill mosquitoes that were causing a human       naturalisation of an exotic species in a new
health hazard and caterpillars that were           environment: these include the transmission
damaging ornamental shrubs. Many of these          of parasites, pathogens and diseases; damage
‘biological controls’ eventually themselves        to human food resources and buildings;
became pests, and although exotic species are      disturbance of the native ecosystems; inter-
still sometimes used as controlling agents, this   specific competition with indigenous species;
has become generally accepted as a potentially     predation of (and by) autochthons; and
dangerous practice.                                morphological, physiological and/or genetic
    Two birds, the Chimango Caracara Milvago       changes in native populations through
chimango on Easter Island and the Turkey           hybridisation with exotics, and in exotics
Vulture Cathartes aura on Puerto Rico and          themselves through their adaptation to a new
Hispaniola, were released to act as scavengers.    environment. Temple () estimated that in
The former also preys on colonially nesting        the United States % of introduced birds are
seabirds and causes injuries to cattle when        primarily injurious, % are mainly beneficial,
probing their backs for ticks.                     and % may be both injurious and
    If Haemig (, ) is correct, several     beneficial. In Britain, Williamson & Fitter
birds, notably the Tufted Jay Cyanocorax           () cite the so-called ‘Tens Rule’, which
dickeyi, were imported to pre-Columbian            holds that approximately one in ten of
Central America to satisfy the demands of the      imported species gain access to the wild, one
flourishing trade in ornamental feathers.           in ten of those succeed in becoming estab-
    At least one species, the Greater Bird         lished, and one in ten of those become pests.
of Paradise Paradisaea apoda, has been                Most diseases are likely to have more
introduced (from the Aru Islands) to Little        serious effects on hosts that have not been
Tobago Island in the West Indies as a means        previously exposed to them than on their
of conservation to protect it from plumage-        original pre-adapted hosts. Although in time
collectors for the millinery trade (Ingram         natural selection tends to result in an accom-
), though it has not been seen there since     modation between a pathogen and its host, a
 (ffrench ).                                new host may become endangered or even ex-
    Numerous species have become established       terminated before that occurs. When an alien
outside their natural range as a result of         and a native compete for the same ecological
escaping (or being released) from captivity        niche, the introductory host may partly or
or domesticity. Among the families most            entirely displace the indigenous species.
commonly represented in the former category           Epizootic diseases most seriously affecting
are the Psittacidae, Estrildidae and Ploceidae,    humans and transmitted by birds include
while species in the latter include the Red        psittacosis (or ornithosis), cryptococcal
Jungle Fowl, Rock Dove/Feral Pigeon and            meningitis, histoplasmosis, toxoplasmosis,
Muscovy Duck Cairina moschata, ancestor of         encephalitis and encephalomyelitis. Among
the domestic farmyard variety.                     disorders that primarily affect other birds are
    Several birds have used humans as an           Newcastle disease, blackhead, bird pox, avian
                                                                                 Introduction    

influenza and avian malaria. Pathogens               needs. One will always prove more effective
carried by introduced birds may have                in utilising the available resources and will
contributed to the decline or extinction of         displace the other.
endemic Hawaiian honeycreepers of the                  Introduced species can be responsible for
genus Hemignathus; another honeycreeper             genetic and/or morphological changes in
the Akepa Loxops coccineus; the Hawaiian            indigenous populations. Although natural
Goose Branta sandvicensis (Berger ); the        selection normally favours native genotypes,
endemic New Zealand Quail Coturnix                  continuous infiltration or introgression of an
pectoralis novaezelandiae (Oliver , );      alien’s genes into a native population can
and the Auckland Island Teal Anas auck-             eventually have an effect which may be
landica, Weka, and Red-fronted Parakeet             beneficial or detrimental. A topical case at the
Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (Falla et al.           time of writing is that of the Ruddy Duck
). Ectoparasites carried by birds include       Oxyura jamaicensis which escaped into the
ticks (which can transmit typhus and relaps-        wild in England in the s, from where it
ing fever to humans), chicken mites and             has spread to parts of southern Europe and
stickfast fleas: among avian endoparasites are       North Africa, where it is hybridising with the
cestodes, nematodes and leucocytozoans.             native White-headed Duck O. leucocephala,
   Examples of naturalised birds affecting           which is classified as Vulnerable by the World
human food resources are legion, and are fully      Conservation Union. Strenuous efforts are
discussed in the species accounts that follow.      currently being made to eradicate Ruddy
Birds that cause damage to buildings (by the        Ducks in Britain (and on the continent)
deposition of excrement, by pecking at              to preserve the genetic integrity of
mortar and by blocking gutters and down-            O. leucocephala. Smout (: ), with whom
pipes with nesting material) include House          the author agrees, argues persuasively against
Sparrows, European Starling Sturnus vulgaris,       such extermination campaigns, and suggests
and Rock Doves/Feral Pigeons.                       that ‘A more defensible approach might be to
   Introduced birds frequently compete –            revive the notion of some species as pests, but
mainly for food and nesting sites – with            to hesitate before involving conservation in
(usually closely related) native species. Here      anything analogous to ethnic cleansing for
we are confronted with the concept of the           other species’.
‘vacant ecological niche’. In nature, every            Naturalised raptors have been implicated
species occupies a position (or niche) to           in the decline or extinction of native species.
which it is better adapted than any other           On Easter Island, where they were introduced
species. Thus in any given ecosystem,               as scavengers, Chimango Caracaras are
provided the diffusion of species has been           a threat to the survival of both native
complete, every available niche will already be     Red-tailed Tropicbirds Phaethon rubricauda
occupied. An alien animal introduced into           and Kermadec Petrels Pterodroma neglecta,
such an environment will survive only if it         and also introduced Chilean Tinamous
can out-compete autochthonous ones, or if,          Nothoprocta perdicaria.
as in the case of the Little Owl Athene noctua         Extensions of a species’ distribution some-
in Britain (see Fitter ), it can find a previ-   times result in considerable genetic variation,
ously unoccupied or empty niche. Of these           such as has occurred in the House Sparrow
two options the former is the most common.          in North and South America and in the
   Where an alien species has food, habitat         Hawaiian Islands.
and breeding requirements that are very                Aliens all too often cause damage that is of
similar to those of native species, the Principle   only minor importance or unknown in their
of Competitive Exclusion applies: this states       native range; thus the Yellow-fronted Canary
that two species with identical ecological          Serinus mozambicus introduced to the
requirements cannot co-exist together unless        Mascarene Islands and the Village Weaver
there is a superabundance of their various          Ploceus cucullatus on Hispaniola are far more
   Introduction

serious pests there than in their African         In the case of predators, a reduction in their
homelands.                                        number allows that of the prey to recover,
   The benefits derived from naturalised birds     which in turn stimulates the population of
include the provision of new game species; an     the predator to increase; this rise in the
additional source of food; an added aesthetic     number of predators depresses that of the prey,
amenity; more opportunities for human             eventually resulting in a reduction in the pop-
employment; an economically valuable              ulation of predators. As J. R. Krebs wrote
extension of a country’s natural resources;       (pers. comm. ), ‘People used to say that
and, as for example in the case of the Golden     predators do not over-exploit their prey; now
Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus and Mandarin         one thinks of them doing their best to if
Duck in Britain, the provision of populations     possible – the evolutionary process of natural
of conservation importance.                       selection does not act to favour harmonious
                                                  properties of communities and ecosystems,
                                                  but rather acts to favour efficient performance
Habitat Variables                                 (transfer of resources such as food into repro-
Alien species often succeed in becoming           ductive output) at the level of the individual’.
established because man has created an            Conversely, an absence of regulatory factors
artificial ‘disturbed’ niche to which they, but    and an abundance of natural food resources
not natives, are pre-adapted. Especially in       may allow a species to increase rapidly; such
North and South America and the Hawaiian          abundant food resources enable birds like
Islands, relatively few alien birds have become   the Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis,
naturalised in native unmodified habitats          introduced to the Hawaiian Islands, to breed
already occupied by indigenes, and the            throughout the year rather than seasonally
successful establishment of most exotics has      and to raise far more young than it does in its
been due in part to their close association       native North and Central America.
with human-modified habitats. In Australia
and New Zealand, the proportion of exotic to
indigenous birds is much higher in suburban       Introduction and Speciation
than in rural habitats. The presence of exclu-    The colonisation of a new region by an intro-
sively native vegetation is the most important    duced species may be a major event in the
factor governing the abundance of both            evolution of that species and can result in the
native and exotic birds, showing a positive       creation of a new species. This can happen if
and negative correlation respectively. Native     the colonising event causes isolation between
species feed proportionately more than aliens     different populations which then genetically
on indigenous rather than introduced plants.      diverge as a result of micro-evolutionary
When not foraging, native birds are observed      processes (as in the case of the White-tailed
proportionately more often than aliens on         Jay Cyanocorax mystacalis and Tufted Jay in
native rather than introduced vegetation, and     South America and Mexico respectively), or if
exotics are noticed proportionately more          the colonising event, in cases where the
often than natives on man-made structures.        propagule size is low, causes a radical genetic
Relatively few alien birds occur regularly        alteration in the founder population. The
inside native forests and few natives are to be   House Sparrow in Australia and North and
found in exotic woodland.                         South America may be in the course of such
                                                  speciation.
                                                     It is not always easy to get an introduced
Controlling Factors                               species established in a new region, even
Introduced animals can be limited by a single     when the conditions appear to be favourable.
factor or by a combination of several, such as    Factors that increase (but by no means
a shortage of (usually winter) food or the        guarantee) the likelihood of success are a -
effects of predators, parasites and diseases.      congenial climate; a suitable habitat; a vacant
                                                                                Introduction     

ecological niche; a plentiful supply of               Sol & Lefebvre () and Sol et al. ()
acceptable food; generalised rather than          show that adaptability and behavioural
specific food requirements; an absence of          flexibility are important criteria for invasion
potential predators; a lack of competition        success. These criteria are known to be linked
from native species; low mortality and high       to relative brain size, and species with
fecundity rates; a large enough founder stock;    relatively larger brains tend to be more
a degree of adaptability and behavioural flexi-    successful invaders.
bility; and the ability to disperse. To these         It has been hypothesised that there is
may be added, in the case of birds, nest site     a relationship between the body size of
selection; large clutches of eggs; small body     introduced animals and their success rate, and
mass; and the absence or abandonment of the       predictions suggest that the success of intro-
instinct for full migration, as for example       ductions should be negatively correlated with
in the case of the Canada Goose Branta            body size across taxa but positively correlated
canadensis in Britain.                            within closely related taxa. Cassey ()
   Where enough of the factors occur a            found that introduced terrestrial birds have,
species’ naturalisation typically follows a       on average, larger bodies than extant land
classic sigmoid growth curve; the initial stock   birds, but that across species, families, and
may be severely depleted as a result of           higher family nodes, introduction success is
predation or natural causes; next, following      significantly related to smaller body size.
adaptive changes in the behaviour and             Within taxa, however, there is a noticeable
ecology of survivors, there may be a popula-      positive relationship between successful
tion explosion to the maximum numbers that        introduction and body mass. Cassey ()
the colonised area will support, followed by a    concluded that there is an indirect but gen-
contraction in numbers (and possibly range)       uine relationship between the introduction
to a point where both become stabilised.          success of terrestrial birds and their body size.
   In the past decade much research has been          Duncan et al. () found that the geo-
done (some of which reaches contradictory         graphic range of alien birds in New Zealand is
conclusions) on the reasons for the success       unrelated to the period of their establishment.
or failure of an introduced bird to become        Large geographical ranges are dependent
established in a new environment.                 more on an abundance of preferred habitat,
   Forsyth & Duncan () and Cassey et al.      fecundity, rapid development, small body
() stress the importance of propagule size    size, many and large-scale introductions and a
(introduction effort) as a key determinant of      partial migratory instinct (Duncan et al.
the successful establishment of exotics, and      ). Several authors (e.g. Moulton et al.
claim that propagule size is both the strongest   a, b) have found that successfully intro-
correlate of introduction success and corre-      duced species tend to have larger natural
lates with many variables previously believed     geographical ranges than unsuccessful ones,
to influence such success. The latter authors      which supports the hypothesis that range size
believe that apart from the size of the founder   is correlated with adaptability and behav-
stock, only habitat generalism relates to         ioural flexibility. There is a strong correlation
successful establishment in birds (but see        between range size in the British Isles (the
Moulton et al. a, b below). Although          source of many New Zealand aliens) and New
Moulton () argues convincingly that           Zealand: Duncan et al. () found much
interspecific competition (and other biotic        the same in Australia.
features of the community) play an important          Case () suggested that the most im-
role in influencing the success of invasives,      portant correlate of successful introductions
Blackburn & Duncan (a) suggest that           is the number of indigenous species that have
success depends more on the suitability of the    died out during the past , years, which is
abiotic environment for the invasive species      linked to the amount of human activity and
rather than the degree of biotic resistance.      habitat destruction through the effects of
   Introduction

exotic predators, herbivores, and parasites.        ticity and evolutionary response to pressures
Thus the number of successful invaders is           of natural selection.
close to the number of native species lost. In         Interspecific competition, associated with
the case of islands, their area correlates posi-    morphological over-dispersion (where indi-
tively with the number of introduced species.       viduals are more dissimilar in size than would
Successful introductions are not directly           be expected by chance), is a limiting factor for
linked to the richness of the indigenous            the successful introduction of Passeriformes
avifauna nor the variety of potential mam-          to oceanic islands. Moulton et al. (b)
malian predators. The relative proportion of        found that in the Hawaiian Islands and
extinct native species is positively correlated     New Zealand, introduced Galliformes were
with the numbers of aliens and endemics.            similarly consistently morphologically over-
There is a strong correlation between the           dispersed. They also re-examined the role of
numbers of successes and failures among in-         propagule size in introduction success, and
vasives, and the relative success to failure rate   found that the evidence supporting this
increases with the number of extinct natives.       proposition is poor, and that community-
Case () believed that the correlation           based factors, including environmental ones
between introductions and native extinctions        and interspecific competition, are important
exists because native species are usually more      determinants of the success of gamebird
common in pristine habitats whereas exotics         introductions. Duncan & Blackburn (),
prefer disturbed habitats. As more of an            however, conclude that competition among
island’s area becomes disturbed, most indi-         morphologically similar species could not
genes lose their habitat, while exotics gain.       have been responsible for the failure of game-
   Although Case () found little evidence       bird introductions in New Zealand because
that a rich native avifauna will inhibit the        the majority of species were liberated at
establishment of an alien species, interactions     widely separated locations or at different
between naturalised and indigenous species          times, did not spread and soon died out if
may influence habitat distribution of species        they failed to become established, and could
within islands. In both pristine and man-           never have encountered other morphologi-
made habitats, the numbers of exotics and           cally similar exotics. Even when morpho-
their relative abundance is negatively related      logically similar species were released in the
to the number of native species.                    same area and at the same time, historical
   McLain et al. (, ) and Sorci et al.      records suggest that it is unlikely that two
() found that on a number of widely             species were ever released at the same site, and
dispersed oceanic islands and in New Zealand        even if they were, interspecific competition is
the introduction success rate is lower for birds    an improbable cause of failure because most
with sexually dichromatic plumage than for          species occurred in extremely low numbers.
those with sexually monochromatic plumage.          Duncan & Blackburn () infer that
The diets of the two groups do not differ, but       factors other than competition can produce
a broader-based diet is associated with a           patterns of significant morphological over-
higher rate of introduction success. It was also    dispersion among alien avifauna, and that
found that species nesting principally in           greater introduction effort expended on more
bushes are more successful than those nesting       morphologically distinct species may account
in trees or on the ground, but that plumage         for the over-dispersion of exotic gamebirds in
type does not affect nest-site selection. Sexual     New Zealand.
selection governs the evolution of sexual              Introduced populations may have genetic
dichromatism, and thus sexual selection             characteristics, frequently caused by small
indirectly causes the extinction of small           propagule size, that differ from those in their
colonising populations – in particular of           natural range. This leads to founder effects
passerines – meeting new environmental              and subsequent genetic drift, often resulting
requirements by constraining ecological plas-       in greater differences in allozyme patterns
                                                                                  Introduction    

between naturalised populations than be-              Firstly, the characteristics of the species and
tween natural ones. In many instances, a large     regions selected for introduction are not rep-
proportion of alleles are lost within a few gen-   resentative of species and locations generally,
erations of the introduction event, and the        which may bias the perception of the factors
mean level of heterozygosity can also be           affecting the outcome of introductions. Sec-
significantly depleted. Sjoberg () could        ondly, the spatial and taxonomic clumping of
find no evidence of lowered potential to track      introductions causes difficulties of confound-
environmental changes following a reduction        ing and lack of independence in statistical
of the number of alleles in an introduced          analyses of introduction rates of success.
population, nor for inbreeding depression.         Introductions can, however, be analysed
   The degree of genetic variability occurring     validly as independent observations providing
in a population is important for its survival      this lack of independence can be expressly
and evolution, and populations with a small        incorporated in the model, and this tech-
introduction effort have reduced genetic            nique should be standard practice in any
variation. Many introductions, however, have       analysis of introduction results.
been made successfully with a small propag-           Every introduction of an alien species
ule size – Sjoberg () quotes Fabricius         is a unique event, because the precise
(a, b) regarding the Canada Goose in           circumstances of each case can never be
Sweden.                                            exactly replicated. Nor are they invariably
   Lockwood () concluded that taxon-           entirely predictable, since exotic animals react
omy is a strong predictor of successful avian      with the native biota in a variety of ways
introduction; she pointed out that six families    which can often be impossible to forecast
(Anatidae, Phasianidae, Passeridae, Psittaci-      (Lever ).
dae, Columbidae and Odontophoridae) con-              The establishment and spread of intro-
tain more successfully established exotics than    duced species is recognised as a major
would be expected by chance, and that              ecological and economic threat throughout
human influence on probability of transport         the world, and this threat is likely to grow as
appears to govern this taxonomic pattern.          greater volumes of transport and trade
Three families (Anatidae, Odontophoridae           increase the rate of species’ introductions.
and Phasianidae) hold many more species            Measuring, assessing, and understanding the
than expected that were introduced for sport-      impact of invasives is a major, and so far
ing purposes. Similarly, Passeridae and            unresolved, problem in invasion biology.
Sturnidae have far more cage-bird species than     Defining and assessing exactly what is meant
expected by chance. Thus, traits that enhance      by ‘impact’ is not easy, but is crucial in estab-
the likelihood of deliberate transport show a      lishing priorities for the management of inva-
definite taxonomic pattern. Brooks ()           sive species. If impacts can be quantified, it
concluded that human preferences may               should be possible to apply comparative
govern the selection of particular families for    methods to identify why some invasives have
introduction, with the success of individual       a more serious impact than others, and to
species being simply due to increased propag-      make use of these data in explanatory models.
ule pressure.                                      It is important to study how attributes and
   Global information on avian introductions       characteristics of invasives and of the biotope
is a valuable tool for studying the factors        interact. The biota of islands, for example, are
governing the success or failure of such           believed to be more susceptible to the impact
introductions. The value of this resource,         of exotics because insular species have not
however, may be compromised by two                 been exposed to mainland selective pressures;
features associated with the non-random            data on introduced birds may provide
nature of introductions (see Lockwood ).       opportunities to test these and associated
Blackburn & Duncan (b) assess the              hypotheses. The ‘enemy release’ hypothesis,
probable importance of these two features.         for example, suggests that some invaders are
   Introduction

more successful in their naturalised than in   population increase may have larger
their native range due to an absence of such   distributions because they are less vulnerable
natural enemies as predators, competitors,     to local extinction when attempting to
and pathogens. Species with a rapid rate of    become established (Duncan et al. ).
                            Naturalised Species

  TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS)                           millinery trade. From Melbourne the birds
                                                 were transferred by their owner, Mr (later Sir)
Chilean Tinamou                                  Samuel Wilson to his estate at Longerenong
Nothoprocta perdicaria                           in the Wimmera district. Although the Os-
                                                 triches bred successfully at Longerenong, the
Natural Range: NC and S Chile.                   wet climate and predation by marsupial cats
Naturalised Range: Easter I.                     (Dasyurus spp.) forced Wilson in  to send
                                                 his surviving stock to a station owned by
E I                                    C. M. and S. H. Officer at Murray Downs on
In  Chilean Tinamous of the nominate         the Murray River in New South Wales.
form (NC Chile) were introduced to Easter        After an initially unsatisfactory start the
Island (Hellmayr ). Although they remain     birds started to flourish, and their plumes,
established over a century later (Araya et al.   marketed in London, were said to be superior
, Jaramillo et al. ) they have not       to those produced in South Africa.
spread far, perhaps due to predation by the         By  the population at Murray Downs
Chimango Caracara Milvago chimango, which        had increased to over . In the following
was introduced in  (Johnson et al. ).    year Murray Downs was sold, part of the
                                                 stock being transferred to a property near
Impact: By providing them with an additional     Kerang, Victoria, and part to the Kallara
source of food, Tinamous may be helping to
sustain the population of Caracaras on Easter
Island.




        STRUTHIONIDAE
          (OSTRICHES)
Ostrich
Struthio camelus
Natural Range: From S Morocco and
  Mauritania to Sudan, Ethiopia, N Uganda,
  Somalia, Kenya, C Tanzania and southern
  Africa. (Formerly also Syrian and Arabian
  deserts).
Naturalised Range: Australia.

A
In  four Ostriches were despatched from
Paris to Melbourne, Victoria, as the intended
founder stock of a breeding facility for the
production of aigrettes (plumes) used in the                        Ostrich
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Station on the Darling River in New South           are believed to be mainly S. c. australis (south-
Wales. The birds at Kerang eventually in-           ern Africa), possibly intermixed with some of
creased to , but the chicks of those at Kal-     the nominate form from northern and parts
lara all succumbed to the mineral salts in the      of eastern Africa.
station’s artesian wells.
   In the early s Ostriches were also intro-
duced successfully to some of the drier parts
of South Australia, where at Port Augusta by                CRACIDAE
 the South Australia Ostrich Company
owned a population of . Some of these may             (CHACHALACAS,
have been released prior to the First World           CURASSOWS AND GUANS)
War, and before  others were freed at
Point Sturt on Lake Alexandrina and on              Plain Chachalaca
Mundoo Island at the mouth of the Murray            Ortalis vetula
River, where they multiplied so rapidly that
they eventually became a pest.                      Natural Range: From N Mexico (and a small
   After the First World War the trade in ai-         area of extreme southern Texas) south to
grettes declined dramatically, partly as a result     Costa Rica. Also on Utilia I., Honduras.
of a change in fashion, partly due to the diffi-      Naturalised Range: USA.
culties in catching the birds for plucking and
partly when it became apparent that sheep           U S
were more profitable than ostrich plumes.            In  Howard E. Coffin obtained  Plain
When Ostrich farms closed down most of the          Chachalacas of the form O. v. mccallii from
surviving stock escaped or were released, and       eastern Mexico which he released on Sapelo
feral populations became established at Mur-        Island off the coast of Georgia. In the spring
gah, New South Wales, at Redcliffe Station           of  some of the birds nested successfully,
northwest of Morgan, and in the sandhills of        and within two years they had colonised most
the Coorong, Narrung and Port Augusta dis-          of Sapelo and had also flown to the neigh-
tricts of South Australia (Frith ).             bouring Blackbeard Island (Phillips ).
   Despite predation and shooting, small feral      Plain Chachalacas still occur on Sapelo and
populations of Ostriches survive north of Port      Blackbeard Islands, and according to the
Augusta and at Redcliffe, and hundreds or            AOU () also on Little St Simons Island.
even thousands around the Flinders Range
northeast of Port Augusta (Blakers, Davies &
Reilly ). The Ostriches in South Australia
                                                    NUMIDIDAE (GUINEAFOWL)
                                                    Helmeted Guineafowl
                                                    Numida meleagris
                                                    Natural Range: Much of sub-Saharan Africa.
                                                      Also in NW Morocco until recently but
                                                      now believed extinct (Thévenot et al. ).
                                                    Naturalised Range: Asia: ?Japan; ?Yemen.
                                                      North America: West Indies. South Amer-
                                                      ica: Brazil. Australasia: Australia; New
                                                      Zealand. Atlantic Ocean: ?Annobón I.;
                                                      Ascension I.; Canary Is., Cape Verde Is. In-
                                                      dian Ocean: ?Chagos Is.; ?Comoro Is.;
               Plain Chachalaca                       Mascarene Is. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
                                                                    Numididae (Guineafowl) 

When Helmeted Guineafowl (ancestors of the        stated that Guineafowl were first introduced
domestic variety) were first imported to           to the Antilles around . The species is
Europe is uncertain, but they are known to        now widely kept in domestication in the
have been domesticated by both the ancient        Caribbean, and would doubtless also have
Greeks and the Romans. There is, however,         become widely feral were it not for predation
no evidence of their continuous domestica-        by the also introduced Small Indian Mon-
tion, and they were probably reintroduced by      goose Herpestes javanicus (see Lever ).
Portuguese traders from west Africa in the late   Guineafowl occur in the wild in most lowland
fifteenth/early sixteenth centuries, when in       parts of Hispaniola, on Cuba, on the Isle
England they were called the ‘Tudor Turkey’.      of Pines, on Puerto Rico, Barbuda, the Virgin
The birds were not well known in Europe           Islands (St Croix), and St Martin (Isle Pinel)
until the middle of the th century.             (Raffaele et al. ).
                                                     On Hispaniola, Guineafowl were well-
J                                             established and widely distributed by at least
Matsuo () says that Guineafowl were           , and remained so for the next  years.
imported to Japan from Europe by the Dutch        Wetmore & Swales () found them in
in the mid-nineteenth century; whether any        numerous localities, though mainly in Haiti.
occur there in the wild today is unknown.         Although the birds are well-established in the
                                                  foothills of the Sierra de Baoruco in the
Y                                             Dominican Republic they are declining
Meinertzhagen () says that Helmeted           due to overshooting, and predation by
Guineafowl were probably introduced to the        Mongooses.
Arabian Peninsula, where today they occur            Bond () says that Guineafowl are
only in parts of Yemen. The race in Yemen is      established on Cuba eastward from Las Villas
the nominate meleagris, which is found on         Province, on the neighbouring Isle of Pines,
the other side of the Red Sea in Africa, but      and on Barbuda in the Leeward Islands, where
natural immigration seems improbable.             the Moroccan form N. m. sabyi has occurred
                                                  in the wild since before .
W I                                          In Puerto Rico, Helmeted Guineafowl
Wetmore () repeated the unsubstantiated       occurred in montane areas as early as ,
claim by Karl Ritter who, writing in ,        but Wetmore () believed that they
                                                  had by then died out. The AOU (),
                                                  however, lists the species as still established on
                                                  Puerto Rico.

                                                  B
                                                  Helmeted Guineafowl have been successfully
                                                  introduced to the island of Trinidade off the
                                                  coast of Brazil (AOU , R. C. Banks pers.
                                                  comm. ).

                                                  A
                                                  Simpson & Day () refer to populations of
                                                  Helmeted Guineafowl on Heron and other
                                                  Great Barrier Reef islands, and E. F. J. Garcia
                                                  (pers. comm. ) saw a small flock of 
                                                  near Mareeba in the Atherton tablelands,
                                                  Queensland, in . These Guineafowl pop-
                                                  ulations are not mentioned by Barrett et al.
            Helmeted Guineafowl                   ().
   Naturalised Birds of the World

N Z                                        C I
Several attempts were made in the nineteenth       According to Benson (), Guineafowl
century to establish Guineafowl on South Is-       of the form N. m. mitrata were probably
land but none succeeded, probably due to the       introduced to Grande Comore, Anjouan and
severe winters. In North Island, birds were        Mayotte, where they were first reported
released in various localities, but by the s   in . They could, however, be natural
were established only at Aberfeldy, km east      immigrants from east Africa.
of Wanganui. Today they also occur on rough
farmland in parts of Northland, Waikato, and       M I
Rotorua (Heather & Robertson ).                Introduced between  and  (Cheke
                                                   ), Helmeted Guineafowl of the form
A I                                     mitrata (eastern and southern Africa) were by
Guineafowl on Annobón Island off Gabon               considered to be abundant in northern,
may be descended from deliberate releases,         central and western Rodrigues (Staub b),
but could also be natural immigrants from          but by around the time of the First World
West Africa (Fry ).                            War had become rare, apparently due to
                                                   nest predation by feral Pigs Sus scrofa (see
A I                                   Lever ), and died out before  (Dia-
According to the AOU () Guineafowl             mond ). However, Showler () states
are established on Ascension Island. See also      that in  a pair of free-ranging Guinea-
McCulloch .                                    fowl with young was observed on Mont
                                                   Malartic, and another pair was noted at
C I                                     La Source, so the possibility of the re-
According to Langley (), a small (< )        establishment of a feral population cannot be
and declining population occurs on Tenerife.       discounted.
                                                      Jones () lists Helmeted Guineafowl as
C V I                                 introduced in the eighteenth century to
In  Prince Ferdinand of Portugal imported      Mauritius, where they occur in lowland exotic
slaves, and probably Helmeted Guineafowl           savanna.
of the race N. m. galeatus from west Africa, to
the Cape Verde Islands. They were observed         Impact: Staub (, ) and Cheke ()
on Sal by the English buccaneer, William           say that Helmeted Guineafowl on Rodrigues
Dampier, in , were said to be abundant         have been seen as a threat to sown maize, and
on Maio in , and were noted on São             between  and  were systematically
Thiago by Charles Darwin in . According        destroyed (North-Coombes ).
to Bannerman & Bannerman (), they
occurred during the nineteenth century on          H I
São Nicolau, São Vicente, Fogo, Maio, São          Since  Guineafowl have occasionally
Thiago, Brava, Santo Antão and Boa Vista.          occurred in the wild on several Hawaiian
Guineafowl now occur on most of these              islands, but in most have failed to establish.
islands apart from São Vicente and Brava           Schwartz & Schwartz () located a
(Hazevoet ).                                   small population of about  birds whose
                                                   numbers were declining, on Lanai, Molokai,
C I                                     Maui, Kauai and Hawaii, and believed the
In , Gadow & Gardiner () found a           species would soon disappear. A few, however,
few feral Guineafowl on Takamaka, Fouquet          may survive on Hawaii, Maui, Molokai and
and Anglaise Islands; Bourne () heard          Lanai (Pratt et al. ), though they are
reports of them on Salomon Island, and it is       ‘perhaps not well-established’ (AOU :
possible that a few may survive on some of the     ).
less frequented islands.
                                                     Odontophoridae (New World Quails)       

     ODONTOPHORIDAE                             far north as Duncan, where the species still
   (NEW WORLD QUAILS)                           occurs (Johnston & Garrett , AOU ).

Mountain Quail
Oreortyx pictus
                                                California Quail
Natural Range: From SW Washington, Ore-         Callipepla californica
  gon, Nevada and California (including
  the Little San Bernardino Mts) to N Baja      Natural Range: From W and C Oregon south
  California.                                     through California (including Santa Cata-
Naturalised Range: North America: Canada.         lina I.) to Baja California and NE Mexico.
                                                Naturalised Range: Europe: France; ?Spain;
C                                            ?Italy. North America: Canada. South
Mountain Quail were first introduced to            America: Argentina; ?Brazil; Chile. Aus-
Canada in  or  when Charles Wylde         tralasia: Australia; New Zealand. Pacific
released some at his home near Victoria on        Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Wylde
, Alford ). Others were probably        F
liberated at around the same time on the Gulf   Unsuccessful attempts to establish California
islands and on the mainland in the Lower        Quail on the French mainland have been made
Fraser Valley (Phillips ). Although both    since the s (Phillips ). Today, the
these introductions ultimately failed, from     species occurs in the wild only on the island of
subsequent releases said to have taken place    Corsica, where it became established during
in the s and s a sizeable population    the s (Yeatman ). Most of the popu-
built up at the southern end of Vancouver       lation is found where arable land is associated
Island, where Phillips () recorded their    with patches of maquis (scrub) formed of
presence along the mountain ridges from         Cork Oak Quercus suber. The species also oc-
Victoria to Cowichan Valley at Duncan.          curs in much smaller numbers in non-arable
Fifty years later, between  and  were     localities where human activities (e.g. grazing,
established on southern Vancouver Island as     woodcutting and burning) have created open
                                                grassy and scrubby clearings in the Cork Oak
                                                forests. The birds are uncommon and ex-
                                                tremely shy (Dubray & Roux , Pietri ,
                                                Baccetti et al. , Aebischer & Pietri ).
                                                   Summing up the potential habitats of Cali-
                                                fornia Quail on Corsica, Pietri () said that
                                                between , and , birds had been
                                                liberated in various localities, more than %
                                                of which were released during the s. By
                                                 the birds occupied nearly  sq km in
                                                the mid-eastern part of the island (the Aleria
                                                plain). Habitat factors and climate are likely
                                                to be the principal factors that affect the
                                                success or failure of the species to become
                                                established. The Aleria plain, where sound
                                                agricultural practices since the s and the
                                                extension of vineyards provide the birds with
                                                a favourable anthropic habitat, is the species’
                                                stronghold on Corsica, where Langley ()
              Mountain Quail                    said the population is increasing.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

I                                             on South Pender Island (but not on the Queen
California Quail have occurred in the wild in     Charlottes); although the lower mainland
parts of northwestern and central Italy and in    introductions had been largely unsuccessful, a
northwestern Sicily, but may be established       few isolated populations survived.
only on the island of Maretimmo off Trapani,          Up to a quarter of a million birds are estab-
Sicily, in the Isole Egadi archipelago (Bonelli   lished locally in southern British Columbia
& Moltoni , Baccetti et al. ).            (AOU ) especially on southern Vancou-
                                                  ver Island and in the Okanagan Valley, where
S                                             their principal limiting factor seems to be
According to Langley (), the California       exceptionally heavy winter snowfalls.
Quail is in the process of becoming estab-           Power () suggests that the form catali-
lished in Spain but Clavell (in Martí & del       nensis on Santa Catalina Island in the Channel
Moral ) notes only that it has bred in        Islands off the coast of California may have
Madrid, Catalonia and Mallorca.                   been introduced by Native Americans, per-
                                                  haps thousands of years ago. California Quail
C                                            from Santa Catalina were successfully trans-
In  or  Charles Wylde released some       ferred to Santa Rosa between  and 
California Quail near Victoria on Vancouver       and to Santa Cruz in  (Power ), and
Island, British Columbia (Wylde ); at         unsuccessfully to San Clemente around .
around the same time H. M. Peers introduced
others to Colquitz Farm, while more were          A
planted further west at Metchosin. In the         California Quail were first introduced to
s others were liberated in the same areas,    Argentina by Carlos S. Reed, who in 
and from  until the s more were           released  pairs in the suburbs of Mendoza
released on southern Vancouver Island and on      in southwestern Argentina, followed at a
the lower mainland. Between  and          later date by a further , individuals.
several further introductions were made on        Although Reed claimed that the birds became
Vancouver Island and on the mainland, as          established, they seem subsequently to have
well as on South Pender and Denman Islands        died out.
and on the Queen Charlotte Islands.                  In , ten pairs imported from Chile
   By the mid-s, California Quail were        were liberated on the Primavera estancia
well-established on Vancouver Island – mainly     (ranch) on the Traful River in Neuquén Prov-
on the Saanich peninsula, near Victoria, and in   ince south of Mendoza. These birds became
the southwest around Sooke; a few remained        well established, and their descendants colon-
                                                  ised an extensive area centred on the Traful
                                                  and Limay Rivers, stretching to the Nahuel
                                                  Huapi Lake and thence westward over the El
                                                  Condor estancia on the Nahuel Huapi pampa
                                                  (treeless plain) and eastward to the River La
                                                  Fragua on the San Ramón estancia. North of
                                                  the Traful, California Quail have spread
                                                  through the valleys of the Rivers Córdoba and
                                                  Catedral as far as the outskirts of San Martin
                                                  de los Andes.
                                                     In northern Neuquén Province C. califor-
                                                  nica occurs in considerable numbers in the
                                                  region between the Chos Malal, Andacollo
                                                  and El Huecú. This population originates
                                                  from releases that are believed to have been
               California Quail                   made between  and  on the Norquin,
                                                         Odontophoridae (New World Quails)       

Parque El Morado pampa near El Huecú.               bibliographic data available …’ but gives no
Navas (), from whom this account is             further details.
derived, saw the species in large numbers in
the valley of the River Curi Leuvu and along        Impact: Vuilleumier (: ; ) says
the road between Chos Malal and Andacollo.          that the California Quail ‘is an ecologically
See also Mazar Barnett & Pearman .              important member of the mediterranean
                                                    avifauna of Chile’, and that its ecological
Impact: Navas () says that in Argentina,        impact is ‘significant’, but provides no
where the species has found a vacant ecologi-       examples. The only native species with
cal niche with no competitors, California           which it might compete is the Chilean
Quail provide a new source of food for native       Tinamou Nothoprocta perdicaria; although the
predators.                                          range and habitats (farmland, grassland
                                                    edges near thickets, and native vegetation) of
B                                              both species overlap, there is no apparent
Inskipp () says that California Quail           evidence of significant competition. The form
have been exported annually from Chile to           established in Chile is C. c. brunnescens.
Argentina and Brazil; their status in the latter
is unknown.                                         A
                                                    Between  and about  numerous
C                                               introductions of California Quail were made
In around  an unsuccessful attempt was          from New Zealand to Australia (Victoria,
made to introduce C. californica from Califor-      Phillip Island, Tasmania, Huon Island, Rot-
nia to the Southern Lakes region of Chile, but      tnest Island, South Australia, New South
from other introductions made elsewhere at          Wales, Queensland, King Island (Bass Strait)
about the same time California Quail were           and Norfolk Island). Although in several
subsequently successfully translocated to           places the birds bred successfully and became
other localities such as the Nilahue Valley in      established locally (Ryan , Chisholm
Curico Province in  (Barros ). In       , Tarr ), the species is said to survive
or  C. J. Lambert imported large numbers        only on Norfolk Island; near Wonthaggi,
of birds from San Francisco, which he released      Victoria; perhaps near Newcastle, New South
at La Compañia in Coquimbo Province,                Wales (Pietri ); on King Island in the Bass
where they multiplied and spread (Hellmayr          Strait (Pietri ); and perhaps in Tasmania
). Phillips () said that California Quail   (Barrett et al. ).
were already important game-birds in Chile,
where Hellmayr () recorded the species as       N Z
common in the central provinces.                    As in Australia, there were many intro-
   Johnson () reported C. californica to        ductions – mostly between  and  – of
be well established from Atacama south to           California Quail to New Zealand (Auckland,
Concepción, while Sick () said that from        Nelson, Kawau Island, Canterbury, Otago,
Coquimbo they had spread south to Puerto            Southland, Wellington, Hawke’s Bay, Chat-
Montt and inland to Los Angeles. Johnson            ham Island). The birds became widely
() indicated that the species’ northern         established, and seem to have reached their
limit was the desert and the southern one the       maximum numbers and distribution within
area of high precipitation. According to            about  years of their introduction (i.e.
Jaramillo et al. (: ), California Quail are   between c.  and ) (Oliver ).
currently ‘more abundant in Chile than              Thereafter they declined, due more to habitat
within [their] North American range’.               loss rather than to predation by man and
   Pietri (: ) indicates the species’        introduced mustelids (see Lever ).
occurrence on Isla Más á Tierra in the                 Thomson () believed that the failure of
Juan Fernandez group ‘according to the              most game birds to become better established
   Naturalised Birds of the World

throughout New Zealand was largely due to         to the islands continued until . Between
competition for food with native species and       and   California Quail were
introduced passerines. Nevertheless, Califor-     liberated on the Puu Waawa Ranch on
nia Quail are now widely distributed in New       Hawaii, where by the early s the birds
Zealand, occurring throughout most of             were well established and abundant.
North Island and South Island; north and east        Schwartz and Schwartz () found the
of the Southern Alps, on some offshore             species on all the larger islands apart from
islands, and on the Chatham Islands (Pietri       Oahu, and also on Niihau, and estimated the
), where they were introduced prior           total population to be about ,, of which
to . They are rare or absent in regions       over , were on Hawaii and nearly
with high rainfall. California Quail in New       , on Molokai. Today, California Quail
Zealand are both the nominate form and C. c.      are established on Maui, Molokai and Kaui
brunnescens (Heather & Robertson )            and on the leeward (drier) side of Hawaii.
                                                  There they are common in North Kona,
Impact: As early as , California Quail had    Mauna Kea and the Hawaii Volcanoes
become an agricultural pest in some parts         National Park (Pratt et al. ), where their
of New Zealand, where they ate young              principal limiting factors seem to be the
clover plants and seeds, and newly sown and       intensity of grazing by domestic stock and the
germinating turnip seeds (Thomson );          availability of water.
forty years later they were reported (Oliver
) to be damaging grape and strawberry         Impact: California Quail in the Hawaiian
crops. They were also accused of spreading the    Islands have been implicated in the spread
seeds of Blackberry Rubus fruticosa, which was    of various exotic grasses, herbs and shrubs
probably introduced by the early settlers         (Lever ). The species diversity of alien
(Lever ). On the other hand, California       flora is generally highest in broken woodland,
Quail also eat injurious insects and the seeds    and is much influenced by the presence
of noxious weeds.                                 of naturalised game birds (Cuddihy &
                                                  Stone ).
H I
California Quail (both C. c. californica and
C. c. brunnescens) were first introduced from
California to Oahu before ; at a later date   Gambel’s Quail
more were released on all the other main          Callipepla gambelii
islands, where within a decade Walker ()
said they were well established and a valuable    Natural Range: SW USA and Mexico (includ-
game bird. Munro () indicates that by           ing Tiburon I.) south to S Sonora.
 they were common and abundant on             Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
Hawaii and Molokai, and that by the turn of
the century they were also established on         H I
Niihau and Kauai.                                 Gambel’s Quail has been established on the
   Between  and  the populations on       island of Kahoolawe since the species was
Hawaii and Kauai considerably declined, due       imported by H. A. Baldwin in  (Caum
mainly to overgrazing by domestic stock, and      ). Between  and  a total of 
land reclamation on the latter for sugar and      were imported to Hawaii, where  were
pineapple plantations. Nevertheless, Caum         released at Puako on the northwest coast and
() found California Quail to be fairly         on Lanai and an unknown number on
common on Hawaii and Molokai, though less         Maui (Walker ). Today, Gambel’s Quails
so on Oahu, Maui and Kauai, and absent            are established on Lanai, Kahoolawe and
from Lanai. In – a dozen pairs were         perhaps Hawaii (Pratt , AOU ).
released on Lanai, and sporadic importations
                                                        Odontophoridae (New World Quails)      

Northern Bobwhite                                  form established in Italy is the nominate
Colinus virginianus                                C. v. virginianus (central and eastern United
                                                   States).
Natural Range: From C and E USA south to
  Florida, and in Central America to NW            P; S
  Guatemala; also on Cuba.                         Langley () lists C. virginianus as estab-
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Croatia; ?France;      lished in Portugal and apparently becoming
  Italy; Portugal; ?Spain. North America:          so in Spain. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral
  ?Canada; West Indies. Australasia: ?New          ) only cites breeding in Mallorca in 
  Zealand.                                         and males heard calling in Catalonia in
                                                    and .
C
Northern Bobwhites have been introduced to         C
Croatia since the s, and are presently         Several attempts have been made to establish
established only near Istra where although the     Northern Bobwhites in Canada – in Nova
population may be self-sustaining it also          Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba (Phillips )
recruits from periodic stocking (Gariboldi         – but only a few descendants of those released
).                                             in the Okanagan Valley in southwestern
                                                   British Columbia may survive today (AOU
F                                             ).
Although Northern Bobwhites have been
introduced to France for sporting purposes on      W I
numerous occasions since , only around         Northern Bobwhites have been successfully
Sologne and Puisaye in the centre of the           introduced in the Bahamas (Andros, New
country and Les Landes in the southwest are        Providence and Eleuthera); the Greater
breeding populations established, though           Antilles (Hispaniola, Puerto Rico); and
whether these would be self-sustaining             formerly the Virgin Islands (St Croix), where
without regular stocking is uncertain (Voisin      the species has since died out (AOU ).
, Gariboldi ).                                Cory (: ) was told that the species
                                                   had been imported to New Providence
I
Italy is the only country in Europe in which
Northern Bobwhites are definitely natural-
ised, having been admitted to the official
Checklist of Italian Birds in the early s.
The species has been introduced to various
parts of the country since , its present
distribution being confined to some  sq
km of the plains and hills in Piemonte and
Lombardy in the northwest (Canavese,
Astigiano, Allesandrino), especially in the
Ticino Valley, where the population has
declined to between , and , breed-
ing pairs which nest in the region between the
Sesia and Ticino Rivers. Northern Bobwhites
are also said to be established on the island of
Mozia off Trapani, Sicily (Fasola & Gariboldi
, Iapichino & Massa , Brichetti et al.
, Meschini & Frugis , Baccetti et al.
, Gariboldi , Bertolino ). The                      Northern Bobwhite
   Naturalised Birds of the World

‘many years ago’ and was then abundant              PHASIANIDAE (TURKEYS,
around Nassau. Today, birds of the subspecies      GROUSE, PHEASANTS AND
floridanus are established in pine barrens,
thick wooded undergrowth, wasteland, rough               PARTRIDGES)
pasture and arable land on New Providence,
Andros and Eleuthera, and according to the        Wild Turkey
AOU () (which omits Eleuthera) also on        Meleagris gallopavo
Abaco Island.
   Cory () believed that the species was      Natural Range: SE USA to WC Mexico
introduced to Haiti (Hispaniola) during the       Naturalised Range: Europe: Germany; ?Aus-
period of French rule (–) where it be-      tria; ?Former USSR. Asia: ?Japan. North
came established on the southern peninsula.         America: Canada. Australasia: ?Australia;
   Northern Bobwhites were imported to              New Zealand. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic
(Hispaniola) around  (Cherrie ),          G; A; F
where they are still established (AOU ).      USSR
   According to Gundlach (a) Northern         Turkeys were probably originally imported to
Bobwhites were introduced to Puerto Rico          Europe in the early sixteenth century; they
from Cuba in  by Don Ramón Soler on           were first noted in Germany around  and
his hacienda Santa Inés near Vega Baja; they      were being reared in captivity by at least .
still survive on the island today (AOU ).     Turkeys have a long history in German sport-
   Newton & Newton () record that             ing lore, and small populations survived in the
Northern Bobwhites were introduced to St          wild in the valley of the River Danube until
Croix in about , where the birds have         the outbreak of the Second World War
since died out.                                   (Niethammer ). By the mid-s small
   Phillips () says that Northern Bob-        populations existed only in Kottenforst, Bus-
whites (probably from Florida and perhaps         choven and Boenning Hardt in the Rhineland
Texas) were introduced to Cuba before ,       (Aliev & Khanmamedov ). These authors
where Dickinson () implies that the form      also refer to the species as feral in parts of
cubanensis is indigenous, although the AOU        Austria and the Latviya SSR of the former
() says the species is introduced. See also   USSR. Gebhardt (: ) mentions that
Raffaele et al. .                              ‘locally small populations’ occur in Germany,
   The principal limiting factors for Northern    although these may not be viable without
Bobwhites in the West Indies are the marginal     regular stocking (Spittler ).
habitat, overshooting, and predation by the
Small Indian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus         J
(see Lever ).                                 According to Matsuo (), Wild Turkeys
                                                  from Europe were imported to Japan by the
N Z                                       Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century;
In – the Wellington Acclimatisation         whether any occur in the wild is unknown.
Society (see Lever ) unsuccessfully           These are not mentioned by Brazil ().
imported a total of , Northern Bobwhites
(probably C. v. taylori) from the United          C  C
States, which were widely distributed in          Between  and  a number of unsuc-
North and South Islands: in  the Otago        cessful attempts were made to establish
Society imported  eggs from California,        Wild Turkeys in British Columbia. In the
but the resulting chicks all died. None have      latter year, some wild-caught birds from
been reported since the s (Heather &          South Dakota (presumably M. g. merriami)
Robertson ).                                  were released in the Alberta portion of the
                                                  Cypress Hills Provincial Park on the
                                    Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

Alberta–Saskatchewan border, where within a       localities, and also on Moturoa Island in the
year the population had increased to around       Bay of Plenty (Heather & Robertson ).
. According to the AOU (: ) Wild
Turkeys are currently ‘established locally [in]   H I
southern British Columbia, southern Alberta,      According to Locey (), Wild Turkeys were
southern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba,         first introduced to the Hawaiian Islands as
and southern Ontario’.                            game birds from China in . More were
   Power () records the successful estab-     imported, from Chile, in , and by the out-
lishment and breeding of Wild Turkeys             break of the Second World War they were said
introduced to the Channel Islands off the          to be abundant in the wild, and according to
coast of California.                              Schwartz & Schwartz (), remained so on
                                                  Niihau (where thousands are said to have
A                                         been released) after the Second World War;
Barrett et al. () record the presence         less than , however, were found elsewhere,
of Wild Turkeys at a single site in South         most of which were on Hawaii. Between 
Australia, and at seven on Tasmania where         and  large numbers of Wild Turkeys of
breeding has occurred.                            several forms (silvestris, merriami, intermedia,
                                                  gallopavo) were liberated on Hawaii, Kauai,
N Z                                       Molokai, Lanai and Maui, where by the latter
Thomson () recorded the establishment         year they were said to be breeding on Hawaii
of feral Wild Turkeys, which were first intro-     and Molokai, surviving on Lanai, but declin-
duced around , in several localities in       ing on Maui and Kauai (Scott et al. ). The
New Zealand, where he believed their recent       AOU () lists the species as occurring on
decline was due, as in the case of other          Hawaii, Maui, Lanai, Kauai and Niihau.
exotic game birds, to competition for food
(especially insects) with introduced songbirds.   Impact: According to Lewin (), Wild
Today, Turkeys occur on rough farmland in         Turkeys in the Hawaiian Islands are impli-
many North Island and a few South Island          cated in the spread of the alien Banana Poka
                                                  Passiflora mollissima, an aggressive species of
                                                  vine, though Van Riper () suggests they
                                                  may also help in the expansion of range of
                                                  native Naio Myoporum sandvicensis trees on
                                                  the slopes of Mauna Kea on Hawaii.



                                                  Himalayan Snowcock
                                                  Tetraogallus himalayensis
                                                  Natural Range: From W Turkistan through
                                                    the Himalayas to China.
                                                  Naturalised Range: North America: USA.

                                                  U S
                                                  In  the US Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                  inaugurated a Foreign Game Investigations
                                                  Program with the ultimate objective of the
                                                  provision of additional game species. As part
                                                  of this project, between  and  Hima-
                 Wild Turkey                      layan Snowcocks were released in five regions
   Naturalised Birds of the World

of Nevada, and also on the slopes of Mauna        Snowcocks are marooned on an alpine island
Kea on Hawaii. (Bland & Temple (: )        at the centre of the Great Basin, their natural
give the initial date of introduction of the      dispersal into other alpine habitats seems
Himalayan Snowcock in North America as            unlikely (Bland & Temple ).
, but with no further details. Johnston &
Garrett (: ) give  as the earliest     Impact: The small and isolated alpine mead-
date of introduction. Stiver (; quoted by     ows of the Ruby Mountains are, like most
AOU ) gives the earliest date as .)       other alpine meadows, extremely fragile, and
   In , the Nevada Game Commission            possess the richest and most diverse alpine
imported  Snowcocks from Gilgit, Pakistan,      plant community in the Great Basin. Since
the  birds which survived the journey being     the introduction of Himalayan Snowcocks
liberated in April in the Ruby Mountains in       was virtually unmonitored, with no prior
northeast Nevada, where they soon disap-          assessment of these large (cm high) birds’
peared. Subsequently, the Nevada Depart-          potential ecological impact, the state of the
ment of Wildlife established a captive flock       area’s biotic community before, during and
whose offspring were released in succeeding        after the introduction is largely unknown
years (Christensen , Bump & Bohl ).       (Bland & Temple ).
A total of  birds were imported from Pak-
istan, and between  and  , of
their offspring were introduced to the wild, of
which , were planted in the Ruby Moun-        Chukar Partridge
tains. Breeding was confirmed in , and         Alectoris chukar
three years later the first shooting season was
declared. In  the Department of Wildlife      Natural Range: From NE Greece through Asia
estimated the population in the Ruby–East           Minor and Arabia to NW India, W Mon-
Humboldt Range of the Humboldt National             golia, S Manchuria and N China.
Forest at between  and  birds.              Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles;
   The breeding range of Himalayan Snow-            France; Italy. Asia: Oman; UAE. Africa:
cocks in the Ruby–East Humboldt Range               South Africa. North America: Canada;
seems confined to elevations above ,m            Mexico; USA. Australasia: New Zealand.
(Bland & Temple ). Since under  sq km         Atlantic Ocean: St Helena I. Pacific Ocean:
of the Range meets this criterion, and the          Hawaiian Is.
species’ breeding densities in China range
from . to . per square kilometre, the         E
number of birds in the Range is unlikely ever     Chukar Partridges have been widely intro-
to be large. In the Ruby Mountains, Snow-         duced as game birds to countries in Europe
cocks appear to favour deep glacial cirques       other than those mentioned above, including
(steep-sided hollows at the head of a valley or   Portugal (Dias ) and Spain, but are appar-
on a mountainside) rimmed by extensive            ently unable to survive in the wild without
moist meadows and precipitous cliffs (Bland        regular stocking.
& Temple ), and the discontinuous dis-
tribution of such cirques and alpine meadows      B I
limits the number of localities in which large    Since between the two World Wars Chukar
flocks can establish home ranges (Bland &          Partridges have been released as game birds
Temple ). The majority of Nevada’s            in parts of England and Scotland, but have
Snowcock population occurs in the Thomas          seldom been self-maintaining for any length
Peak–Ruby Dome region of the Ruby Moun-           of time. Nevertheless, Aebischer ()
tains, although coveys are regularly reported     recorded small established populations,
to the north and south (Bland & Temple ,      mainly in southwestern and northern
AOU , Sibley ). Because Nevada’s          England and northern Scotland.
                                    Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

F                                           century. In  A. D. Hitch of Whonock,
According to Aebischer (), small popula-     British Columbia, unsuccessfully freed some
tions of – pairs of Chukars occur south     birds at Alkali Lake and Dog Creek, and be-
of Paris in central France.                      tween  and  a total of , Chukars
                                                 were liberated in British Columbia, where by
I                                            the final year the birds were sufficiently well-
Attempts have been made since about  to      established for shooting to be allowed (Carl
establish Chukars in Italy (mainly in the        & Guiguet ). Chukar Partridges are
north), but the species is apparently only       presently established in suitable habitats
naturalised on the islands of Giglio and         in the Thompson, Fraser, Okanagan and
Montecristo northwest of Rome (Baccetti          Similakmeen Valleys, and around Shuswap
, Baccetti et al. ).                     Lake between Kamloops and Revelstoke, in
                                                 southcentral British Columbia (Johnston &
Impact: Wherever the ranges of the two           Garrett , AOU ).
species in Europe overlap, the Chukar has
tended to hybridise with the native Red-         M
legged Partridge A. rufa (Allard ).          According to Peterson & Chalif (),
                                                 Chukar Partridges have been successfully
O; U A E                       introduced to the mountains of northern Baja
The Chukar Partridge ‘inhabits rocky and         California.
cultivated areas of the Musandam mountains
[Oman] and perhaps the UAE mountains …           U S
this isolated eastern Arabian population is      According to Bump (), Chukar Partridges
probably derived from escaped birds which        have probably been introduced to every state
have been imported for food’ (Jennings b:    in the USA, but have only become well estab-
). Chukars are currently in ‘Musandam:         lished in, and to the west of, the Rocky
breeding resident in mountains’ (Anon :      Mountains. W. O. Blaisdell is believed to have
). Richardson () also records the intro-    imported the first Chukars to the United
duction and escape of Chukars of the Iranian     States, to Illinois, in , the offspring of
race werae in the United Arab Emirates, where    which he unsuccessfully released at McComb
he records them as breeding on the high          in the following spring. Chukars were first
plateau above Wadi Bih, on Sir Bani Yas          released successfully in Washington in ;
Island (since ), and in the al Ain area      shooting was first permitted in , and in
where large numbers were released in .

S A
In  six Chukar Partridges were seized
by customs officers in Cape Town and des-
patched to Robben Island in Table Bay, where
Siegfried () estimated the population to
number around . P. A. Clancey (pers.
comm. ) wrote that this ‘flourishing
population’ is ‘racially composite’ (derived
from more than one race), ‘so derives from
game-farm bred stock’.

C
The first Chukar Partridges in Canada were
released unsuccessfully in Nova Scotia prior
to  – possibly as early as the turn of the                 Chukar Partridge
   Naturalised Birds of the World

 stocking ceased (Moreland ). The         lightly cultivated places, where the annual
earliest of no fewer than  releases of          precipitation seldom exceeds cm. Shooting
Chukars in Montana was made in ,              was first permitted in  and stocking
and by  the birds had become locally          ceased in .
self-maintaining in the Fromberg–Red                 In ,  Chukar Partridges were released
Lodge– Bighorn Canyon region south of Bil-        on the R. L. Douglass Ranch in Churchill
lings, where controlled shooting began in the     County, Nevada, followed in  by a further
following year (Whitney ). Between         in western and central Nevada, and by
and  some , Chukars were planted          Chukars had been planted in most, if not
in Oregon with such success that shooting         all, counties in the state, where they flourished
was permitted in . Between  and       in rugged and semi-desert country at between
around , Chukars were liberated in some       , and ,m. Shooting began in ,
 or  counties in Idaho, where the first        when the birds covered some  sq km of
shooting season was declared in  (Salter      western and central Nevada (Alcorn &
). The earliest planting of Chukar            Richardson ).
Partridges in Wyoming was made by Judge W.           Numerous plantings of Chukar Partridges
S. Owens at Cody; between  and  a         in Utah between  and  were
state-owned game farm released an average of      universally unsuccessful. From later plantings
nearly , a year, resulting in the formation   near Salt Lake City in – the species
of several discrete populations (Bossenmaier      became somewhat tenuously established, but
).                                            from here the birds spread elsewhere in the
   In  Chukars were imported from India       state (Popov & Low ).
to San Francisco, California, by E Booth,            Prior to  at least , Chukars were
from whom the State Department of Fish and        released in Colorado, when a further ,
Game acquired five pairs, followed in  by      were planted in some western localities, where
a further five pairs direct from Calcutta, with    they became established.
which they established a breeding stock. The         In –  wild-caught Chukars were
first plantings were made in , and by      liberated with mixed results at Jerome in
a total of , birds had been released in     Arizona, and  captive-bred birds were
counties, where they became established in        released at Snake Gulch.
Owens River Valley and the Mojave Desert. A          Between  and  (when releases
further , Chukars were liberated by the       ceased) a total of , Chukar Partridges
Department of Fish and Game in –,           were planted in  counties in New Mexico,
and it is believed that by  some ,       where by the end of the decade they were
birds had been freed throughout the state.        said to be doing reasonably well in the San
   After several introductions to California’s    Juan–Animas–La Plata drainage area of San
Channel Islands by the Department of Fish         Juan County, and in the Pyramid Mountains
and Game, Chukars eventually became estab-        of Hidalgo County.
lished on San Nicholas Island in , and in        In the Great Basin (between the Wasatch
– on Santa Rosa Island. Releases on San     and Sierra Nevada Mountains) Chukars are
Clemente in  and on Santa Catalina were       found especially on grassy mesas (flat-topped
unsuccessful (Power ).                        rocky hills with steeply sloping sides) and
   Chukars were planted in almost every           rocky sage-covered slopes of arid and rugged
county in California in a wide variety of habi-   canyons in semi-desert montane regions
tats and climates, ranging from dense stands      (Small ). The inclusion of the more low-
of timber and brush in warm and damp              land forms A. c. cypriotes and/or kurdestanica
coastal ranges through inland montane areas       among the other races introduced (believed to
to hot and arid semi-desert country, and in       be the nominate chukar and koroviakovi) has
localities where the annual rainfall is between   enabled the species to broaden its range, which
 and cm. They did best in semi-arid and      now stretches locally from northern Idaho and
                                     Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

central and eastern Montana south to south-        central Otago (especially between Lakes
ern California, southern Nevada, northern          Coleridge and Wakatipu). Releases in North
Arizona, and western Colorado (AOU ).          Island as recently as  have been largely
                                                   unsuccessful, though a few persist near
Impact: According to Alcorn & Richardson           Tauranga and in Hawke’s Bay (Heather &
(), Chukar Partridges in Nevada eat some       Robertson ).
corn (maize) and wheat, especially in winter
and spring; they uproot germinating corn           S H I
shoots and prise out the kernels from their        According to Brooke (: Appendix
cobs. They have also caused damage to -            , quoted by Rowlands et al. ), Chukar
potato, raspberry, currant, strawberry, apple      Partridges were imported to St Helena by
and Russian olive crops (Lever ). In           Fernão Lopes in about . The earliest
California, Harper et al. () refer to          recorded reports of the species were by
damage to apples, pears, peaches, apricots,        O. Lopes in  (Hartwell , quoted
grapes, potatoes, beans, watermelons, toma-        by Rowlands et al. ), and in  by the
toes, corn (maize), wheat, oats, alfalfa           English circumnavigator Thomas Cavendish.
(lucerne) and clover in summer and autumn.            By the late sixteenth century Chukars were
The amount of harm Chukars cause is, how-          said to be both tame and abundant (Basil-
ever, economically negligible (Vuilleumier         ewsky ), and were the most frequently
), and is far outweighed by their value as     reported species of landbird on the islands.
game birds (Lever ). Despite claims to the     Shooting was first recorded in  (Renefort
contrary, there is no evidence of competition      , quoted by Rowlands et al. ),
with any native species, since Chukar Par-         though it seems likely to have started at an
tridges in the United States occupy a vacant       earlier date. By the end of the seventeenth
ecological niche devoid of native game birds.      century Chukars were regularly observed by
                                                   numerous visitors to the island.
N Z                                           During the nineteenth century the birds
Between  and  a number of unsuccess-       became considerably less common than hith-
ful attempts were made by various regional         erto (Baker , Melliss ) possibly partly
acclimatisation societies to establish Chukar      due to heavy predation by feral domestic Cats
Partridges (mainly in South Island) in New         Felis catus (see Lever ), though they
Zealand. In  Chukar Partridges from            appear to have been still fairly numerous. This
Calcutta were successfully released by Colonel     decline continued into the twentieth century,
R. B. Neill on behalf of the Ashburton             and although Chukars remained reasonably
Acclimatisation Society (see Lever ) on        common until the s the decline since then
his property in the Lake Heron region, and         seems to have accelerated (Loveridge ).
later in the same year a further  were           Small numbers have been sporadically
planted by the Otago Society in the Hunter         recorded from various localities during the
Valley at the head of Lake Hawea. In ,      s and s, but nowhere on St Helena
birds from an original shipment of  (A. c.      do Chukars remain abundant (Rowlands et al.
koroviakovi) from Quetta in Baluchistan were       ). According to Watson (), the race
released by the North Canterbury Acclimati-        introduced to St Helena is A. c. werae (E Iraq
sation Society in half-a-dozen localities, where   and SW Iran).
they became established. By , Chukars             For a full list of references see Rowlands et
occurred in South Island from the Wairau           al. (). See also McCulloch .
River in Marlborough south to Kingston in
central Otago. They are now to be found in         H I
high country east of the Southern Alps from        Between  (Caum ) and  Chukar
Marlborough (Nelson Lakes National Park,           Partridges of the nominate form were
Wairau River, Seaward Kaikoura Range) to           introduced to Lanai, Oahu, Molokai and
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Kahoolawe, on all of which they became           Naturalised Range: Europe: Gibraltar; Italy;
established (Locey ). In ,  pairs        ?Spain. Atlantic Ocean: Canary Is.
were released at Pohakuloa at the base of
Mauna Kea on Hawaii, and were said to have       G
increased to some , by ; since then     The earliest reference to Barbary Partridges in
the numbers have declined, but the species is    Gibraltar is by the garrison’s chaplain, the Rev
still common on the island. In , birds       John White (brother of Gilbert White, author
transplanted from the American mainland          of The Natural History of Selborne) in ,
became established on Kauai, where some still    when he reported them to be widely distrib-
survive. In  some Chukars from Califor-      uted. A further introduction possibly took
nia were unsuccessfully released on the Puu      place in the late nineteenth century (Aebis-
Waawaa Ranch on Hawaii, and in the same          cher ). The birds are now found on the
year  were planted on Maui, Lanai,            upper parts of south-facing stony terraces
Molokai, Oahu and Kauai (Berger ). The       covered with sparse short vegetation and open
species is currently well established in dry     scrub, on the Upper Rock, Windmill Hill
upland habitats on Hawaii, Lanai, Maui           and above Catalan Bay (Cortes et al. ;
(Pratt ), locally on Kauai, Molokai and      Finlayson & Cortes , Finlayson ). In
Kahoolawe, but no longer on Oahu (AOU            the late s the population was around 
). It is most abundant on the upper slopes   breeding pairs; Aebischer () said that the
of Mauna Kea on Hawaii and Haleakala on          apparently stable population numbered some
Maui (Pratt et al. ).                         breeding pairs in an area of . sq km. The
                                                 form present in Gibraltar is the nominate
Impact: Writing of the Common Pheasant           A. b. barbara of the Maghreb.
Phasianus colchicus and the Chukar Partridge
in the Hawaiian Islands, Cuddihy & Stone         I
() and Cole et al. (a, b) say that the   Barbary Partridges are believed to have been
role of these two species in facilitating the    introduced to the island of Sardinia by the
dispersal and germination of the seeds of        Romans (Aebischer ), although Spanó
native plants is beneficial in restoring          () believes that they were natural colonists
degraded ecosystems on Maui; these include       in the late Miocene – a seemingly unlikely
shrubs such as Vaccinium reticulatum, Styphe-    occurrence for a relatively sedentary species.
lia tameiameiae, Coprosma spp. and Geranium      In Sardinia, Barbary Partridges occupy a
cuneatum in the Haleakala National Park.         wider variety of habitats than in Gibraltar,
Cole et al. (a, b) say that the Chukar’s     occurring on steep mountain slopes in the
impact on native invertebrates is minimal,       interior and rocky hillsides, open or degraded
and that the birds are not significant competi-   maquis (scrub), unimproved agricultural land
tors with the endemic Hawaiian Goose or          and vineyards (Aebischer ). Outside the
Nene Branta sandvicensis, a species which is     breeding season the birds gather in coveys of
classified as Vulnerable by the World Con-        – individuals, often moving in winter to
servation Union. Scott et al. (), however,   lower altitudes near farmland (Mocci Demar-
considered that Chukars may compete with         tis ). The species has markedly declined
Nenes for browse.                                to less than , breeding pairs, largely
                                                 through overshooting and poaching but also
                                                 in consequence of the intensive use of pesti-
                                                 cides and loss of habitat due to summer fires
Barbary Partridge                                (Mocci Demartis & Massoli-Novelli ).
Alectoris barbara
                                                 S
Natural Range: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, NE     The earliest published reference to A. barbara
  Libya and NW Egypt.                            in Spain appears to be that of Gonzalez-Diez
                                    Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

(). Those observed in the vicinity of         occurred in north Wales. In the early s,
Gibraltar and from further afield in Cadiz         Red-legged Partridges were introduced on the
may be natural dispersers from Gibraltar          Isle of Man.
(though A. barbara is a largely sedentary            In Scotland, A. rufa was imported to the
species) or a result of other unrecorded          Orkney Islands in  (Baikie & Heddle
introductions.                                    ). In the early s birds were introduced
                                                  to the Scottish mainland from Kirkcud-
C I                                    brightshire in the south to Caithness in
Barbary Partridges, of the western Moroccan       the north, and the species has become widely
race koenigi, have been introduced to the         established in a number of localities.
Canary Islands. According to Bannerman               Although Fitter () traced at least a dozen
() they were established on Fuerteventura     introductions of Red-legged Partridges to
from  until at least , and were still     seven Welsh counties, the birds are presently
present on Tenerife (where they are believed to   established only in parts of Glamorganshire,
have been introduced before ) and La          Brecknockshire, Radnorshire, Montgomery-
Gomera but had become rare or extinct on          shire and Denbighshire.
Lanzarote. Following later introductions,            A. rufa was first introduced to Ireland in
the species is abundant and common                Co Tyrone, in , and was presumably
throughout all the principal islands of the       established in the wild by at least 
archipelago; Gran Canaria, El Hierro, La          when it appears on an Irish game list. In
Palma, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, Tenerife         – attempts were made to introduce
and La Gomera, and also on Lobos, La              more Red-legged Partridges to Ireland,
Graciosa and Allegranza (Martí and del Moral      where breeding was recorded in County
).                                            Tipperary, Louth, Dublin and Wexford;
                                                  Red-legged Partridges in Ireland are, however,
                                                  not self-sustaining.
                                                     Essentially a bird of open ground, the Red-
Red-legged Partridge                              legged Partridge favours a warm and dry
Alectoris rufa                                    climate, with a well-drained soil and a com-
                                                  bination of low bushy vegetation for shelter
Natural Range: From the Iberian Peninsula         with more open areas for feeding: throughout
  north to the Pyrenees and S France, east to     much of its range it is associated with arable
  the Balearic Is., Corsica, Elba and N Italy.    farming, especially low-intensity cropping
  (It has been suggested that the appearance      with a mixture of cultivated and fallow land
  of A. rufa in the Balearic Islands may be as    (Potts ). In England it is most at home on
  a result of human introduction, reintroduc-     the dry sandy or calcareous soil with a conti-
  tion or translocation.)                         nental climate and low rainfall of East Anglia,
Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles. Aus-    although it also occurs in many other counties
  tralasia: ?New Zealand. Atlantic Ocean:         north to north Yorkshire and west to east
  Azores Is., Canary Is., Madeira Is.             Devon. A decline in numbers and distribu-
                                                  tion between about  and , partially
B I                                     caused by the increase in intensive farming,
Since  Red-legged (or French) Partridges      with the concomitant use of pesticides,
have been introduced on numerous occasions        mechanization, irrigation and the removal of
to England, where they did not, however,          hedgerows (Rands ) and heavy shooting
become established (in Suffolk) until about        pressure, has been reversed, largely by large-
 years later (Harting ). By the late       scale annual restocking.
s, Red-legged Partridges were abundant
in parts of Yorkshire, the Midlands and in the    Impact: In East Anglia, Red-legged Partridges
southwest as far as Somerset; smaller numbers     cause some damage to sugarbeet seedlings.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Where the two species exist together, A. rufa x     only that Madeira is a ‘successful historical
A. chukar hybrids occur.                            introduction site’.

N Z
In spite of failed introductions in the late
nineteenth century, attempts have been made,        Black Francolin
using eggs imported from Britain, to establish      Francolinus francolinus
A. rufa since ; birds have been released
between Kaipara Harbour and Taumarunai,             Natural Range: From Cyprus and Turkey
in the Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay,          through Asia Minor to Transcaucasia and
in the Upper Moutere Valley near Nelson,              SW Turkmenistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
and in Marlborough and Canterbury, but the            Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh to
outcome is as yet uncertain (Heather &                Assam.
Robertson ).                                    Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Portugal. Pacific
                                                      Ocean: Hawaiian Is.; Mariana Is.
A I
Red-legged Partridges were introduced to the        P
Azores in the eighteenth century, where in          Costa et al (: ), quoting Vowles &
 they were said to be abundant on Santa         Vowles (), says that Black Francolins are
Maria but rare on São Miguel and Terceira. At       ‘… apparently established in some hilly grass-
various times during the next  years they        land areas in the northeastern Algarve’ of
were recorded with varying abundance on             southern Portugal. No further information is
these islands and also on Pico (Bannerman &         available.
Bannerman ). The map in Aebischer
& Lucio (: ) indicates probable breed-       H I
ing in the Azores.                                  Between  and  a total of  Black
                                                    Francolins were imported from game farms in
C I                                      Texas and California to Hawaii, Maui, Kauai
Red-legged Partridges were first recorded on         and Molokai (Berger ); the birds rapidly
Gran Canaria in , where Peters () and       dispersed from their points of release and
Bannerman () agreed they had most               became established on dry agricultural land,
probably been introduced. Aebischer & Lucio         in irrigation ditches and in fields surrounding
(: ) say only that Gran Canaria is a
‘successful historical introduction site’ and the
species remains well-established there (Martí
& del Moral ).

M I
A. rufa may have been first introduced to
Madeira and Porto Santo by the Portuguese
Prince Henry the Navigator, who colonised
the islands in –. In  and  the
species was said to be scarce on Madeira
and was not mentioned on Porto Santo. Two
pairs were successfully released on Porto Santo
in  and the species may still occur on
the island. On a number of occasions
before  Red-legged Partridges were
successfully planted on Madeira (Bannerman
). Aebischer & Lucio (: ) say                           Black Francolin
                                    Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

sugar-cane plantations (Bump & Bohl ).        O
The species is well established in dry scrub-     Although Gallagher & Woodcock (:
land and savannah and pastureland at low          ) say that Grey Francolins of the form
elevations on all the islands to which it was     mecranensis were ‘probably introduced to
introduced (Scott et al. , Pratt ,        Oman’, Dickinson () does not list the
AOU ). Pratt et al. () list it also on    species as present in the Arabian Peninsula.
Lanai.                                            However, according to Anon (: ) it
                                                  occurs in northern Oman as a ‘common
Impact: The Black Francolin is one of the         breeding resident along Batinah and in some
species of introduced birds that helps            wadis [channels that are dry except in the
to spread the alien Banana Poka Passiflora         rainy season] in foothills on both sides of the
mollissima in the Hawaiian Islands (Lewin         Hajas mountains and southwards [and in cen-
, Warshauer et al. ).                     tral Oman as a] breeding res ident in coastal
                                                  areas south to oN’ (see also Johnsgard ).
M I
In ,  wild-caught Black Francolins         U A E
were liberated at the Naval Magazine on the       In the early s Grey Francolins were intro-
island of Guam, where within a couple of          duced to Sir Bani Yas Island on the Trucial
years birds were being frequently recorded        Coast, and perhaps also in Dubai. They now
within km of the release site (Bump & Bohl      occur in cultivated localities (even in remote
). The species became widespread in           mountain regions), gardens, parks and scrub
southern Guam (Pratt et al. ) and in      with dense cover and a supply of water,
the first shooting season was declared.            mainly north and east of a line between Al
                                                  Ain and Jebel Ali; the species has also been
                                                  recorded in Abu Dhabi, most frequently in
                                                  Bateen Wood (Richardson ).
Grey Francolin
Francolinus pondicerianus                         C
                                                  Johnsgard () refers to the introduction of
Natural Range: From S Iran to W Pakistan,         Grey Francolins to the island of Hainan, but
  India and Sri Lanka.                            provides no further information.
Naturalised Range: Asia: Bahrain; ?China;
  ?Oman; Qatar; UAE. Indian Ocean: Anda-          A I
  man Is.; Mascarene Is.; Seychelles Is. Pacific   Grey Francolins of the nominate subspecies
  Ocean: Hawaiian Is.                             were released at Port Blair on South Andaman
                                                  around , where Ali & Ripley () said
A                                            the birds were well established near Port Blair,
Jennings () records breeding in Bahrain       and where the AOU () confirms their
(Manama), Qatar (Doha), the United Arab           survival.
Emirates (Dubai and Abu Dhabi), and Oman
(Muscat). (See also below).                       M I
                                                  The nominate race of the Grey Francolin was
B                                           introduced by the French to Mauritius and
According to Hirschfeld & King (: ),        Réunion in about , where the species was
‘this species is now one of the most common       soon widespread and abundant. By the early
breeding species in Bahrain’, where it was        s, however, probably as a result of
introduced to Al Areen around  (possibly      predation by the introduced Small Indian
even before ), and has spread in both         Mongoose Herpestes javanicus (see Lever
gardens and desert areas throughout Bahrain       ), the birds were said to be restricted to
and the Muharraq Islands.                         the rocky coastal plains. By the end of the
   Naturalised Birds of the World

decade they were apparently precariously           and near the slopes of Mauna Kea, also on
established in some of the drier regions           Hawaii; in all these localities the birds quickly
(Benedict ). Jones () lists them as        became established and spread.
occurring in lowland secondary scrubland,             Between  and  a total of ,
lowland exotic savanna, open grassy areas and      birds from northern India (F. p. interpositus)
cultivated land.                                   were liberated on Maui, Lanai, Hawaii, Kauai
   On Réunion the population has declined          and Molokai, where Bump & Bohl (:
considerably due to cyclonic winds and             –) reported that they were ‘Reproducing
prolonged droughts, but a small number             on Hawaii and Maui. Seen to be established
survive (AOU ) on the plain of St Paul         on Lanai. Most birds have remained in release
(Barré & Barau ).                              area …’. By , ‘adults and broods reported
   According to Colin (in Kennedy ,            from all islands except Kauai. Lanai continues
quoted by Cheke ),  Grey Francolins          most encouraging, and expansion of range
imported to Rodrigues from Tranquebar in           continues. … this species continues to be the
southern India between  and  were          most promising import to the State’. Grey
released at Baie aux Huitres (North-Coombes        Francolins are now well established in
). Bertuchi () says the date was .     lowland dry and open pastureland with some
Slater (c. ; quoted by Cheke )             shrub cover on Hawaii, Maui, Lanai and
reported the birds to be well established, and a   Molokai (Pratt , AOU ), where they
century later Staub () found them to           are ‘common to abundant in lowland areas’
remain widely distributed but less abundant.       (Pratt et al. : ). They are said to occur
The birds are said still to occur in Acacia        locally on Oahu and Kauai, but are seldom
eburnea and Lantana camara scrub around St         seen (Pratt et al. ).
François and Point Cotton in the east of the
island. In , droppings believed to be those    Impact: The Grey Francolin is one of the
of Grey Francolins were discovered on Île          introduced species responsible for the spread
Frêgate, m off the southwestern coast of         of the alien Banana Poka Passiflora mollissima
Rodrigues, which had at one time been              in the Hawaiian Islands (Lewin , War-
stocked with the birds for shooting purposes       shauer et al. ).
(Showler ).

Impact: Grey Francolins on Réunion have
caused some damage to maize Zea mays               Erckel’s Francolin
seedlings (Barré & Barau ).                    Francolinus erckelii
S I                                 Natural Range: NE Sudan, Eritrea and
Grey Francolins were introduced to several           Ethiopia.
islands in about  by Admiral Sir William       Naturalised Range: Europe: Italy. Pacific
Kennedy. Although by the turn of the century         Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
they were said to be widely distributed, today
they survive only on Desroches and Coëtivy         I
(Skerrett et al. ) and in the Amirante         Erckel’s Francolins were first imported to Italy
Group (AOU ).                                  in , where two years later they were
                                                   released in a number of localities (e.g. in
H I                                   alpine and subalpine zones on Monte Baldo,
In –,  and –, a total of        Verona and Serra Vito di Cadore, Belluno)
game-farm-reared Grey Francolins were              in the north; in the Appenino Pistoiese;
imported from California and released on the       and on the islands of Elba, Livorno, di
Pun Waawaa Ranch on Hawaii. A further           Zannone, Latina and Sardinia. The Francolins
were liberated in – at several sites on      are only properly established (since about
                                       Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

) in Toscano and Lazio (Capalbio,                   Grey Partridge
Grosseto and Circeo, Latina) (Baccetti et al.           Perdix perdix
).
                                                        Natural Range: From W Europe (apart from
H I                                          most of the Iberian Peninsula) E through the
In ,  Erckel’s Francolins from game-                Urals and Caucasus to SW Siberia, Kaza-
farms on the mainland were imported to                    khstan, NW China and the Tuva Republic.
Hawaii, where they were released at Puako on            Naturalised Range: North America: Canada;
the northwest coast. In –  more were             USA. Australasia: ?New Zealand.
freed near Pohakuloa between Mauna Kea
and Mauna Loa, and in – a further                 C
 from game-farms in California and                   Table  lists releases of the Grey Partridge in
Oklahoma were liberated on the Puu Waawaa               Canada between  and .
Ranch, all on Hawaii. In the latter year,               Grey Partridges seem never to have been
more were released on Hawaii, Oahu, Kauai,              deliberately liberated on the British Colum-
Molokai, Lanai, Maui and Kahoolawe. In                  bian mainland. According to Phillips (),
 an additional  birds were freed on               they first arrived in the interior of British
Molokai, and a year later  more were                 Columbia in  as natural dispersers from
planted on three (unspecified) islands (Bump             Washington, and before long had spread
& Bohl ). Today, Erckel’s Francolins are            further north up the Okanagan and Arrow
thinly established in alien forest and scrub            Lakes Valleys, where the drier climate was
(Guava Psidium guajava, Java Plum Eugenia               more favourable than that in the wetter
cumini and Eucalyptus) and mixed indigenous             coastal region. In Alberta, Grey Partridges had
woodland (Ohia Metrosideros collina and Koa             spread by  over the border into neigh-
Acacia koa) on Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai,            bouring Saskatchewan (Dexter ), from
Oahu and Kauai (Pratt et al. , Pratt ),         where in the following year they dispersed
although the AOU () says they no longer             into North Dakota.
occur on Maui. Erckel’s Francolins favour                  By the late s, Grey Partridges were
open woodland at lower elevations (Scott et             established in the prairie provinces of south-
al. ).                                              ern and central Alberta, southcentral Saskat-
                                                        chewan and southern Manitoba where, as in
Impact: Erckel’s Francolin is one of the exotic         the United States, they thrive on the fertile
birds that contribute to the spread of the              arable land where small grains (and their
introduced Banana Poka Passiflora mollissima             associated insects) provide food and cover.
in the Hawaiian Islands (Lewin , War-               In British Columbia, a sizeable population
shauer et al. ).                                    survives in farmland and dry grasslands of the
                                                        lower Okanagan Valley, in the Thompson and


  Grey Partridge Perdix perdix releases in Canada, –.
Date           Province            Locality                    Number Source
–        British Columbia    Vancouver, Sidney,          ,+   Canadian government;
                                   Saltspring, South                    J. L. & A. E. Todd;
                                   Pender, James Is.                    A. R. Spalding &
                                                                        H. R. Pooley
–c.  Alberta               High River, Calgary;              F. J. Green; Game &
                                   Edmonton                             Fish Protection League
–        Manitoba            Near Warren; Neepawa              Game & Fish Protetion League
Sources : Phillips , Munro & Cowan .
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Fraser Valleys, and on southeastern Vancouver    and South Islands, but only in Southland did
Island (AOU ), though numbers fluctu-         a few birds persist until recently (Heather &
ate because of the marginal habitat (Carl &      Robertson ).
Guiget ).
   In eastern Canada, Grey Partridges occur
in southern, central and especially eastern
Ontario locally north to North Bay on Lake       Common Quail
Nipissing, in extreme southwestern Quebec,       Coturnix coturnix
in southern New Brunswick, on Prince
Edward Island, and locally in Nova Scotia        Natural Range: Canary Is., Madeira and NW
(AOU ). These east coast populations are       Africa, and Europe E to N India and Mon-
believed to be derived from dispersers from        golia; the Azores, Cape Verde Is., southern
Michigan and New York.                             Africa, Madagascar, the Comores Is. and E
                                                   and NE Africa.
U S
Table  lists releases of the Grey Partridge
(formerly known in the United States as the      Blue-breasted Quail (King Quail)
Hungarian Partridge) between  and .      Coturnix chinensis
Today, the species is naturalised, locally and
discontinuously, in northern Nevada, western     Natural Range: From India through Indonesia
and northern Utah, northern Wyoming,               to New Guinea, Taiwan, and N and E Aus-
southeastern Nebraska, northern South              tralia.
Dakota, northwestern Iowa (Dinsmore ),
extreme northern Illinois, northern Missouri,
southern Michigan, northern Vermont and          Jungle Bush Quail
northern New York (AOU ). In spite           Perdicula asiatica
of repeated large-scale introductions, Grey
Partridges have failed to become firmly           Natural Range: India and Sri Lanka.
established east of the Allegheny Mountains,     Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Mascarene Is.
and even in the above states populations have
declined or disappeared in recent decades        M I
(AOU ). Grey Partridges do best in fertile   Cheke () has traced the origin of these
agricultural areas where small grains (and       three species in the Mascarenes.
associated insects) provide food and shelter
(Vuilleumier , Johnston & Garrett ).
Much of the species’ success in the northern
states may be due to the dispersal of birds
from Canada.
   Gullion () suggests the Grey Partridge
(and Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus)
have failed to become naturalised in any new
habitats, and have only succeeded in main-
taining populations in habitats similar to
those in their natural range.

N Z
Grey Partridges were widely but unsuccess-
fully introduced from the s to .
Between  and  a further , birds
of Danish origin were released in both North                    Common Quail
                                       Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

  Grey Partridge Perdix perdix releases in the USA, –.

Date           State               Locality                          Number            Source
c.         New Jersey          Beverley, Delaware R.             ?                 Richard Bache
           New Jersey          Jobstown                          ?                 Pierre Lorillard
           California          ?                                 ?                 ?
           California          ?                                                 ?
           California           localities in – counties     ,             ?
Early s    Massachusetts       S shore Cape Cod                  ?                 Charles B. Cory
           Massachusetts       Wenham                            ?                 John C. Phillips
c. s       Virginia            ?                                 ?                 ?
–      Illinois            ?                                 , prs         ?
–        Oregon              Willamette Valley, Marion         ,             ?
                                   County &  other counties
Early s    Indiana             ?                                 ?                 ?
           North Carolina      High Point                        ?                 George Gould
–        Washington          Spokane, Columbia, Lincoln,       ,             ?
                                   Chelan &  other counties
           Nebraska            ?                                 ?                 ?
           Nebraska            Dawes & Frontier Counties                         ?
–        Connecticut         ?                                 ,+            ?
–        Iowa                ?                                 ,            ?
–        Iowa                Cass & Shelby Counties            ,             ?
–s     Michigan            Saginaw Bay; near Oxford;         ,             H. Jewett &
                                    other localities                                 Department of
                                                                                       Conservation
–        Utah                Cache, Salt Lake, Servier,                       Department of
                                   Tocele, Utah, Weber,                                Fish & Game;
                                   Washington, Box Elder,                              ShermanHardy;
                                   Uintah counties; near Santa                         Vance Tingey;
                                   Clara, St George, Brigham                           Elwin Cloward
                                   City, & Richfield
Before     Montana             ?                                 ?                 ?
–        Montana             Sheridan & other counties         ,             ?
           New York            Batavia, Genesse county           ?                 ?
–        New York            ?                                 ,            ?
           Nevada              ?                                 ?                 ?
           North Dakota        ?                                 ,             ?
–        Pennsylvania         counties                       ,            ?
–        Idaho               ?                                                ?
           Wisconsin           Waukesha County                   Large numbers     Gustave Pabst
–        Colorado             counties                        ,             ?

Sources : Phillips ; Cottam et al. ; Gerstell ; Dale ; Westerskov ; Popov & Low ;
Jewett et al. ; Brown ; Gullion & Christensen ; Trueblood & Weigand ; Banks ; AOU
.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

   Desjardins () referred to the presence of   introduced. This could result in the loss of the
Painted Quail Coturnix sinensis (= chinensis)      partially migratory native species and its
on Réunion and on Mauritius, and by            replacement by a non-migratory hybrid that
two further species, the Common Quail C.           would be a more popular game bird.
coturnix (Carié , Guérin –) and
‘C. cambayensis’ (= Perdicula asiatica, the Jun-   H I
gle Bush Quail) had been added (Coquerel           Japanese Quail were first liberated on Maui
). Vinson () said that the Jungle Bush     and Lanai in  (Caum ). Subsequently,
Quail had been introduced some  years            other islands were colonised either through
previously (i.e. around ), and implied that    natural dispersal or through apparently
Common Quail had been established at an            unrecorded introductions. In  some birds
even earlier date. All three species occur on      were imported to Kauai, and by – the
Réunion today (Barré & Barau , Cheke           species occurred on all the main islands
, Hawkins & Safford in prep.).                  (where the population was estimated to be
   The few Common Quail now living on              nearly ,) but was only transitory on
Mauritius are probably birds released from         Oahu (Schwartz & Schwartz ). The birds
quail farms (Staub a, Cheke ).             favour the more fertile soil of the smoother
                                                   and less dissected montane slopes used
                                                   for pasturage, and also frequent some
                                                   pineapple and sugar-cane plantations and
Japanese Quail                                     market gardens, but avoid indigenous forests
Coturnix japonica                                  and barren lava fields. They are currently
                                                   established on Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai
Natural Range: Transbaikalia and Mongolia to       and Kauai (AOU ), where they are most
  Sakhalin I., Japan and Korea. Winters from       frequently seen on the north shore of Kauai
  NE India and China to N Indochina.               and on the northwestern slopes of Haleakala
Naturalised Range: Europe. Pacific Ocean:           on Maui (Pratt et al. ).
  Hawaiian Is.

E
Since the s, and since  in Italy           Brown Quail
according to Baccetti et al. (), the decline   Coturnix ypsilophora
of occidental populations of the partially
migratory Common Quail C. c. coturnix has          Natural Range: Lesser Sunda Is., Savu, New
triggered the release in several European            Guinea, Australia.
countries of Japanese Quail as potential game      Naturalised Range: Australasia: New Zealand.
birds (Guyomarc’h et al. ).                      Pacific Ocean: Fiji Is.

Impact: Derégnaucourt et al. () have sug-      N Z
gested that hybridisation between migrant C.       Two races of the Brown Quail (C. y. australis
coturnix and the few remaining residents with      from mainland Australia and the nominate
introduced non-migratory C. japonica (as has       C. y. ypsilophora from Tasmania) have been
occurred in laboratory conditions) could           imported to New Zealand, as shown in
modify the migratory pattern of native popu-       Table .
lations of coturnix and lead to an increased          Thomson (: ) wrote that the Brown
proportion of birds showing sedentary rather       Quail was ‘almost unknown in the South
than migratory characteristics. Furthermore,       Island, but is fairly common in many parts of
hybrids that do show migratory behaviour           the North Island’. Oliver () found the
could facilitate Japanese Quail gene flow           species to be abundant around the Bay of
into localities where japonica has yet to be       Plenty and further north, and on Three Kings
                                      Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

and Mayor Islands, but scarce elsewhere.
Wodzicki (: ) said the birds were ‘re-
stricted but locally common, North Island
and Three Kings, Poor Knights, Alderman,
Mayor, Gt and Little Barrier’, while Kinsky
() reported Brown Quail to be widely
distributed in North Island (especially in the
north) and on all the above islands plus
Mercury. Today, the species is common in
Northland and on many of its offshore islands
and also on some developed islands in the Bay
of Plenty. It is fairly common in the Waikato
and the Bay of Plenty, but scarce south of a
line between Kawhia, Lake Taupo and Hawke’s                           Brown Quail
Bay (Heather & Robertson ). Brown
Quail favour swamps and the edges of tidal           According to Pratt et al. (: ), Brown
marshes as well as scrub and rough grassland.      Quails are ‘established in the drier w. parts
                                                   of Viti Levu and on Vanua Levu (central
F                                               Macuata)’, but are everywhere uncommon.
Watling (: ) records that:
   The Swamp Quail [a synonym for the
   Brown Quail] was introduced and is
   found only on the dry, leewardsides             Chinese Bamboo Partridge
   of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu in Fiji. It         Bambusicola thoracicus
   inhabits scrub and grassland, especially in
   and around the extensive sugar-cane             Natural Range: S & C China and Taiwan.
   growing districts. The date of the Swamp        Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Italy. Asia: Japan.
   Quail’s introduction is not known but it
   was almost certainly after the introduc-        I
   tion [in ] of the mongoose [Herpestes       Between  and , Chinese Bamboo Par-
   javanicus, see Lever ], whose presence      tridges were introduced to at least four regions
   it has been able to survive. However, it is     of Italy (northeastern Sicily, Emilia-Romagna,
   a rare bird and in Viti Levu may well have      Lucania/Puglia, and Toscana/ Umbria), but
   declined in recent years.                       only in the first two areas did the species ever


         Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora imported to New Zealand –s.

       Date                        Numbers              Imported by
                                                   Canterbury Acclimatisation Society
                                                   Canterbury A.S.
                               ‘a number’           Canterbury A.S.
        & s                ?                    Canterbury A.S.
       –                     +                   Auckland A.S.
                                                 Auckland A.S.
       –                                        Otago A.S.
                                                   Southland A.S.
       –                                        Wellington A.S.

       Source: Thomson .
   Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                  distribution the OSJ () adds Sado and
                                                  the Izu and Iwo Islands.

                                                  Impact: Although they cause some damage to
                                                  seedling crops, Chinese Bamboo Partridges in
                                                  Japan also eat such harmful invertebrates as
                                                  locusts (Orthoptera), termites (Isoptera) and
                                                  ants (Hymenoptera) (Yamashina ).



                                                  Red Jungle Fowl
                                                  Gallus gallus
                                                  Natural Range: N Pakistan through N and E
                                                    Assam, C India, N and C Burma, SW
                                                    Yunnan, Indochina, and C Burma to N
                                                    and NC Vietnam; also Sumatra and Java.
          Chinese Bamboo Partridge                Naturalised Range: Asia: Indonesia; Philip-
                                                    pines. North America: West Indies. South
reproduce, and it apparently failed to become       America. Indian Ocean: Mascarene Is.
established (Baccetti et al. ).                 Pacific Ocean: ?Galápagos Is; Hawaiian Is.;
                                                    Polynesia; Melanesia; Micronesia;
J
In  some Chinese Bamboo Partridges of         The Red Jungle Fowl is the ancestor of the do-
the mainland nominate subspecies were             mestic fowl. It was probably bred in captivity
imported from southern China to Japan,            in southeastern Asia in prehistoric times. The
where their offspring were released in the         species was domesticated in the Indus Valley
Kanagawa Prefecture southwest of Tokyo            by about   and by   had been
(Kuroda ). A decade later more of the         imported to central and northwestern Europe.
mainland form were liberated in the Hyogo
Prefecture on Honshu, where they became           I
established (Sakane ). In  birds of the   Red Jungle Fowls may have been introduced
Taiwanese race B. t. sonorivox were imported      to the Malaysian region by the Mongols in the
to Japan, where in about  some were freed     late thirteenth century. The first European to
at Kobe on Honshu and probably also in the        see them there appears to have been the
Saitama Prefecture north of Tokyo.                English navigator John Davis in , and
   By the outbreak of the Second World War,       they were subsequently noted in the Nicobar
Chinese Bamboo Partridges were widespread         Islands in the Bay of Bengal by Sir James
throughout Japan (especially south of Kwantô:     Lancaster in . Elsewhere in the region,
Kaburaki ), and within  years had           feral Red Jungle Fowl are known to occur in
colonised the Seven Islands of Izu Shichito       the Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands,
and those of Shikoku and Kyushu (Yamashina        on Borneo, in the Lesser Sunda Islands (in-
). Brazil () records the species          cluding Lombok, Timor, and Wetar), Palawan
as common in much of Honshu from                  (where they were first recorded in ),
Chiba-ken westwards to Kyushu. Eguchi &           Balabac, Sulawesi, and Papua New Guinea
Amano (: ) confirm that the species          (Ball ), and almost certainly elsewhere.
has ‘… established long-term self-sustaining
populations’ in Kyushu, Shikoku, southern         P
and western Honshu, and Kobe. To this             Although Delacour () suggested that
                                       Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

G. gallus was introduced to the Philippines           found in domestication, and no doubt also in
at an early date, Parkes () believed it           the wild, on both the Atlantic and Pacific
might be indigenous. Rabor & Rand ()              coasts of the Americas north to Rhode
considered that the population may represent          Island, USA, before the arrival of Europeans.
different colonisations or introductions.              Menzies () quotes Carter (: ; )
Dickinson (: ) says the species was             who wrote:
‘introduced to the Philippines (sometimes
recognised as philippensis …)’. Feral birds now          Since Asiatic chickens are very different
occur throughout the archipelago.                        from the Mediterranean chickens and
                                                         most of the traits that reappear in the
W I                                              flocks of the Amerindians are found in
Columbus is known to have included                       Asia, the obvious conclusion would
domestic fowl among the stock he landed on               be that Amerind chickens were first
Hispaniola in . According to Bond (:             introduced [to South America] from Asia
                                                         and not from the Mediterranean. … a
) ‘it is said that feral domestic fowl are thriv-
                                                         conclusion for a Spanish or Portuguese
ing on the islet of Kick-em-Jenny in the
                                                         [see Hernandez ] first introduction of
Grenadines and on Mona’. According to the
                                                         chickens into America is simply counter
AOU (: ), Gallus gallus is established            to all the evidence. The Mediterraneans,
‘on islands in the Bahamas (Little San Sal-              as late as , did not have … the galaxy
vador), off Puerto Rico (Mona, and possibly               of chickens present in Amerind hands …
Culebra), and in the Grenadines (Kick-                   the only possible conclusion is that
em-Jenny)’. Raffaele et al. () record                 chickens were introduced from across the
the species as occurring very locally in the             Pacific, probably repeatedly, long before
Dominican Republic at Los Haitises and in                the Mediterranean discoveries of America
the Sierra de Baoruco; among the haystack                [see Garcia-Petit ].
hills on Puerto Rico; on Mona and possibly
Culebra; and in the Grenadines.                          The principal traits shared by Asiatic and
                                                      Latin American fowl are blue egg-shells (those
S A                                         of European fowl are brown or white) and
Menzies (), from whom the following               melanism. Melanistic fowl are still found
account is derived, argues persuasively that          throughout Latin America, and blue-shelled
fowl were not introduced to the New World             eggs from Chile to Mexico. If Europeans had
from Europe, as has long been believed, but           introduced fowl to the Americas the Euro-
were first imported by Chinese voyagers in the         pean name would surely have been adopted
fifteenth century direct from Asia. They were          by the Amerindians, but this did not occur;
                                                      the names adopted for fowl in South and
                                                      Central America closely resemble those used
                                                      in the birds’ native Asian range, and the Incas
                                                      had a word for fowl at least  years before the
                                                      arrival of the sixteenth century conquistadors
                                                      (d’Acosta ). Finally, fifteenth century
                                                      Europeans were almost unique in eating fowl
                                                      and their eggs. In southeast Asia and China,
                                                      and by the Amerindians of South America,
                                                      fowl were used solely for purposes of divina-
                                                      tion and not for consumption.

                                                      M I
                                                      Red Jungle Fowl were introduced to Réunion
                Red Jungle Fowl                       in the early s, when some were released at
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Bras Pinon (Jouanin ). Cheke ()              soil is too acid for the growth of commercial
heard the species in formerly inhabited areas        crops but supports a luxuriant forest vegeta-
of the Rivière des Remparts, and a few are           tion of Koa Acacia koa and Ohia Metrosideras
believed to occur in dense woodland and              collina with some other native and alien
cirques (steep-sided hollows at the head of a        mixed hardwoods. Ground cover is provided
valley or on a mountainside) on the east coast,      by an understorey of scattered shrubs, ground
and more commonly inland from Bras Pinon             ferns, matted ferns and tree ferns (Scott et al.
and in the Liberia region, Eden, and the             ). The birds’ main controlling factor on
Morne du Bras des Lianes.                            Kauai seems to be predation by feral Cats Felis
                                                     catus and Pigs Sus scrofa (see Lever ).
G I                                       In  Red Jungle Fowl were imported
According to B. Barnett (pers. comm. ),          from game-farms on the United States
feral domestic fowl were then established in         mainland and were released on Kauai
parts of the highlands of Sierra Negra near          and Hawaii; on the latter they apparently
Santo Tómas on Isabela (Albemarle). From             disappeared, but Bond (), Pratt et al.
morphological alterations (e.g. longer wings         () and the AOU () confirm the
and tail and characteristic colouration) and         species’ survival on Kauai (including at
changes in behaviour (e.g. the ability to fly         Kokee) and, following a more recent intro-
and arboreal nesting) they may have occurred         duction, at Waimea Falls Park on Oahu.
in this region for many years – perhaps since
the late nineteenth century. They are not,           P; M; M
however, mentioned either by Harris ()           From archaeological evidence in the Marque-
or Swash & Still ().                             sas and Society Islands it is known that Red
                                                     Jungle Fowl were introduced to islands in the
H I                                     South Pacific from eastern Asia (mainly
A domesticated form of the Red Jungle Fowl           Malaysia) by early Polynesian voyagers
was almost certainly introduced to the Hawai-        some , years ago (Ball ). Escaped
ian Islands from eastern Asia (principally           or deliberately released birds eventually
Malaysia) by early Polynesia settlers, probably      succeeded in establishing feral populations on
around   (Ball ). After their intro-        virtually every inhabited island throughout
duction by Europeans in the late eighteenth          Polynesia and the East Indies (AOU ),
century, domestic fowl interbred with feral          where, however, ‘now these populations are
Jungle Fowl, and became established in the           declining drastically’ (Pratt et al. : ).
wild on all the inhabited islands in the archi-
pelago where, however, except on Kauai, they
appear to have died out by the early twentieth
century. The reasons for the birds’ extinction       Kalij Pheasant
seems to have been a combination of over-            Lophura leucomelanos
shooting, the deforestation of their preferred
habitat, continued interbreeding with domes-         Natural Range: From W Himalayas of N
tic stock, which tended to undermine the               Pakistan and WC Nepal through Sikkim,
ability of feral birds to survive in the wild, and     Bhutan, Assam, and Burma to Xizang.
the introduction of the Small Indian Mon-            Naturalised Range: South America: Argentina.
goose Herpestes javanicus (see Lever ).            Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
   Schwartz & Schwartz () found that
feral Jungle Fowl were established in small          A
discrete areas on Kauai totalling  sq km.         In about  Aarón Anchorena introduced
The rugged country occupied by the fowl              four species of pheasant (L. leucomelanos
consists principally of narrow ridges alter-         melanota (eastern Nepal, Sikkim, and western
nating with small but deep valleys, where the        Bhutan), L. nycthemera, Chrysolophus pictus
                                       Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

and C. amherstiae, q.v.) to Victoria Island in       sq km – one third of Hawaii’s total area.
the Nahuel Huapi National Park in south-             According to Pratt et al. (: ), Kalij
western Argentina, where they became                 Pheasants were ‘… spreading explosively
established and where in  the population         throughout the island in suitable habitat’. The
was estimated to number some ,.                  AOU (: ) says the species is ‘… now in
According to Navas (), Kalij and Silver          the North Kona district and on the slopes of
Pheasants are very numerous on Victoria              Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea’.
Island, where they have freely interbred and            ‘The successful colonisation of Hawaii by
have produced hybrids that are now the most          Kalij Pheasants’, wrote Lewin & Lewin (:
abundant birds on the island. Navas ()           ), ‘can be thought of as a symptom of a
believed that a possible cause of hybridisation      degraded ecosystem, because the birds are in
was a disparity in the ratio between the sexes.      large measure dependent on both exotic
See also Narosky & Yzurieta () and               plants and animals for food and cover’. The
Mazar Barnett & Pearman ().                      species’ success on Hawaii can be attributed to
                                                     the ability of this shy woodland bird to
Impact: All four species of pheasants on             colonise rainforest areas and other densely
Victoria Island consume large quantities of          vegetated mesic habitats (Scott et al. ).
seeds, fruits, and insects, which has resulted in
considerable changes in the ecosystem. They          Impact: Of the Kalij Pheasants examined by
also compete to the detriment of many species        Lewin & Lewin (), % contained the
of native fauna on the island (Navas ).          seeds of the exotic and aggressive vine Banana
                                                     Poka Passiflora mollissima (one of the worst
H I                                     floral pests in Hawaii) and % contained
The population of Kalij Pheasants on the             those of another pest species, the Thimble-
island of Hawaii is descended from the release       berry Rubus rosaefolius, both of which the
in  of  birds on the Puu Waawaa                birds help to spread. (See also Stone & Ander-
Ranch by L. S. Dillingham and W. Carlsmith           son , Pratt ).
(Lewin ). The birds were subsequently
identified by Lewin & Lewin () as an
intergrade between L. l. hamiltonii of the
western Himalayas and the nominate                   Silver Pheasant
L. l. leucomelanos of central Nepal.                 Lophura nycthemera
   After their release, the birds established a
breeding colony in dense stands of exotic Silk       Natural Range: S China, Burma, N Laos,
Oak Grevillea robusta woodland, where they             southwestern Kampuchea, North Vietnam,
remained for the next five years. Thereafter            C South Vietnam, Thailand, and Hainan.
they spread at an average rate of some eight         Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Germany. South
km a year, and within  years most of the             America: Argentina.
mid-elevation forests on the island had been
colonised. By the early s, Kalij Pheasants       G
were fairly common to abundant in most               According to Niethammer () and Heinzel
forested localities, especially in areas of exten-   et al. (), Silver Pheasants were then
sive woodland on the slopes of Mauna Kea             established in woodlands in unspecified parts
and Mauna Loa and in mid-elevation Ohia              of Germany. The species is not recorded in
Metrosideros collina forest (such as the Honau-      The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds
nau Forest Reserve) on the leeward side of the       ().
island. Although the birds occur from sea-
level to ,m, % are found between m          A
and ,m; Lewin & Lewin () estimated           See under L. leucomelanos.
that the birds occupied a range of about ,
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Reeves’s Pheasant                                Langley () recorded the species as occur-
Syrmaticus reevesii                              ring in Ile-de-France, Fôret de Fontainbleu,
                                                 Normandie, Picardie, Pas-de-Calais and on
Natural Range: From NE Sichuan, Hubei and        Porquereau Island in Var.
  Anhui to EC Nei Mongol and Hebei.                 Reeves’s Pheasants have also bred in the
Naturalised Range: Europe: Czech Republic;       wild in forested parts of Austria, Germany, and
  France.                                        Hungary, but stable populations have again
                                                 failed to establish (Lever ).
C R
Reeves’s Pheasants have been successfully
introduced for sporting purposes to temperate
lowland forests of Hornomoravsky uval, espe-     Common Pheasant
cially in the regions of Litovel, Olomouc,       Phasianus colchicus
Chropyne and Kromeriz (Kokes ).
   The present breeding range of Reeves’s        Natural Range: S Palaearctic and NE Oriental
Pheasants in the Czech Republic is concen-         regions: in eastern Europe in parts of the
trated in northern and central Moravia,            Caucasus Mountains; in Asia from N Asia
mostly close to game-farms from which              Minor E to Korea, China and Taiwan.
regularly released birds continually augment     Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles;
                       ˇ    ´
the wild population. Stastny () regarded       Continental Europe. Asia: Japan. North
the species as a potential game bird in            America: Canada; Mexico; USA; West
non-flooded forests up to m above sea            Indies. South America: ?Chile. Australasia:
level, and estimated the wild population at        Australia; New Zealand. Atlantic Ocean: St
– individuals.                               Helena I. Indian Ocean: Mascarene Is.
                                                   Pacific Ocean: French Polynesia;
F  C E                          Hawaiian Is.
Serious attempts to naturalise Reeves’s Pheas-
ants in France started between  and      B I
(Yeatman ). By  the birds occurred in    The earliest documentary evidence of
 separate forested regions in apparently       Common Pheasants in Britain is found in a
self-sustaining populations, and had survived    manuscript of about  which gives details
for at least a decade in northern and central    of the rations specified for the canons’ house-
                               ˇ
France (Roobrouck ). S tastny ()
                                    ´            hold at the monastery of Waltham Abbey in
estimated the – population to number       Essex in –. Evidence that the birds
between , and , breeding pairs.          occurred in the wild appears in a charter of




                                       Reeves’s Pheasants
                                     Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

 in which the monks of Rochester in Kent       eat the seedlings of commercially valuable
are assigned  Pheasants from four separate       sugar beet.
manors, and two years later the Abbot of
Malmesbury in Wiltshire was licensed to kill       C E
wild Pheasants. Exactly when the Pheasant          Common Pheasants were traditionally first
became naturalised in England is uncertain,        imported to mainland Europe around 
but from the twelfth century the species           , when Jason and the Argonauts brought
appeared with increasing frequency in English      some back from Colchis (on the east coast of
literature, and by at least  the birds were    the Black Sea) to Greece. From Greece the
regarded as game (Fitter ).                    species was introduced to Italy, and thence
   The earliest mention of Pheasants in            by the Romans to southern France and
Scotland seems to be that made by John             Germany. As in Britain, other races were
Leslie, the Bishop of Ross, in his De Origine      subsequently imported, and the European
Moribus et Rebus Gestis Scotorum (),           population is now almost entirely composed
quoted by Gladstone (). Pheasants were         of hybrids.
first introduced to Ireland before the late            Niethammer () suggested these dates
s (O’Gorman ), when some were              for the arrival of Pheasants (colchicus)
exported from that country to Pembrokeshire        in Europe: Germany and Czechoslovakia
in Wales (Matheson ), where, however,          (eleventh century); Austria (); Hungary
they did not become common until the               (fifteenth/sixteenth century); northern France
second half of the nineteenth century.             (); Corsica (sixteenth century); Calabria
   The early introductions of Pheasants to         and Romania (seventeenth century); Switzer-
Britain were of the nominate P. c. colchicus       land (?); Sicily, Belgium, and Norway
(Transcaucasia and Azerbaijan), but at least       (eighteenth century); Sweden (); and Fin-
five other forms have subsequently been             land (–). Bijlsma & Hill () say that
imported, principally torquatus (the Ring-         Pheasants were first released in Transcaucasia
necked Pheasant: eastern China) first in ,      around . Ph. c. torquatus and mongolicus
but also principalis (southern Turkestan and       arrived on Isla Procida off Naples in , and
Afghanistan) and mongolicus (Kirgizskaya and       were introduced elsewhere in Italy by .
Turkestan) in ; pallasi (Siberia and Man-         In modern times, Pheasants of the race
churia) before ; and satscheuensis (Kansu)     formosanus (Taiwan) were introduced to
in . All these races have interbred, and the   northern France after  and were followed
white neck-ring of torquatus is now a feature      around  by mongolicus (Etchécopar ).
of the majority of British and Irish cocks. The    Michelot () says there are today five viable
population is annually augmented by birds          populations of Pheasants in the region of the
released for sporting purposes.                    Rhone–Alps.
   Summing up the status and abundance of             In Norway, P. c. torquatus was first released
Pheasants in Britain, Bijlsma & Hill (:        at Baerum near Oslo in –; Pheasants
) say the country:                              are currently established only in Ostfold,
                                                   Akershus, and Vestfold in the southeast
   has the highest population (though not          (Myrberget ).
   necessarily the highest densities) of any          Elsewhere in Europe, data on Pheasants are
   European country as a consequence of the        scarce: according to Lensink (, a) the
   interest in game-shooting and the release       breeding population in The Netherlands in
   of probably m[illion] pheasants each          – amounted to ,–, breed-
   year for shooting (Hill & Robertson             ing pairs and in – to ,. The fall in
   ).                                          the population is a result of intensified agri-
                                                   culture and the curtailing of Pheasant-rearing
Impact: Dunning () found that Pheasants        and releasing in Holland (Bijlsma ).
in East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk, England)          Gebhardt (: ) lists P. colchicus as
    Naturalised Birds of the World

having been introduced to Germany ‘ca . ’       Impact: Very little ecological or economic
and says that it is ‘established’, but provides    damage by Pheasants has been reported in
no further details.                                Europe where shooting brings considerable
   According to Costa et al. (: –), in   economic benefit. Gebhardt () indicates
Portugal ‘there are small localised populations    that some ecological damage has occurred in
in the provinces of Estremadura, Alentejo and      Germany, but provides no details.
Algarve. … In the Sada Estuary, the favoured
habitat consists of open woodland areas,           J
mainly Cork Oak Quercus suber and Umbrella         According to Kuroda () Pheasants were
or Stone Pine Pinus pinea’.                        introduced in the Middle Ages (c. –
   Common Pheasants are locally abundant           ) to Tsushima and the Urishima Islands
in southern Spain where large numbers              in the Korea Strait. In ,  or 
are regularly released for shooting, and           (accounts differ) Korean Pheasants (karpowi)
populations also occur in the north, in            were released near Tsushima west of Nagoya
Catalonia and around Madrid (E. F. J. Garcia       on Honshu, and also on Kyushu, where they
pers. comm. ). Martí & del Moral ()        hybridised with the native Green Pheasant
estimate the ‘wild’ population at fewer than       P. versicolor. In , further birds from Korea
 individuals.                                   were liberated on Oshamambe and Hidaka on
   Nummi & Pienmunne () quote Jensen           Hokkaido (where versicolor does not occur)
() and Ebenhard () who say that            and have thrived in regions with mild winters
P. colchicus is also established in Denmark and    (Kaburaki , ). In  or ,
Sweden respectively.                               Korean Pheasants were released on Hachijo
   Summing up the present status and distri-       Jima and Miyake Jima in the Izu Shoto          ¯
bution of the Pheasant in continental Europe,      archipelago south of Tokyo (OSJ ).
Bijlsma & Hill (: ) wrote:                  Eguchi & Amano () confirm that in
                                                   Japan P. c. karpowi has been intentionally and
     Its distribution and abundance patterns       systematically released as game for shooting
     follow that associated with relatively low-   and has established long-term self-sustaining
     lying country and the slopes of hills. It     populations, which Brazil () and the OSJ
     becomes sparse in many Mediterranean          () say occur principally on Tsushima and
     areas although Italy has become popu-         in Hokkaido.
     lated since . It is less common in
     Greece, the Italian Alps, parts of the S-C    C
     and E French highlands, and is almost         Table  lists early introductions of Common
     totally absent from Portugal and Spain        and Ring-necked Pheasants into Canada.
     [but see above]. Numbers and range               Pheasants in Canada favour the same
     decline in northern Scotland, Norway          habitats as in the United States (see below).
     and Sweden, though there has been a sig-
                                                   The AOU () describes them as occurring
     nificant numerical and range increase in
                                                   from southern British Columbia (including
     Finland since the s (Koskimies )
                                                   Vancouver Island) through central Alberta,
     … The six countries holding the largest
     Pheasant populations – Britain, Hungary,      central Saskatchewan, southwestern Manitoba,
     France, Germany, Denmark and Roma-            southern Ontario, southwestern Quebec,
     nia – together possess % of the mean        New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to
     European population. The Romanian             Nova Scotia. The subspecies introduced to
     population has undergone very signifi-         Canada are believed to be colchicus, torquatus,
     cant increases in abundance and range         and mongolicus.
     from  to . Declines of at least
     % are reported in The Netherlands and       M
     Sweden …. The species is extending its        From Imperial Valley in southern California
     range into Spain….’                           Pheasants have spread into (or have been
                                          Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

  Introductions of Common Pheasants P. c. colchicus and Ring-necked Pheasants P. c.
torquatus to Canada, –s.

Date             Province                          Source                                    Result
             British Columbia                  C. W. R. Thompson via Lord                Failed
                 (Victoria, Vancouver I.)           Ernest Hamilton, England
             British Columbia                  C. W. R. Thompson (from China)            Successful
                 (Esquimalt)
             British Columbia                  Edward Musgrave (from China)              Successful
                 (Saltspring I.)
             British Columbia                  Edward Musgrave (from China)              Successful
                 (Prevost I.)
             British Columbia                  Mainland Protective Association           Successful
                 (Point Grey)
–        British Columbia                  ?                                         Successful
                 (including Pender I.)
Before       Ontario                           ?                                         Successful
Before       Nova Scotia                       ?                                         Failed
             British Columbia                  Mainland Protective Association           Successful
                 (Ladner, near mouth
                 of Fraser R.)
             British Columbia                  British Columbia Game                     Successful
                 (Chilliwack)                        Commission (from China)
Before       New Brunswick; Prince             ?                                         Failed
                 Edward I.; ? Quebec
Mid-s        Manitoba                         ?                                          Failed
             Ontario (Pelee I., L. Erie)      ?                                          Successful
Until        British Columbia                 British Columbia Game                      Successful
                 (S & N interior; Queen             Commission
                 Charlotte Is.)
Late s       Newfoundland (St John’s)         ?                                          Successful until
                                                                                             at least 

Source: Allen . For full list of references see Lever , p. .


introduced to) northern Baja California                     central Wisconsin, central Michigan; south,
(AOU ), where they are established in the               at least locally, to southern interior California,
Mexicali Valley east of Lake Salada (Peterson               Utah, southern New Mexico, northern and
& Chalif ).                                             southeastern Texas, northwestern Oklahoma,
                                                            Kansas, northern Missouri, central Illinois,
U S                                               central Indiana, southern Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Table  lists early introductions of Common                 northern Maryland, New Jersey, central
and Ring-necked Pheasants into the United                   Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina (Outer
States.                                                     Banks). See also Vuilleumier (: Califor-
   Birds from most of the successful                        nia), Small (: California), Robbins (),
introductions listed spread rapidly from                    Johnston & Garrett (: western states),
their points of release, and soon became                    Sibley () and Dinsmore (: Iowa).
established. Today, the AOU (), which                      In northwestern states, Pheasants occur
says that the majority of North American                    from sea-level to over ,m in areas with an
populations are of torquatus stock, describes               annual rainfall of between cm and over
Pheasants as established in central Minnesota,              cm. In California, they range from m
     Naturalised Birds of the World

  Introductions of Common Pheasants Phasianus c. colchicus and Ring-necked Pheas-
ants P. c. torquatus into the USA, –.
Date                State                         Source                                    Result
                New York                      Governor, Colonel John Montgomerie        Failed
                New York                      President George Washington via Marquis   Failed
                                                  de Lafayette
               New Jersey                     Richard Bache (son-in-law of              Failed
                                                  Benjamin Franklin)
Early s        Virginia                       William Upshire; Governor Wentworth       Failed
s/s          California                     ?                                         Failed
               New Mexico                     Private landowners                        Failed
               Colorado                       Private landowners                        Failed
; –      New York                       ?                                         Failed
c.             New Jersey                     Pierre Lorillard                          Failed
               Oregon                         A. H. Morgan via Judge Owen Nickerson     Failed
                                                  Denny, Shanghai
               Oregon                         John Denny via brother, Judge Denny       Successful
 or        Washington                     Via Judge Denny                           ?
–            Colorado                       ?                                         Successful
               New Jersey                     Rutherford Stuyvesant                     Successful
–            California                     Board of Fish Commissioners               Successful
c.             Utah                           Hon M. H. Walker                          Successful
               South Dakota                   N. L. Witcher                             Failed
–            Pennsylvania                   Private landowners                        Successful
–            New Hampshire                  Private landowners and Fish & Game        ?
                                                  Commission
s              Massachusetts                  ?                                         ? Successful
               Rhode I.                       Private landowners                        ?
Mid-s          Michigan                       A. G. Baumgartel                          Failed
Late-s         Ohio                           ?                                         Failed
–          South Dakota                   Dr A. Zetlitz                             Successful
Late s–    New Jersey                     Private landowners                        ? Successful
 or        Iowa                           William Benton                            Successful
Early s        New York                       ?                                         Successful
               Ohio                           ?                                         Successful
–            Missouri                       ?                                         Successful
c.             Minnesota                      State Conservation Department             Successful
Since          Virginia; North & South        ?                                         Largely
                   Dakota; Georgia;                                                         unsuccessful
                   Tennessee; Alabama
               Indiana                       State Conservation Department              Successful
               Oklahoma                      ?                                          Failed
               Illinois                      State Conservation Department              Successful
–s         North Dakota                  ?                                          Successful
               Arizona                       ?                                          Failed
               New Mexico                    ?                                          Failed
Before         Nevada                        ?                                          Failed
–            Michigan                      State Conservation Department              Successful
               Ohio                          State Conservation Department              Successful
Before         Kansas                        ?                                          Failed
–            Nebraska                      ?                                          Successful
               Wisconsin                     State Conservation Department              Successful
               New Mexico                    ?                                          Successful
–          Alaska                        ?                                          Failed
               Texas                         ?                                          Failed

Source : Allen . For full list of references see Lever : .
                                     Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

below sea level (in the Imperial Valley) to over      Brudenell-Bruce () says that Ring-
,m above sea level in the Great Basin,         necked Pheasants were introduced before 
with a yearly rainfall of mm to mm.          at Hatchet Bay on Eleuthera in the Bahamas,
On the coastal belt, which is only lightly         where the AOU (: ) says they are
populated, Pheasants occur in areas with an        ‘probably’ established. Raffaele et al. ()
annual precipitation of cm to cm. In the      record the species as common on Eleuthera
southwest, thriving populations occur only in      and locally common in northern Isle of
eastern Colorado up to an altitude of ,m.      Youth, Cuba.
In general, Pheasants in the United States fare
best in northern agricultural areas; in the        C
south and west, Pheasant populations are gov-      Common Pheasants were imported from
erned by the availability of water, and except     England by C. J. Lambert in  or  as
in parts of Washington and Oregon few occur        the founder stock of an avicultural collection.
in arid regions; in the south, high tempera-       Two pairs released in a park at La Compañia
tures during incubation are known to reduce        had by  increased in numbers and dis-
the hatching success rate. Few of the north-       persed up to km inland, but the population
eastern populations are in general comparable      subsequently died out. A second shipment,
to those in the irrigated valleys of the west.     from Germany, in  became established
   Scribner et al. () considered that a high   locally in the provinces of Valdivia and
degree of spatial differentiation between           Cautin, where Johnson () estimated the
different Pheasant populations in the Texas        population at about ,. Blake () said
panhandle could be a result of limited disper-     that the birds still survived on Pichi Colcuman
sal, accentuated by a variety of release sites.    Island in Lago de Ranco in the Andean
   Since the s several other races of          foothills of Valdivia, and also on a hacienda
P. colchicus (talischensis, persicus, karpowi,     (ranch) at Allipen in Cautin.
bianchii) have been introduced to the United
States, in general with encouraging results.       A
                                                   Table  lists early introductions of Common
Impact: In some areas where they are espe-         Pheasants into Australia.
cially numerous (e.g. Iowa and Wisconsin)             Pizzey () recorded Pheasants on
Pheasants have been accused of having an in-       Rottnest, King and Flinders Islands, in
hibiting effect on native Northern Bobwhites        Tasmania, in the southern tablelands of New
Colinus virginianus and (e.g. in Iowa, Illinois    South Wales, possibly in the Australian
and South Dakota) on Greater Prairie Chick-        Capital Territory (Canberra) and in the
ens Tympanuchus cupido, in whose nests they        Mount Lofty Ranges of South Australia.
sometimes lay their own eggs (Vance & West-           Blakers et al. () show them as
emeier , Westemeier , Robbins ,        established in Western Australia (both on
Dinsmore ). As in Europe, the relatively       the mainland and on Rottnest Island), in
small amount of agricultural and horticultural     Victoria, in southern and western New South
damage caused by Pheasants in the United           Wales, on King and Flinders Islands, and
States, where growing corn (maize), grains,        in Tasmania. Barrett et al. () record
potatoes, melons, tomatoes and strawberries        Common Pheasants as having bred in parts of
are sometimes locally affected, is far out-         Western Australia and on Tasmania.
weighed by the birds’ economic value.
                                                   N Z
W I                                        Table  lists introductions from abroad of P. c.
In the s P. c. torquatus was introduced to     torquatus to New Zealand between  and
the Dominican Republic on Hispaniola by            . In addition to these importations, since
Ramfis Trujillo, where despite overshooting          there have been innumerable trans-
some may survive in the hills near Cabo Rojo.      locations and transfers of both subspecies, and
     Naturalised Birds of the World

  Introductions of Common Pheasants Phasianus colchicus into Australia, c. –s.

Date                State                               Source                                Result
In or before Victoria                               ?                                     Temporarily
                 (including Philip & Churchill Is.)                                           successful
                  & Sandstone
–          Victoria                               ?                                     ?
//// Victoria                               Victoria Zoological & Acclimatis-     Temporarily
                                                        sation Society; private landowners    successful
                Tasmania                            ?                                     Failed
–           Western Australia                   Acclimatisation Committee             ?
                    (including Rottnest I.)
c.              King I., Bass Strait                Tasmanian Game Protection             ?
                                                        & Acclimatisation Society
                Western Australia                   H A Pearse                            ?
                    (Rottnest I.)
?               New South Wales                     ?                                     ?
                    (Hawkesbury)
Mid-s &         Tasmania                            ?                                     Successful
 early s
c.  & s     Western Australia (Rottnest I.)     Tasmanian Game Protection             ?
                    Flinders I.; Bass Strait            & Acclimatisation Society
                South Australia (Mt Lofty Ranges)   Upland Game Association               ? Successful
s               South Australia                     Upland Game Association               ? Successful
                    (near Adelaide)

Sources : Tarr ; Jenkins ; Balmford .

  Introductions of Common Pheasants P. c. colchicus and Ring-necked Pheasants P. c.
torquatus into New Zealand, –.

Date                  Province                 Source                                 Race/Result
              ?                            ‘Mrs Wills’ (from England)             colchicus/Failed
              ?                            ‘Mr Petre’                             colchicus/Failed
              Northland                    Walter Brodie                          colchicus/Successful
                  (Mongonui)
c. –        Northland                    ?                                      colchicus/?
                  (Tauronga, Tologo
                  Bay, Raglan, Kawau,
                  Bay of Is., Napier)
              Canterbury                   ‘Messrs Smith and C H Robinson’        colchicus/Successful
                  (Bank’s Peninsula)
              Auckland (Waitakere)         Thomas Henderson (from China)          torquatus/Successful
              Nelson                       Sir Edwin Dashwood                     colchicus/Successful
              Auckland (Waitakere)         Thomas Henderson (from China)          torquatus/Successful
– & / Otago                        Otago Acclimatisation Society (A.S.)   colchicus/Successful
              Christchurch                 Prime Minister, Sir Frederick Weld     colchicus/Successful
                                               (from England)
//            Canterbury               Canterbury A.S.                        colchicus/Successful
//            Auckland                 Auckland A.S.; ‘Mr Wentworth’          colchicus/?
/               Wellington               Wellington A.S.                        torquatus/Successful
–             Stewart I.               Southland A.S.                         ?/Failed
Source : Thomson .
                                    Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

since  of mongolicus (southeast Kazakh-       of fruit, this was more than offset by Pheasants’
stan and northern Kyrgyzstan), between the        consumption of vast numbers of injurious
various acclimatisation societies (see Lever      insects. Today, only minor localized damage
), in particular in the s after the       sometimes occurs in market gardens and
population suffered a decline during the           young maize crops. Oliver () suggested
previous decade. This decrease has been           that infections imported to New Zealand by
attributed to a variety of factors: the           Pheasants may have contributed to the
enormous increase in Rabbits Oryctolagus          extinction around  of the endemic New
cuniculus, which had been introduced from         Zealand Quail Coturnix novaezeelandiae.
England some  years earlier (Lever ), led
to the use of phosphorus-impregnated grain        S H I
(which was equally accessible to birds) as a      The introduction and history of Pheasants in
controlling agent; small insectivorous song-      St Helena has been described by Rowlands et
birds – especially starlings Sturnus vulgaris –   al. ().
imported in the late s rapidly increased         According to Brooke (, quoted by
and became serious competitors for food; the      Gladstone ), Pheasants were probably first
importation of mustelids around  (Lever       introduced to St Helena by Fernando Lopez
) introduced a new threat to the hitherto     (Fernão Lopes), the first permanent resident
predator-free environment; the introduction       on the island, in , although they may not
in  of the insectivorous European Hedge-      have been imported until Lopes’ second
hog Erinaceus europaeus (Lever ) provided     sojourn on St Helena from around 
the beleaguered Pheasants with another            (Correa , quoted by Clifford ).
competitor for food; finally, in some localities   Pheasants were subsequently recorded by
poaching was rife. Competition for food in        many sixteenth- and seventeenth century
winter not only caused the death of large         visitors to St Helena, where they were
numbers of Pheasants through starvation but       reported to be extremely common. In or
also rendered the survivors unfit for spring       before  more birds were introduced by
reproduction; the chicks of those birds that      Governor J. Skottowe (Anon ), and
did manage to breed successfully found a          according to Lesson & Garnot (), a
shortage of insects on which to feed and          further shipment was imported from Bombay
succumbed to starvation.                          and released in . In the early nineteenth
   As in the British Isles and in North           century, Pheasants on St Helena were
America, Pheasants in New Zealand today are       reserved, for sporting purposes, ‘for the
mostly colchicus x torquatus crosses. Although    hospitalities to strangers’ (Barnes : ).
in many places populations are fully self-        Between the nineteenth and mid-twentieth
maintaining, elsewhere they are augmented         century, Pheasants remained common on St
by annual releases. Today, Pheasants in New       Helena, but by  the population had
Zealand are widely if irregularly distributed     declined to some  pairs (Haydock ). A
and fairly common in North Island, especially     small but apparently stable population
in the north and west: in South Island            remains established on the island (McCulloch
they are sparse, with small numbers only in       ).
Nelson, Canterbury, and Otago. The national
population is around ,, and is              Impact: According to Green (), Pheasants
reinforced by frequent releases (Heather &        were then regarded as a pest of agricultural
Robertson ).                                  crops and gardens throughout the island.

Impact: Although Thomson () reported          M I
considerable damage to such crops as young        Hawkins & Safford (in prep.) list P. colchicus
grass, sprouting maize, potatoes, carrots,        as a recent introduction to Réunion, probably
beans, peas, barley, wheat and many varieties     from Europe.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

F P                                    ….’ Although Stone et al. () say that
According to Pratt et al. (: ) Pheasants     Pheasants distribute seeds of such alien plants
have also been ‘reported in French Polynesia,       as the Banana Poka Passiflora mollissima in
but status and distribution there unknown’.         Hawaii’s natural areas, Cole et al. (a, b)
                                                    considered that the role played by Pheasants
H I                                    in facilitating the dispersal and germination of
According to Walker (), P. c. mongolicus        such indigenous plant species as Vaccinium
was first introduced to the Hawaiian Islands         reticulatum, Styphelia tameiameiae, Coprosma
in , P. c. torquatus in about , P. c.       spp. and Geranium cuneatum (Cuddihy &
colchicus in , and melanistic mutants           Stone ) helps to restore degraded ecosys-
(so-called ‘tenebrosus’) in . P. c. torquatus   tems on Maui; the birds’ impact on native ter-
was planted on all the main islands, and was        restrial invertebrates is negligible, and they are
subsequently augmented by further releases,         not significant competitors with the endemic
including  on the Puu Waawaa Ranch                Nene or Hawaiian Goose Branta sandvicensis.
on Hawaii between  and , when
 colchicus and  ‘tenebrosus’ were also
imported from the mainland.
   Schwartz & Schwartz () recorded              Green Pheasant
Pheasants on Molokai, Hawaii, Lanai, Maui,          Phasianus versicolor
Kauai and Oahu, and estimated the total
population to number , individuals.            Natural Range: Japan.
Although Pratt et al. () recorded the           Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles;
presence of Pheasants on all the main islands,        France. North America: Canada; USA.
the AOU () lists them as surviving                Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
only locally on Hawaii, with smaller numbers
occurring on Kauai, Lanai and possibly Maui.        Because P. versicolor is sometimes treated as
   Scott et al. () found that Pheasants         conspecific with P. colchicus (see e.g. AOU
occurred in almost every type of habitat on         , OSJ ) there are relatively few
Hawaii and Maui, but were most common in            specific references to it in the ornithological
dry areas with scattered trees with little          literature, but many of the anonymous
natural shrub cover, few matted ferns, and          introductions of Pheasants around the world
large numbers of introduced herbs; the              may have been of the former species. Here,
highest densities tend to occur where               the treatment by Dickinson () of P.
introduced shrubs reach high cover values           versicolor as a full species is followed.
because of disturbance by grazing or feral             Everywhere that P. versicolor has been
stock. In the Hawaiian Islands, Pheasants           introduced with P. colchicus the two species
range from sea-level to over ,m, and in         have hybridised, and not many pure-bred
places with an average annual rainfall of           introduced populations of either species
between cm and cm. Only areas with an          survive. The following are the few specific
excessively high precipitation associated with      references to P. versicolor that have been traced
dense rainforests, barren and dry regions           by the author.
devoid of vegetation at low elevations, and
high mountain tops, have not been colonised.        B I
                                                    Green Pheasants were first imported
Impact: Schwartz & Schwartz (: )              to England by the Earl of Derby for
reported some localized damage to such crops        his menagerie at Knowsley in Cheshire
as sweet potatoes (yams), tomatoes, and             around  (Fitter ). The most recent
young corn (maize), but said the species was        introduction, in  or , took place in
‘the most important game bird in the Hawai-         the Ingham/Stalham/ Sutton area of Norfolk
ian Islands because of its wide distribution        (Ogilvie & RBBP ).
                                      Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

F                                              are largely restricted to the windward slopes of
According to Etchécopar (), Green Phea-         Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa on Hawaii, and
sants were first introduced to France around         that they occur in wetter habitats and at
the middle of the nineteenth century.               higher elevations than P. colchicus, with which
                                                    they freely hybridise.
C
According to Carl & Guiguet (),
five Green Pheasants were included among
Common Pheasants released at an apparently          Golden Pheasant
unrecorded date on Jedidiah Island, British         Chrysolophus pictus
Columbia.
                                                    Natural Range: From N Guangxi and N
U S                                         Guangdong to S Gansu and S Shaanxi.
Green Pheasants were first introduced, unsuc-        Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles.
cessfully, by the Colorado State Sportsmen’s          South America: Argentina.
Association in about  and by Judge Owen
Nickerson Denny in  on Protection Island        B I
in Puget Sound, Washington (Phillips ).         Table  lists the main releases of Golden
Between  and  a total of , Green       Pheasants in the British Isles from the s to
Pheasants were liberated in Virginia,               the s.
Tennessee, Louisiana, Washington, Idaho,               The principle strongholds of the species in
Kentucky, New York and Maryland, and by             the British Isles today are the triangle formed
 the birds had become established in at         by Kirroughtree Forest, Penninghame and
least Virginia and Tennessee. Sibley ()         Creetown in Wigtownshire and Kirkcud-
says that P., versicolor has also been introduced   brightshire, in southwest Scotland, and the
locally in Delaware.                                Brecklands of southwest Norfolk and north-
                                                    west Suffolk, England – especially between
H I                                    Thetford and Brandon and in Thetford
Walker () says that Green Pheasants were        Chase (Forest). Smaller populations have
first introduced to the Hawaiian Islands             been established on Tresco in the Isles
before the turn of the nineteenth century.          of Scilly; on Anglesey, North Wales; in
Pratt et al. () state that Green Pheasants      Cardrona Forest, Peeblesshire; and in the




                                         Golden Pheasant
     Naturalised Birds of the World

  Releases of the Golden Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus in the British Isles, s to s.

Date             Locality                                         Source
s            Gigha I. & elsewhere in Scotland                 ?
c.           Cairnsmore, Nr Newton Stewart,                   Duke of Bedford
                    Wigtownshire
             Mount Stewart, I. of Bute                        Marquess of Bute
s            Tortworth, Gloucestershire                       ?
             Monreith, Wigtownshire                           Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bt.
             Beaulieu Manor, Hampshire                        Lord Montagu of Beaulieu
Before       Sevenoaks, Kent                                  ?
Before       Elveden Hall, Suffolk                             Earl of Iveagh
Since        Whipsnade, Bedfordshire                          ?
?                Isle of Anglesey, Wales                          Sir Richard Williams-Bulkeley, Bt.
             Tresco, Isles of Scilly                          Dorrien-Smith family
?                Exbury, Hampshire                                Edmund de Rothschild
?                Stockley Wood, New Forest, Hampshire             ?

Sources : Harvie-Brown & Buckley ; Maxwell ; Fitter ; Cannings .


Sandringham–Wolferton area of northwest             (which, except for occasional escapes from
Norfolk. Minor populations are also said to         falconers, were virtually absent from the
occur on the South Downs in Hampshire and           British Isles when Golden Pheasants were
West Sussex (Rehfisch ).                         being introduced) or other raptors may be an
   In , several pairs bred on Tresco, and       important factor in the species’ status in
Golden Pheasants were also reported from            Britain where, because of its rarity in China,
Norfolk, Suffolk, Argyllshire (the island of         the population is of considerable conservation
Mull), and Dumfries & Galloway (Ogilvie &           importance (Trollope , Balmer et al.
RBBP ). In  a small population was          ).
recorded in the Lytham area of Lancashire,
where an introduction was made in .             A
   There seems to be no firm evidence of a           In about  Aaron Anchorena introduced
general decline in Britain, where the birds         four pheasant species (Lophura nyctemera, L.
favour coniferous woodlands and mixed               leucomelanos, C. pictus and C. amherstiae) to
coniferous/deciduous forest and where the           Victoria Island in the Nahuel Huapi National
population is believed to number between            Park in southwestern Argentina, where they
 and , breeding pairs. Due to the            became established and where in  the
species’ skulking habits, population estimates      population was estimated to number around
should be treated with caution (Rehfisch             ,. According to Navas (), although
). However, anecdotal evidence suggests         not so numerous as the two Lophura species,
some decline in one of the species’                 Golden and Lady Amherst’s Pheasants are
strongholds, Thetford Chase. This decline           established on Victoria Island where, like the
may result from a combination of the                Lophura species, they freely interbreed. Navas
abandonment in the s of major                   () believed that a possible cause of hybrid-
releases, inbreeding, hybridisation with            isation was a disparity in the ratio between the
C. amherstiae, and increased predation as           sexes. See also Narosky & Yzurieta () and
gamekeepers become fewer in number                  Mazar Barnett & Pearman ().
(Rehfisch ). D. Goodwin ( and
pers. comm. ) believes that predation           Impact: See under Lophura leucomelanos.
by Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis
                                       Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

Lady Amherst’s Pheasant                               ): according to Cannings (), six
Chrysolophus amherstiae                               amherstiae were released in mid-Bedfordshire
                                                      in , where the population has remained
Natural Range: From N and NE Burma and                pure due to the absence of C. pictus. The
  N Yunnan to W Sichuan and W Guizhou.                much smaller Buckinghamshire population
Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles.             seems similarly to have contracted since
  South America: Argentina.                           the s, with no recent records from
                                                      two previously occupied localities (Lack &
B I                                         Ferguson ), although as McGowan &
Although Lady Amherst’s Pheasants were first           Rehfisch () indicate, population estimates
imported to avicultural collections in England        of this secretive species should be treated with
as early as , the earliest releases in the wild   caution.
were not made until around , when some               By  the Bedfordshire population,
were freed by the Marquess of Bute at Mount           which only five years earlier had been
Stewart on the Isle of Bute and by the Duke           estimated at between  and  individuals,
of Bedford (with amherstiae x C. pictus               had fallen to only , and in  only 
hybrids) at Cairnsmore in Wigtownshire and,           birds were reported in the county. Lady
with pure amherstiae, at Woburn Abbey in              Amherst’s Pheasants bred in two places
Bedfordshire. Later, Lady Amherst’s Pheasants         in Buckinghamshire in , when the
were liberated in the Beaulieu Manor                  population in the county was about ten pairs,
woods in Hampshire by Lord Montagu of                 and in at least one place in Bedfordshire, but
Beaulieu in  and again in ; in                the species was said by Ogilvie & RBBP
Richmond Park, Surrey, between  and               () to be declining. In  the population
; in Whipsnade Park, Bedfordshire, in the         in Backwood and Wavendon Woods in
s; by the Earl of Iveagh at Elveden Hall,         Buckinghamshire still survived (Ogilvie &
Suffolk, in  (Fitter , Lever );           RBBP ).
on the Exbury estate in Hampshire                        D. Goodwin ( and pers. comm. )
by Edmund de Rothschild; in Stockley                  believes that predation by Northern
Wood in the New Forest, Hampshire;                    Goshawks Accipter gentilis (which apart
and at Halkyn Churchyard, Clwyd (Wales)               from the occasional occurrence of birds that
(Cannings ).                                      had escaped from falconers were seldom seen
   In Cairnsmore, on Bute, at Beaulieu                in Britain when Lady Amherst’s Pheasants
Manor, and at Elveden, hybridisation with             were being introduced) or other raptors, may
C. pictus soon rendered pure amherstiae birds         be an important factor in the species’ decline
rare. At Woburn and Whipsnade, however,               in Britain where, because its status in the
Lady Amherst’s Pheasants flourished and                Far East is uncertain, the introduced
spread along the greensand ridge, and                 population of C. amherstiae in Britain is
this small area of south Bedfordshire and             of considerable conservation significance
Buckinghamshire became the birds’ British             (Trollope ). It is also of value because not
stronghold, with smaller populations around           only does it provide quantitative data
Exbury since the s, and in parts of               currently lacking in China but also supplies
Norfolk after the early s.                        Chinese ornithologists with an opportunity to
   In Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire,               receive technical training on a native species
Lady Amherst’s Pheasants favour deciduous             (McGowan & Rehfisch ).
and coniferous woodland with a dense
understorey of Bramble Rubus fruticosus and           A
Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum. In                See under Chrysolophus pictus.
Bedfordshire, the species is believed to have
declined from  birds in the late s to          Impact: See under Lophura leucomelanos.
– in the early s (Trodd & Kramer
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Indian Peafowl                                   it is ‘scattered through the residential and
Pavo cristatus                                   semi-wild areas there’.
                                                    According to Small (), the two largest
Natural Range: From NE Pakistan E through        colonies of Peafowl in California occur in the
  India and Nepal to Assam and S to Sri          western San Gabriel Valley in the vicinity
  Lanka.                                         of the Los Angeles County Arboretum
Naturalised Range: North America: USA;           near Arcadia, in San Marino, near Santa
  ?West Indies. Australasia: Australia; New      Anita Race Track, and in the Huntington
  Zealand. Indian Ocean: ?Andaman Is.            Gardens. Other smaller colonies are scattered
  Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.                     locally through the coastal slopes of southern
                                                 California.
U S                                       Summing up the status of Peafowl in
A small population of Indian Peafowl             southern California, Small (: ) wrote
established in the vicinity of Palos Verdes      that they occur in:
Estates, Rolling Hills and Portuguese Bend in
southern California, is believed to be derived      semi-wild land at the edges of cities, sub-
from birds that escaped or were released from       urban gardens, parks, botanical gardens,
captivity at an unrecorded date, having             arboreta, and farms and ranches in the
originally been imported in the s. Hardy        lowlands. … They have increased so well
(: ) described this population as            in some suburban areas, and are so noisy,
‘thoroughly wild and completely independent         [that] some residents have demanded
of man for food’, while Small (: ) said      some sort of control program …. They




                                        Indian Peafowl
                                      Phasianidae (Turkeys, Grouse, Pheasants and Partridges) 

   have not spread beyond small areas of            in Queensland, South Australia, Western
   introduction.                                    Australia and especially on Tasmania.

   James () includes P. cristatus in his list   N Z
of alien birds in Florida that did not have         The first Indian Peafowl in New Zealand
well-established breeding populations in            were some imported from England by the
, when they occurred from Brevard               Hon. Henry W. Petre in , several of
County south to the Keys. Vuilleumier (),       which became established at Hawke’s Bay,
Johnston & Garrett (), AOU (), and          Gisborne, and Wanganui. In , the Otago
Sibley () confirm the species’ survival in       Acclimatisation Society (see Lever )
the United States.                                  introduced a pair, and at around the same
                                                    time private individuals and dealers brought
W I                                         in others, some of which escaped or were
Indian Peafowl were introduced to Little            released into the bush where, particularly
Exuma Island in the Bahamas in the s,           in parts of North Island, they became
where they are now fairly common but are            established. Oliver (, ) recorded that
seldom seen (Raffaele et al. , AOU ).        in  Peafowl were successfully introduced
                                                    to Waimarama, Hawke’s Bay. In the late s
A                                           Sir George Grey, Governor of New Zealand,
Peafowl were first released in Victoria in           introduced some Peafowl to Kawau Island in
Gembrook Reserve, in the bush near                  the Hauraki Gulf where, with various other
Melbourne, and at Cape Liptrap in –           exotic species, they became established.
(Ryan ). Young birds reared in the zoo          Thomson () attributed the Peafowl’s
at South Perth were freed in various parts of       subsequent decline to competition for
Western Australia – especially at Gingin and        food, principally insects, with introduced
Pinjarra – before , but by  a small         songbirds.
number survived only near the latter (Jenkins          Wild populations of Peafowl survive today
). Around , and probably again in           in rough hill country and farmland in many
 or , some were landed on Rottnest          drier and warmer localities in North Island,
Island, where in  between  and             and in northwestern Nelson and on the west
were established (Storr ). Prior to the         coast of South Island (Heather & Robertson
s, Peafowl were said to occur near              ).
Onslow and perhaps elsewhere in the state
(Serventy ).                                    A I
   In , Peafowl were reported on East and       According to Abdulali (, ), Indian
West Sister Islands and on Prime Seal Island        Peafowl were introduced to Ross Island in
in the Furneaux group in the Bass Strait; in        about , where Hume () reported them
Tasmania; in the Blackall and Gladstone dis-        to be doing well, although introductions to
tricts of Queensland; and on the headwaters         South Andaman had failed. The invading
of the Snowy River in New South Wales. In           Japanese destroyed the birds on Ross Island in
, birds were recorded at Murray’s Lagoon        , but after the war more were imported
on Kangaroo Island (McGarvie & Templeton            there and some are believed to survive.
), and a year later were said to be
breeding on Heron Island off the coast of            H I
Queensland (Kikkawa & Boles ). Indian           Indian Peafowl were first introduced to the
Peafowl today may occur on islands in the           Hawaiian Islands by Frances Sinclair in 
Furneaux group and on King Island in                (Caum ). Fisher () says they were
the Bass Strait, and perhaps also on                liberated on Hawaii in the s and on
Rottnest, Heron and Kangaroo Islands.               Niihau in the s (another account claims
They are recorded by Barrett et al. ()          in about ), from where some were later
   Naturalised Birds of the World

translocated to the Kalalau Valley on Kauai,          , and ,m asl), wintering in
and thence by Charles Grey to Lanai. In           N India and N Burma.
a pair was released on the Puu Waawaa Ranch         Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles;
on Hawaii, where they bred successfully and           ?Finland; Germany; ?Italy; The Nether-
became quite common.                                  lands; ?Ukraine.
   In  Peafowl were reported to be plenti-
ful on Kauai and in the early s also            B I
on Niihau; Schwartz & Schwartz ()               Delany () recorded a national total of 
estimated the population on Oahu, Maui,             free-flying Bar-headed Geese in ,
Molokai, Kauai and Hawaii to total  indi-        although the only report of successful breed-
viduals. According to Pratt et al. (), the      ing was from Stratfield Saye, Hampshire,
Indian Peafowl ‘has never done particularly         where a flock of  included nine juveniles in
well in the wild in Hawaii but persists in          three broods. Other records in  were a
scattered localities on Hawaii (Hualalai above      flock of  from Highfield Lake, South
Puu Waawaa), Oahu (N end of Waianae                 Yorkshire, and flocks of six at each of
Range), Niihau, and the W slope of Halea-           Abberton Reservoir, Essex; The Otter Trust,
kala, Maui’. The AOU () records Peafowl         Bungay, Suffolk; and Castle Loch, Dumfries
as occurring on Oahu, Maui and Hawaii. The          & Galloway. Other Scottish records were
birds are found from sea level to ,m in         from South Ronaldsay, Orkney; Loch
areas with annual rainfall of between  and        Tummel, Tayside; and Tyninghame, Lothian.
cm. At sea level they occur in the algaroba      In northern England there were reports from
(Mesquite Prosopis juliflora) flats, near sea         Cheshire, Greater Manchester, South York-
level in the Guava Psidium guajava – Java           shire and Shropshire, and in eastern England
Plum Eugenia cumini association, and at             from Bedfordshire, Greater London, Essex
higher elevations in Mamane Sophora chryso-         and Kent. Further west, there were records
phylla forests. Dense undergrowth and Passion       from Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Gloucestershire
Flower Passiflora sp. vines provide abundant         and Avon, and in the south from the Isle of
cover. The principal controlling factor of          Wight.
Peafowl in the Hawaiian Islands seems to be            Between  and , Ogilvie & RBBP
predation of eggs and chicks by introduced          (–) received reports of successful
Feral Pigs Sus scrofa and the Small Indian          breeding of Bar-headed Geese in Avon,
Mongoose Herpestes javanicus (see Lever ).      Derbyshire, Greater London, Greater Man-
                                                    chester, Hampshire, Somerset, Surrey, Sussex,
Impact: Indian Peafowl in the Hawaiian              and West Midlands, although some were cases
Islands are implicated in the dispersal of a per-   of hybridisation with Canada Goose Branta
vasive and aggressive exotic vine, the Banana       canadensis, Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser
Poka Passiflora mollissima (Lewin ).             erythropus, and Greylag Goose A. anser. From
                                                    a current population of more than  birds
                                                    in around  locations at least five pairs of
                                                    Bar-headed Geese breed successfully in most
                                                    years, and their numbers and range in Britain
        ANATIDAE                                    have been slowly increasing since the s
(DUCKS, GEESE AND SWANS)                            (Blair et al. ). Rowell et al. ()
                                                    recorded a total of  in .

Bar-headed Goose                                    F
Anser indicus                                       First recorded in , up to two breeding
                                                    pairs from a population of about  birds
Natural Range: Mountainous regions of               succeed in raising young in a good year (Blair
  C Asia, Mongolia, and China (at between           et al. ).
                                                        Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)      

G                                           Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles.
Escaped birds have occurred in the wild in
Schleswig-Holstein since . Although an        B I
irregular breeder, out of a total population of   According to Blair et al. (: ), Britain
– individuals (of which – occur in      has over  ‘very under recorded’ Snow
Schleswig-Holstein) between five and ten           Geese living in the wild, of which around ten
pairs breed successfully in most years. The       pairs breed annually, ‘mostly among a small
numbers and distribution of this under-           but probably self-sustaining population’.
recorded species seem to be slowly increasing,    For the last  years or so this breeding
and hybridisation (e.g. with Greylag Geese        population of – birds, derived from a
Anser anser and Canada Geese Branta cana-         former avicultural collection, has existed in
densis) is not uncommon (Blair et al. ).      northwestern Mull and on the neighbouring
                                                  island of Coll, Argyll, in the Inner Hebrides of
I                                             western Scotland (M. A. Ogilvie, pers. comm.
First recorded in , ten sub-populations       ).
have occurred in ten provinces, in three of          In , Delany () estimated the British
which successful breeding has been recorded       population of Snow Geese to number , of
(Blair et al. ).                              which  occurred at Haunn on Mull, where
                                                  six were blue morphs of the smaller nominate
T N                                   subspecies. A flock of  was established at the
From a single breeding pair in – the        Linch Hill Leisure Park in Oxfordshire and
number had risen by – to between six        another, of  adults of the larger atlanticus
and , and Lensink (a) includes the          form, at Slimbridge in Gloucestershire. The
species among those expected to become            only other report of atlanticus (six) came from
definitely established in the near future. The     Tankerness on Orkney, Scotland. In Norfolk
population is unknown, but seems to be            there was a flock of  caerulescens on the
slowly increasing in the floodplains and           Babingley River.
marshes.                                             In addition to those on Mull, blue morphs
                                                  were reported from Avon, the Isle of Wight,
U                                           Greater London, Norfolk and Kent. Snow
Bar-headed Geese have existed for several         Geese of unspecified race were observed in
decades in the Ascania-Nova Reserve, where        Leicestershire, Bedfordshire, Cumbria, Angle-
they breed occasionally (Blair et al. ).      sey, Dorset, Dumfries & Galloway, Kent,
                                                  Norfolk, Oxfordshire and Hampshire. Delany
Future trends: Blair et al. (: ) predict    () reported successful breeding only at
that ‘if it can assemble several flocks or semi-   Haunn on Mull (where  out of the  birds
colonies large enough to stimulate breeding       seen were juveniles); on the Babingley River
behaviour, then [the] Bar-headed Goose will       in Norfolk; at Radwell gravel-pit in Bed-
begin to emulate [the] Canada Goose in            fordshire; and at Stratfield Saye in Hampshire.
Europe’.                                             Fifty Snow Geese were seen in Sandring-
                                                  ham Park, Norfolk, in the spring of  but
                                                  no breeding was recorded; breeding was only
                                                  reported on Coll (Ogilvie & RBBP ). In
Snow Goose                                         at least  Snow Geese were counted on
Anser caerulescens                                Coll, where there ‘… appears to be an
                                                  apparently self-sustaining flock which has
Natural Range: NE Siberia, N Alaska and NW        remained remarkably stable for the last 
  Canada, wintering in S USA, N Mexico,           years or more [while] other introduced geese
  and Japan. Also NE Canada and NW                have managed steady increases’ (Ogilvie &
  Greenland, wintering in NE USA.                 RBBP : ). In  and  breeding
   Naturalised Birds of the World

occurred in Hampshire and also on Coll and         Geese in Austria, most of which occur on
Mull, where up to  were seen in  and         reservoirs, has been estimated at around  in-
– in  (Ogilvie & RBBP , ).         dividuals, with between two and five success-
Rowell et al. () recorded a total of           ful breeding pairs annually (Blair et al. ).
 Snow Geese in , principally on
Thamesmead Lakes in Greater London (),           B
at Eversley in Hampshire (), on the Univer-      Since the s, when Symens (), quoted
sity of York Lake in North Yorkshire (), at      by Madsen & Andersson (), said the total
Blenheim Park in Oxfordshire () and at            population was  with only – breeding
Stratfield Saye ().                                pairs, the number of Canada Geese in Belgium
                                                   has increased to over  breeding pairs, with
Impact: ‘This species can be aggressive when       up to , wintering individuals. They are
feeding or breeding as a group and has             descended from birds that dispersed from
hybridised quite widely (with  Anatidae)         Scandinavia, augmented by some that escaped
among other geese. It is, therefore, potentially   from a waterfowl collection at Essen in
a local threat to indigenous waterbirds’ (Blair    Antwerpen. Introductions, mainly for sporting
et al. : ).                                  purposes, continue (Anselin & Geers ).

                                                   Impact: Hybridisation with Barnacle Geese B.
                                                   leucopsis, Greater White-fronted Geese Anser
Swan Goose                                         albifrons, and Mallard Anas platyrhynchos has
Anser cygnoides                                    been recorded (Blair et al. ).

Natural Range: C Asia to SE Siberia and Mon-       B I
  golia; winters S to China.                       The earliest recorded reference to Canada
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Germany.               Geese in Britain, by the diarist John Evelyn in
                                                   , describes birds in the collection of
G                                            Charles II in St James’s Park, London, where
Gebhardt () records the presence locally       they were also noted before  by
of a few breeding pairs which he says cause        Willughby and Ray in their Ornithologia.
some ecological damage, but provides no            Kirby & Sjöberg (: ) assert that intro-
further information.                               ductions were made ‘from c.  …’, but
                                                   provide no evidence for this claim.
                                                      By the nineteenth century, Canada Geese
                                                   were widely distributed on private estates
Canada Goose                                       throughout much of England and in parts of
Branta canadensis                                  southern Scotland. Further introductions were
                                                   made in England, Wales, and Ireland (Merne
Natural Range: Breeds in the Bering, N Kuril,      ) during the twentieth century, but it was
  and Aleutian Is., and in much of mainland        not until the late s that the species began
  N America, wintering in Japan, SW Can-           to live predominantly in the wild.
  ada, and the USA S to Texas, and Mexico.            In the s and s Canada Geese began
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Austria; Belgium;      increasingly to come into conflict with
  British Isles; ?Bulgaria; Denmark; Finland;      farmers, as a result of which the removal of
  France; Germany; ?Italy; The Netherlands;        birds to hitherto unoccupied areas was under-
  Norway; ?Russia; Sweden; ?Ukraine.               taken as a misguided form of control. This
  Australasia: New Zealand.                        redistribution almost invariably resulted in
                                                   the formation of new sub-populations, and
A                                            the donor colonies soon resumed their former
First recorded in , the number of Canada       numbers. This policy of translocations was
                                                        Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

largely responsible for the general increase in      The principal reasons for the successful
numbers and distribution during the s         naturalisation of the Canada Goose in Britain
and s, and Canada Geese became widely         are the existence of a near-vacant ecological
established in England (where they were most      niche for a large aquatic bird that breeds on
numerous), Scotland, Wales, and parts of          waters in open woodland and parks (where its
Ireland.                                          only competitor is the Mute Swan Cygnus
   According to Blair et al. (), Canada       olor), the availability of new habitats and the
Geese were first introduced to Northern            birds’ abandonment of the instinct to migrate.
Ireland in the early s, from when they        Since , however, a moult migration of
later spread south into the Republic, although    some km to the Beauly Firth in Scotland,
most of the  current breeding sites are in      similar to those that occur in parts of North
Northern Ireland. The increase in numbers         America, has evolved among non-breeding
and distribution is slower than in Great          adults of central Yorkshire (Dennis ).
Britain, though stocking continues for sport-        The principal form introduced to the
ing purposes. Over  of the total population    British Isles (and continental Europe) is
of  birds occur on only eight sites.           believed to be the nominate B. c. canadensis,
   Between  and  the Canada Goose         which occurs naturally in eastern North
population in Britain rose from between           America.
, and , to ,; by  the total
had nearly doubled to , (Ogilvie ),      Impact: The ecological impact of B. canaden-
and by around  had reached over ,.       sis in Britain has been considerable. In cities
Delany () recorded the summer             and towns large numbers of birds on small
post-breeding population at ,; by the late   park ponds cause water pollution, eutro-
s the population was estimated by Kirby       phication, and the soiling of areas open to the
& Sjöberg at , breeding pairs, while         public; thus causing a health hazard. The
Blair et al. () gave a figure of ,        pollution of reservoirs, the fouling of golf
breeding pairs with a post-breeding total of      courses and posing a danger to air traffic have
, birds. The  total given by Rowell      been recorded (Allan et al. , Watola et al.
et al. () was ,.                         , Rehfisch et al. ). Because the birds
                                                  feed largely on agricultural land, increasing
                                                  crop damage is being reported; the birds graze
                                                  and trample growing cereals, other crops, and
                                                  pastures intended for domestic stock, and
                                                  cause erosion and soil compaction. In late
                                                  summer they can have a serious impact on
                                                  unharvested crops. In natural habitats, such as
                                                  reed-beds, damage can be caused by grazing
                                                  and trampling (Madsen & Andersson ).
                                                      Although possible competition between
                                                  B. canadensis and such native species as Grey-
                                                  lag Geese Anser anser and Mute Swan Cygnus
                                                  olor is of concern, there appears to be no
                                                  evidence of a serious impact on any indigen-
                                                  ous species. As in Belgium, hybridisation with
                                                  Barnacle, Greylag, and semi-domesticated
                                                  ‘Chinese’ Geese has been recorded, but is
                                                  infrequent (Lever ), though in Ireland
                                                  there have been more than  cases of hybridi-
                                                  sation with A. anser (Blair et al. ). Some
                Canada Geese                      small waterbirds are occasionally killed or
   Naturalised Birds of the World

driven away, but the geese also give such birds    where the birds have spread north, most
early warning of potential predators, and by       crossing the Baltic to winter in southern
uprooting deeply submerged aquatic vegeta-         Fennoscandia (Madsen & Andersson ),
tion provide small dabbling ducks with an          where they also breed on coastal islands and
additional source of food (Blair et al. ).     on lakes (Heggberget ). In the late s
   There are indications that Canada Geese         the number of breeding pairs was estimated
may be damaging sites of conservation              by Madsen & Andersson () at between
importance by their destruction of bankside         and , out of a total population of
vegetation, the consequent reduction of nest-      ,–,. Kirby & Sjöberg () gave a
ing cover for other species, and the increasing    population of up to , breeding pairs.
eutrophication of waterbodies through depo-
sition of excrement. The birds have also been      F
reported to eat the young shoots and               Delacour () said that Canada Geese
submerged rhizomes of the Common Reed              occurred in France only in semi-captivity or as
Phragmites australis.                              occasional vagrants from Scandinavia. Blair
   Various methods of control have been            et al. (), however, recorded a core
attempted, including shooting, the pricking        population in northern France of some 
or removal of eggs and their substitution with     breeding pairs plus more than  non-
dummy eggs, electric fencing, bird-scarers,        breeders, and said that since the s
translocation, and the alteration of habitats to   increasing numbers are founding new
render them inimical to geese (Kirby et al.        sub-populations and that the species is
), but none has been successful.               regularly stocked for sporting purposes.
                                                   Several hundred birds, mostly from Fenno-
B                                           scandia, arrive to winter among the resident
Gabuzov () says that a project is being        population.
considered for the introduction of Canada
Geese to Bulgaria.                                 G
                                                   Recorded since the early s and breeding
D                                            since around  (Niethammer ), the
Canada Geese from Scandinavia have for             total population of Canada Geese in
many years regularly wintered in Denmark,          Germany has been estimated at a maximum
where in the s unsuccessful attempts were      of , breeding pairs (Kirby & Sjöberg
made to establish them in the wild. However,       ) and a further , non-breeders
Nummi & Pienmunne () say that the              (Gebhardt , Blair et al. ), of which
species has since been successfully introduced      pairs and  other birds, plus 
to Denmark.                                        post-breeding juveniles, occur in Schleswig-
                                                   Holstein. The birds’ population and range is
F                                            said to be increasing, assisted by irregular
In the summer of , ,  or           stocking for sporting purposes. Up to ,
(accounts differ) goslings were imported from       birds, largely from Fennoscandia, winter in
Sweden to Viksberg Manor, km east of             Germany (Blair et al. ).
Helsinki, where successful breeding on Lake
Viksberg took place in  (Nummi ,           Impact: Much hybridisation with other
). In the following year some juveniles        Anatidae has been recorded in parts of
migrated south, and in most years some             Germany (Gebhardt ; Simberloff )
have returned to Porvoo, east of Helsinki          including  instances with Greylag Geese.
(Korhonen ). Since the s, large            Gebhardt () refers to economic damage
numbers of Canada Geese have been                  to agricultural, vinicultural, horticultural
introduced for sporting purposes to southern       and arboricultural crops, urban parks and
Finland (Vikberg & Moilanen ), from            landlocked waters.
                                                           Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)      

I                                                R
Canada Geese have been recorded in Italy             The first major introduction of Canada Geese
almost every year since , mostly as              to Russia, for sporting purposes, took place in
vagrants, and there is now a small but               the s, when a total of  birds (including
apparently stable colony of about ten birds           breeding pairs) were released in the Sea of
from which one pair regularly breeds success-        Azov in Krasnodar Krai (Gabuzov et al. ,
fully (Baccetti et al. , Blair et al. ).     Gabuzov ). By  many birds were
The AOU () claims that Canada Geese              breeding, and by the following year the total
are also established in Sardinia.                    population was nearly , augmented by
                                                     dispersers from Sweden (Medvedev ).
T N                                      Gabuzov () reported plans for further
According to Lensink (), the Canada              introductions in Krasnodar and Stavropol
Goose has been breeding in The Netherlands           Krais, in Rostov Oblast, in Lake Issyk-Kul
since the s (Blair et al. () record the      (Kirgizia) and Kelifski Uzboi (Turkmenia).
earliest occasion as in ), but until  no     [See also under Ukraine].
viable population became established; in that
year a few birds dispersed from a nearby site in     S
Belgium and began breeding in south Hol-             Canada Geese were first imported to Sweden
land, where in  they were all shot. Since        from North America by Bengt Berg in .
, however, breeding flocks have become            Three years later Berg released some birds that
established in several localities (Lensink ).    had been bred in captivity at Kalmarsund in
Although Lensink () recorded only two to         Blekinge, where they first nested in the
five breeding pairs between  and  and         wild; within a few years, helped by various
– pairs in –, Blair et al. () say     translocations, they had colonised much
that by  the number of breeding pairs had        of southern and central-southern Sweden,
increased to at least , and that in winter the    migrating in winter south to Denmark,
population, augmented by migrants from               Germany, France, The Netherlands, and
Fennoscandia, rises to at least , individuals.   Belgium. The Swedish population increased
                                                     dramatically from  breeding pairs in 
N                                               to some , in , with a total popula-
The first Canada Geese in Norway were im-             tion of nearly , (Fabricius ; Tangen
ported from North America, and perhaps also          ). Fabricius (a, b) estimated the
from Sweden, in  by T. Røer, who released        population to number around ,, with
 at Nesodden, Oslo. These birds failed to          , breeding pairs. The late s figures
become established. Between  and  a          given by Madsen & Andersson () were
total of  were liberated in various localities    ,+ breeding pairs and a total population
(Lund , Tangen ), as a result of which       of ,–, individuals. Kirby &
viable populations were established around           Sjöberg () give a figure of ,–,
Oslo and Trondheim. Subsequently, further            breeding pairs, while Blair et al. () give
releases were made in other localities (Myrber-      the same totals as Fabricius (a, b).
get ), and by  the total number of              The Canada Goose’s success in Sweden is
breeding pairs was estimated at between           attributed to the existence of a vacant
and  (Madsen & Andersson ), with              ecological niche and to a favourable habitat
a post-breeding population of ,–,            and climate – the weather and the boreal
individuals (Nummi ). Most birds winter          forests of its native Laurentian shield in east-
near their breeding grounds, though a few            ern Canada are very similar to those of the
migrate to Sweden and Denmark (Myrberget             Fennoscandian shield in Scandinavia.
). The current Norwegian population is
about ,, of which some , pairs              Impact: According to Blair et al. (), there
breed annually (Blair et al. ).                  have been occasions when Mute Swans Cygnus
   Naturalised Birds of the World

olor in Sweden have been intimidated by large      other waterbirds from using a large potential
numbers of Canada Geese into abandoning            breeding area. On the other hand, the species’
nesting sites as soon as their cygnets have        uprooting of submerged vegetation provides
hatched, and some hybridisation with               an additional source of food for dabbling
Greylag Geese Anser anser and interspecific         ducks. When nesting in isolated pairs,
competition for nest sites has been reported.      Canada Geese goslings may be killed by Mute
                                                   Swans Cygnus olor, that tend to be more
U                                            hostile to goose than duck neighbours.
Gabuzov () said there were plans to               The main concern in Europe, however,
introduce Canada Geese to the Ukraine,             is that the sheer size of the expanding
where Blair et al. () state that for several   B. canadensis population will not only affect
decades they are said to have been breeding in     autochthonous waterbirds but will also have
the wild in the Ascania-Nova Reserve. The          a detrimental effect on wintering-grounds
latter authors predict that by  the            utilised by migrants, where eutrophication
Ukrainians (and perhaps also the Russians          caused by the geese is changing the balance of
and Belarusians) may have succeeded in             plant and invertebrate communities, although
establishing fully naturalised populations         the evidence so far is largely circumstantial
which could spread eastward during the next        (Allan et al. ).
 years to occupy similar habitats to those in       Looking to the future, Blair et al. ()
the birds’ native range: migrant populations       anticipate open shooting seasons being
might then winter on the Black and Caspian         declared in many countries, and that research
Seas, perhaps putting pressure on wintering        will probably show significant local economic
Red-breasted Geese B. ruficollis.                   and amenity damage, and some quantified
                                                   human health risk. The Canada Goose may
I                                            eventually extend its breeding range still fur-
The AOU () claims that Canada Geese            ther into central and southern Europe, where
have been introduced to, and are established       its likely impact could be very considerable.
in, Iceland.
                                                   N Z
Overall European Impact: The success of            In  and  the Wellington Acclimatisa-
B. canadensis in Europe has been ascribed by       tion Society (see Lever ) unsuccessfully
Madsen & Andersson () to a combina-            released a total of  Canada Geese (Thomson
tion of factors: the introduction projects have    ). In , the New Zealand Government
been widespread and persistent; the birds have     imported about  (believed to be B. c.
initially an exceptionally high rate of recruit-   maxima: south-central Canada) as potential
ment; and a vacant ecological niche exists in      game birds, which they distributed among the
the form of cultivated lowland habitats with       Southland, Otago, Canterbury, and Welling-
good nesting sites and an abundance of food.       ton Acclimatisation Societies, by whom they
Studies in several countries show that the         were released in various localities. Although
impact of B. canadensis on other waterbirds is     by around  Canada Geese were reported
mixed (Blair et al. ). The species is          by Thomson () to be established in
undoubtedly very aggressive to other birds of      several districts, in  the Canterbury
its own size or smaller during incubation and      Society imported a further ten birds (probably
when the goslings are young. Canada Geese          B. c. taverneri: north-eastern Alaska and
have been known to kill adult ducks and            northern Canada). A decade later Canada
ducklings, Moorhens Gallinula chloropus            Geese had apparently disappeared from
and Common Coots Fulica atra, and                  North Island but were well established in
their aggressive behaviour inhibits smaller        Otago and Canterbury in South Island.
waterfowl from seeking nesting sites. Huge            In , Canada Geese of the nominate
aggregations of B. canadensis may prevent          form were released near Canterbury (Oliver
                                                        Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)    

), where the population of maxima,            Barnacle Goose
taverneri and possibly moffitti (southwestern       Branta leucopsis
Canada and northwestern USA) was already
flourishing, and the national flock is now          Natural Range: NE Greenland, S Varlbard,
likely to be crosses of these races.                NW Russia and the Baltic region, winter-
   According to Heather & Robertson (:          ing in NW Europe.
), Canada Geese are abundant ‘… in the         Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Austria; Belgium;
eastern South Island from Marlborough to            British Isles; Finland; Germany; The
North Otago (especially on Lake Ellesmere)          Netherlands; Norway; Sweden.
and common in drier tussock country of east-
ern Fiordland’. Since the s, Canada Geese     Deliberate introductions of Barnacle Geese
have become well established on North Island      have been relatively few in number. Most
‘… in the Waikato, Taupo-Ohakune area,            of the following breeding populations
northern Hawke’s Bay, coastal Manawatu,           may be derived from accidental releases or
and especially near Lake Wairarapa’. In the       escapes.
later s the population was around ,;
Heather & Robertson () estimated the          A
post-shooting population at about ,, of      Although the earliest record was in , a
which , occurred in South Island;            small breeding population of between one
,–, winter on Lake Ellesmere.           and three pairs out of a total population of
Heather & Robertson () say that               about  birds has been established only since
although in South Island most birds nest near      (Blair et al. ).
high-country rivers and lakes, many adults
and juveniles from the Marlborough interior       B
to the MacKenzie Basin migrate to Lake            The first records of escaped birds date from
Ellesmere and other coastal lakes and estuaries   , and there are currently at least 
between November and February for the             breeding pairs in a total population of a
autumn moult, remaining for the winter until      minimum of  individuals (Blair et al.
early September. In recent years, more birds      ).
have tended to remain in high-country lakes
throughout the year, moulting on inland           Impact: Successful hybridisation has been
lakes, and some breed on such coastal lakes as    recorded with Canada Geese B. canadensis,
Ellesmere and Forsyth. In North Island,           Greater White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons
most birds are resident on coastal lakes          and Mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Blair et al.
such as Whakaki Lagoons (near Wairoa)             ).
and Wairarapa. Vagrants have been reported
from the Kermadec, Chatham, and Auckland          B I
Islands.                                          By the s breeding pairs in Britain were
                                                  ‘already in high double figures’ (Blair et al.
Impact: Canada Geese in New Zealand               : ). The current record of  breeding
mainly eat grass (which domestic stock are        pairs at  localities (ponds, pools, flooded
then reluctant to use), clover, lucerne and       gravel pits) from over  resident birds at
brassicas, but they also sometimes feed on        over  localities is an underestimate. Rowell
stubble or standing crops of grain and peas,      et al. () recorded a countrywide total in
when they can cause considerable damage.           of , including  in Cumbria,  in
Control measures include sport shooting (up       Hampshire,  in Essex,  in Gloucestershire
to , are shot annually), the shooting of     and  in Lancashire.
flightless moulting birds and egg-destruction
(Heather & Robertson ).                       F
                                                  The slow rate of increase from  to around
   Naturalised Birds of the World

 breeding pairs in  is now showing signs       Black Swan
of speeding up, as is happening elsewhere in         Cygnus atratus
Europe (Blair et al. ).
                                                     Natural Range: S Australia and Tasmania.
G                                              Naturalised Range: Europe: ?British Isles;
The best current assessment is of between              ?Germany; ?Italy; ?The Netherlands;
 and  breeding pairs from a national               ?Spain. Australasia: New Zealand.
population of around  birds, of which 
pairs and a total population of about              B I
individuals occur in Schleswig-Holstein.             Black Swans were first introduced to England
These birds are believed to be derived from          in , though the earliest record for success-
deliberate releases and possibly from some           ful breeding in the wild was not until ,
natural dispersal from Gotland, Sweden (Blair        since when breeding has been intermittent
et al. ).                                        (Blair et al. ). Allard (), however,
                                                     records the presence of a recently established
Impact: Some hybridisation with Greylag              population in the Broadlands of east Norfolk
Geese Anser anser has been recorded (Blair et        (where they were first recorded before ),
al. ).                                           centred on Salthouse Broad and the River
                                                     Bure at Wroxham, and to a lesser extent on
T N                                      the Trinity Broads. A pair bred at Walcott in
With a breeding population between               , when at least one pair was nesting
and  of – pairs, Lensink (, a:       regularly, though not always successfully, at
) lists B. leucopsis as one of the exotic species   Salthouse Broad. By  there were at
‘established definitely’ in The Netherlands.          least three breeding pairs in the Salthouse–
According to Blair et al. (), the earliest       Wroxham area, and a further pair raised five
recorded escape took place in , and              cygnets at Waxham. Since then the birds have
the current population numbers about              been slowly expanding their range and
individuals.                                         numbers: they were estimated to total –
                                                     individuals in  (Allard ).
N; S                                          Ogilvie & RBBP (–) received
Although in Norway there have been num-              reports of successful breeding from Cleveland,
erous records of escapes from captivity since        Devon, Essex, Greater Manchester, North-
the s, in  only  breeding pairs            amptonshire, Sussex and Wiltshire in England,
were recorded (Blair et al. ). Nummi &           and from Lothian, Orkney and northeastern
Pienmunne () list B. leucopsis as also           Scotland. Ogilvie & RBBP (: ) say
successfully introduced to Sweden.                   that in Essex, Lothian, Northamptonshire
                                                     and Wiltshire, ‘all four breeding records
Summary: The slow increase in numbers of             refer to well-established pairs’. The greatest
naturalised Barnacle Geese in Europe will            number of breeding pairs was nine in .
probably continue until a critical population
size and density are reached, perhaps by             G
, when the birds may spread to other             Black Swans have been known in the wild in
countries. Although B. leucopsis could develop       Germany since  (Gebhardt ) or 
into a pest species and will probably                (Blair et al. ), where the former says
contribute to the eutrophication of small            (p.) there are ‘locally [a] few breeding
waterbodies, thus indirectly affecting other          pairs’. The latter say the population and
waterbirds, it is unlikely, except locally, to       successful breeding rate fluctuate, partially
impact directly on other waterbird species           depending on the harshness of the weather in
(Blair et al. ).                                 winter; the present population is between 
                                                     and  birds, but there are only from five to
                                                        Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

 breeding pairs, mostly associated with        S
parkland or urban wetlands.                      J. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral ) reports
                                                 that birds bred in the wild at two sites in
I                                            northern Spain in .
Black Swans have been recorded in the wild in
Italy since , where in a good year up to     Potential European Impact: Blair et al. ()
five pairs breed successfully (Demartis &         attribute the poor rate of successful breeding
Murru , Baccetti et al. , Blair et al.   among Black Swans in the northern
). Those that nest in natural wetlands       hemisphere to their inability to escape from
tend to have a poor rate of success because      the austral breeding cycle. Because in New
they breed in winter (Blair et al. ).        Zealand breeding success seems dependent
                                                 on flocks reaching a certain size, should
T N                                  that be achieved by European populations
Black Swans have had a poor record of breed-     and should the birds relax their austral
ing in The Netherlands since they were first      breeding cycle, Black Swans could soon
reported in , with  pairs being the        become widely naturalised in Europe, where
upper limit; the population and distribution     they could well displace many native
appear to have been slowly increasing since      waterbird species and would probably become
 (Lensink ), at least partially due to   an agricultural pest.
recruitment from numerous escapes in 
(Blair et al. ). According to Lensink        N Z
(), the birds currently breed mainly in      Although Blair et al. (: ) claim that ‘the
southwestern Holland and along central           New Zealand introductions started probably
rivers. Lensink () gives the –         in the th century …’, the earliest docu-
number of breeding pairs as between  and       mented importation took place shortly before
, and lists the species as among those          when seven birds were acquired by the
expected soon to become established.             Nelson Acclimatisation Society (see Lever
                                                 ). In that year the Governor of New
                                                 Zealand, Sir George Grey, presented four
                                                 birds to the Canterbury Acclimatisation
                                                 Society, and in   pairs were obtained
                                                 by the Christchurch City Council, which
                                                 released them in the Avon River to clear the
                                                 beds of alien Watercress Nasturtium officinale
                                                 which were clogging up the river. The num-
                                                 bers of Black Swans increased dramatically,
                                                 and in  many birds dispersed to Lake
                                                 Ellesmere, Marlborough, Otago and the west
                                                 coast. (According to Heather & Robertson
                                                 : , ‘… it is likely that some also
                                                 arrived naturally in  …’). By , up to
                                                  individuals were established on the Rivers
                                                 Avon, Halswell and Heathcote, and within 
                                                 years several thousand had colonised the
                                                 estuary of the Opawa River in Marlborough.
                                                    Between  and  the Otago Acclima-
                                                 tisation Society released a total of  birds,
                                                 and in  half-a-dozen were released by the
                                                 Southland Society. These liberations proved
           Black Swan and chicks                 so successful that the birds soon spread
   Naturalised Birds of the World

throughout South Island from Stewart Island        centuries previously of the native New
and the west coast sounds to Cook Strait.          Zealand Swan C. sumnerensis.
   Black Swans were first introduced to North
Island in  (Buller ) or  (Thomson      Impact: Buller (), Drummond (),
), when the Auckland Society released          and Oliver (, ) were agreed that
four; by around  their progress was said to    aggressive Black Swans were having a negative
be abundant on the Kaipara River and               impact on native Pacific Ducks Anas
Kaipara Flats. Drummond () said that           superciliosa by harrying them and competing
Black Swans then occurred in thousands             with them for food: Oliver (, ) adds
in many parts of New Zealand from the              that Black Swans harass the native Purple
far north to the extreme south: they were          Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio. They were,
abundant on the Chatham Islands before         however, at least partially successful in
(Thomson ) and by the following decade         reducing watercress beds in the Avon River.
they were widely distributed on both the              In the early twentieth century Black Swans
main islands.                                      were a considerable agricultural pest, grazing
   The largest and most important breeding         and fouling grass and clover pastures and
site for Black Swans in New Zealand is Lake        eating arable crops such as peas and grain
Ellesmere, southwest of Christchurch. From         (Heather & Robertson ). On the other
the early s to the mid-s, when the na-     hand, the population on Lake Ellesmere has
tional flock numbered around , birds          been a commercially important natural
(Heather & Robertson ), between ,         resource, providing both food and sport.
and , birds lived on Lake Ellesmere.             Black Swans in New Zealand have been
Thereafter, for a variety of reasons, the popu-    controlled mainly by shooting (especially of
lation declined, and by  had reached a         flightless moulting birds) and by pricking
nadir of only some ,. Since then it has       their eggs.
recovered; Scott () estimated the country-
wide population at around ,, while
Heather & Robertson () judged it in
 to be ,, of which , were on          Mute Swan
Chatham Island. Druett (: ) claimed         Cygnus olor
that ‘Today Lake Ellesmere has a black swan
population in excess of seventy thousand           Natural Range: From temperate Europe to C
birds’ – the approximate total two decades           Asia, wintering in N Africa and India.
previously.                                        Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles;
   Heather & Robertson (: ) say that          continental Europe. Asia: Japan. Africa:
today the largest numbers of Black Swans in          ?South Africa. North America: Canada;
New Zealand occur ‘… on large lowland or             USA. Australasia: Australia; New Zealand.
coastal lakes and lagoons and on some estuar-
ies, especially Kaipara Harbour, the lower         B I
Waikato valley, Hawke’s Bay, Lake Wairarapa,       The precise status of the Mute Swan in the
Farewell Spit, Lake Ellesmere, coastal Otago       British Isles (and in continental Europe) is
and Southland, and Te Whanga Lagoon                equivocal. In England, where it was a native
(Chatham Island). Good numbers are also            of parts of East Anglia (Cambridgeshire,
found on some inland lakes such as those           Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and
in the Rotorua district, Lake Taupo and            Suffolk) it became semi-domesticated before
Ashburton Lakes’.                                   , but began to revert to the wild
   Williams () attributed the success of       again during the seventeenth or eighteenth
Cygnus atratus in New Zealand at least             centuries. Mute Swans are now widespread
partially to the presence of an ecological niche   throughout the British Isles; the population
left vacant after the extinction several           numbers around , (Blair et al. ).
                                                         Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

C E                                 occurred in the Rhone–Alps region since
To a lesser extent, Mute Swans also became         the nineteenth century, when they were
semi-domesticated in continental Europe,           introduced for ornamental reasons (Michelot
where according to Madge & Burn (:             ). Mute Swans released in Almeria in 
), ‘all populations [are] now more or less of   have probably been responsible for records
domestic origin’. In Austria, for example, the     across southern Spain; others breed mainly in
present population of – breeding pairs,      eastern Spain (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral
which is increasing, originates partially from     , E. F. J. Garcia pers. comm. ).
reversions to the wild of the s. The
small but increasing population in Croatia is      Impact: In the British Isles and in mainland
believed to be derived from the natural spread     Europe Mute Swans kill adult and
of birds from Hungary. In Finland, Mute            young waterbirds (especially geese), but by
Swans reverted to the wild in the Åland            uprooting deeply submerged vegetation they
Islands in  (Jensen ). In France, where    provide an additional source of food for
the current population numbers ,, of           dabbling ducks. Through nesting close to
which , are breeding pairs, feral Mute         Mute Swans, Great Crested Grebes Podiceps
Swans were established around Paris as early       cristatus and Common Coots Fulica atra gain
as the late seventeenth century. In Germany,       protection against potential predators from
twentieth- century reversions and natural          their strongly territorial neighbours. The only
spread account for a breeding population of        reported hybridisation in the wild by Mute
over , pairs (Blair et al. ). In Greece,   Swans has been with Whooper Swans
where Mute Swans are said by Madge & Burn          C. cygnus in Sweden. In France, habitat dam-
() to have been domesticated in ancient        age and eutrophication caused by Mute Swans
times, the current small population derives        adversely affects breeding colonies of Black
from more recent reversions. The population        Terns Chlidonias niger (Blair et al. ).
of around  in northern Italy (e.g.                 In the British Isles and in Europe, some
Piemonte), where Mute Swans are said to            damage is caused by Mute Swans overgrazing
have been originally domesticated by the
Romans (Madge & Burn ), is descended
from reversions mainly since the s, and is
slowly spreading south (Baccetti et al. ,
Bertolino ). First reversions in Latvia,
where the population is currently , in
winter, with  breeding pairs, took place in
. Reversions in Luxembourg occurred
prior to  and the present stable breeding
population is around – breeding pairs
with  birds in winter. Reversions in
Switzerland took place before , and Mute
Swans have since colonised all suitable waters,
where between  and  pairs now breed
annually, and where in winter the population
reaches some , birds (Blair et al. ).
Williamson () records the successful
importation in about  of Mute Swans to
Tørshavn and Vágur on Sudurey in
the Danish Faeroe Islands. Nummi ()
and Nummi & Pienmunne () record
the successful importation of Mute Swans
to Norway and Sweden. Mute Swans have                               Mute Swan
   Naturalised Birds of the World

water-meadows and trampling and grazing          the United States breed locally in Canada in
new-sown leys and winter wheat.                  southern British Columbia and southern
                                                 Ontario, and formerly in southern Saskat-
J                                            chewan (AOU ).
In , seven Mute Swans escaped from
Onuma Park on southwestern Hokkaido, and         U S
in the following year began breeding at          Mute Swans were first released in the United
Utonai-ko, where by  a population of       States, in the state of New York, in the late
birds, including  breeding pairs, had          nineteenth century. In  and  a total of
become established. The species seems to be       birds was imported from Europe, and by
continuing to expand slowly on Hokkaido,          a number had escaped from captivity
where it has been recorded at Miya-numa,         and had become established on the Lower
Taiki in Tokachi district and Ibaraki-ken.       Hudson River and on Long Island, New York.
Elsewhere, around  Mute Swans breed on         In  some birds were released at Oakdale
Koya-ike, Itami, near Osaka on Honshu, and       on Long Island, where by  the population
pairs with cygnets are frequently recorded at    numbered around .
Yunoko, Nikko in Tochigi-ken. The dispersal          A herd near Akron, Ohio, which was
of cygnets from such breeding sites              wing-clipped annually from  to , was
may account for the large populations on         allowed to fly free in the latter year. By 
Ibaraki-ken and Osaka. Pairs have also been      Mute Swans had established themselves along
widely introduced on Honshu (Brazil ).       much of the northern coast of New Jersey,
   Today, Mute Swans occur on marshes            where by  the population had increased to
and rivers in southwestern and southern          . On Rhode Island, Mute Swans were well
Hokkaido, and on moats and lakes in major        established by the early s (Allin et al.
cities on Honshu and on lakes in Ibaraki-ken     ).
and Osaka. The total population numbers              From the above states Mute Swans soon
around  birds (Brazil , ).            dispersed to much of the eastern United
   According to Blair et al. (), the popu-   States. The AOU (: ) lists the species
lation may be augmented by vagrants from         as breeding locally ‘… from northern
Mongolia or Ussuri.                              Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern
                                                 Michigan … central and south-eastern New
Impact: Mute Swans in Japan have been            York, and southern New England (east to
accused of overgrazing vegetation and of         Cape Cod), south to central Missouri, central
competing for food with native Whooper           Illinois, northern Indiana, northwestern Ohio
Swans C. cygnus and Tundra (or Bewick’s)         and Virginia, also in southern Alabama’. This
Swans C. columbianus bewickii, but the           range includes Maine, Maryland, and Con-
evidence is scant.                               necticut (Conover & Kania ). Johnston
                                                 & Garrett () claim that C. olor was
S A                                     successfully introduced to Oregon on the west
From the s to the s a herd of between    coast where, however, it would seem it no
 and  Mute Swans was established near        longer occurs. Robbins () indicates that
Humansdorp at the mouth of the Krom River        wherever it is found the species is increasing.
(Siegfried ), but eventually died out. In
, some escaped birds formed a small          Impact: Expanding populations of Mute
population at Marina da Gamba in Western         Swans can have a detrimental effect on native
Province (Blair et al. ), where some are     biota. Their consumption of large quantities
believed to survive.                             of aquatic vegetation such as Potamogeton and
                                                 its associated macro-invertebrate community
C                                           and their aggression towards other waterfowl
Mute Swans that presumably dispersed from        is of major concern (Allin et al. , Conover
                                                          Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

& Kania , ). The latter include             Ellesmere. Some live in a semi-feral state in
wintering Trumpeter Swans C. buccinator and         many town parks, such as Virginia Lake,
Tundra (or Bewick’s) Swans C. columbianus.          Wanganui … c.  in the wild in the s,
                                                    c.  in Hawke’s Bay, the rest in Canterbury’.
A
The earliest recorded introduction of Mute
Swans to Australia was in , when four
were acquired by the Melbourne Botanical            Egyptian Goose
Gardens, which a decade later placed a pair of      Alopochen aegyptiaca
their offspring on Phillip Island. In 
three pairs were landed at Perth in Western         Natural Range: Sub-Saharan Africa. Formerly
Australia, and were the ancestors of the small        SE Europe.
breeding population that became established         Naturalised Range: Europe: Belgium; British
at Northam on the Avon River. Semi-wild               Isles; ?France; Germany; Italy; The Nether-
populations have occurred since before            lands; ?Romania. Asia: ?Israel; UAE.
on a number of ornamental waters and on
some rivers in the extreme south-west of            E
Western Australia. Elsewhere, Mute Swans            Until the late seventeenth century (Venema
have occurred in the wild in southeastern           ) or early eighteenth century (Blair et al.
Queensland, near Sydney in New South                ) the Egyptian Goose was a regular
Wales, and in Tasmania (Tarr ), but they        breeder in the Danube Valley from southern
are at best only tenuously established in           Hungary downriver through Voyvodina to
Australia and show no signs of spreading            Romania.
(Blair et al. ). Barrett et al. () list a
single recent record in Western Australia.          B
                                                    In  some Egyptian Geese escaped from
Impact: Wherever the two species come into          the Royal Gardens near Brussels (Devillers
contact in Western Australia, Mute Swans are        ), and within  years a population
said to compete with native Black Swans C.          numbering between  and  pairs had
atratus, to the latter’s disadvantage.              become established, principally in the vicinity
                                                    of Brussels and central Flanders (Anselin &
N Z                                         Devos ). The present population of
The first Mute Swans in New Zealand were a           around  birds (excluding Wallonia, which
pair imported by the Canterbury Acclimatisa-        comprises southern and eastern Belgium and
tion Society (see Lever ) in  and some      neighbouring parts of France) includes at least
landed at Christchurch in the same year.             breeding pairs (only ten of which
These were followed by introductions                are in Wallonia). Although there is plenty of
between  and  to Auckland, Dunedin          apparently suitable riverine habitat, flooded
and Otago. Although Thomson () found            gravel pits are the most favoured nesting sites
Mute Swans to be abundant in New Zealand,           (Blair et al. ).
Oliver () reported only a few small
scattered populations. Falla et al. () found    B I
a well-established breeding population of           Egyptian Geese, some of which were im-
– on Lake Ellesmere, Canterbury, and            ported from Africa (Venema ), were first
between  and  on Lake Poukawa,                  introduced to England in the late seventeenth
Wanstead Lagoon, and other waters in central        century, when they were in the collection
and southern Hawke’s Bay. Heather &                 of Charles II in St James’s Park in London.
Robertson (: ) say the species ‘main-        During the nineteenth century full-winged
tains a tenuous hold in the wild on wetlands        birds became increasingly common on private
in Hawke’s Bay, North Canterbury and Lake           estates, mostly in southern and eastern
   Naturalised Birds of the World

England (mainly Norfolk), from where some            Blair et al. () estimated the population
dispersed to establish other colonies elsewhere   of Egyptian Geese in (southern) England to
(Fitter ). Northwest Norfolk, especially      number  adults, while Rowell et al. ()
between Holkham and Beeston, and to               in the same year () found a total of only
a lesser extent the Bure Valley and the            at  sites,  of which were in Norfolk
Broadland area of northeast Norfolk, are          where  birds (% of the total) were
today the species’ principal strongholds in       counted. In Suffolk  were found at seven
England. Egyptian Geese are, however,             sites. The species has bred successfully
spreading slowly south and west through the       in both counties and on the River
Breckland region of Suffolk, and breeding in      Thames in Berkshire. Elsewhere, Rowell
Essex was first recorded in , in Somerset      et al. () recorded Egyptian Geese in
in , and in Cambridgeshire in             Buckinghamshire, Surrey, Greater London,
(Venema ).                                    Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Merseyside,
   Sutherland & Allport () estimated the      Essex, Nottinghamshire, North Yorkshire
British population in  to number           and Cornwall. Estimates of the number of
adults. Within three years the figure had more     breeding pairs also varies widely: Ogilvie
than doubled to  (Delany ), % of         & RBBP (–) received reports of
which were in Norfolk, with the balance           at least  pairs in ,  (), and 
occurring in Berkshire, Cambridgeshire,           (), whereas Blair et al. () give a total
Cleveland, Gloucestershire, Greater London,       of some  breeding pairs.
Hampshire, Leicestershire and Somerset, al-          The failure of Egyptian Geese to spread
though away from Norfolk breeding was only        more rapidly in England suggests that
recorded on Rutland Water in Leicestershire       climatic conditions may be merging on
and at Lower Basildon on the Thames in Berk-      marginal; in The Netherlands, where range
shire. Between  and  Ogilvie & RBBP       expansion has been much quicker, spring and
(–) received reports of breeding Egyp-    summer temperatures are on average some
tian Geese in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire,         oC higher than in eastern England (Blair et
Essex, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire,         al. ). Goslings, which usually hatch
Leicestershire, Norfolk, Northumberland,          in early spring when the weather can be
Nottinghamshire, Suffolk and Surrey.               cold and wet, are preyed on in Britain




                                         Egyptian Geese
                                                             Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)      

by Carrion Crows Corvus corone and other              colonisation of many new localities (Lensink
predators.                                            b). Blair et al. () said the total
                                                      Dutch winter population was believed to
F                                                exceed , individuals, with perhaps ,
Blair et al. () refer to a population of          breeding pairs.
Egyptian Geese in northeast France where,                The population of Egyptian Geese in The
however, they say (p.) that the species ‘is         Netherlands is expanding rapidly, due at
classed as a rare breeder’.                           least in part to the vast network of drainage
                                                      channels, many of which are bordered by trees
G                                               and scrub which provide shelter and cover.
Although Gebhardt () claims that Egypt-
ian Geese were first introduced to Germany in          R
the eighteenth century, Blair et al. () say       ‘There are a few records … but with low
the first birds crossed the border from                coverage and ample ideal habitat, it would
Holland along the Rivers Rhine and Eems               scarcely be surprising if [the Egyptian Goose]
(Lensink ) into Nordhein-Westfalen in             has not already recolonised part of its original
the s, when the core population                   European range’ (Blair et al. : ).
comprised perhaps  breeding pairs. The
present total German population is between            European Impact: The Egyptian Goose is not
, and , birds, including –              yet sufficiently numerous in its naturalised
breeding pairs spread thinly over six Länder          British or European range for any possible
(provinces), which suggests that the popula-          ecological impact to be assessed. In parts of its
tion has been augmented by more recent                natural African range it is regarded as a
escapes or releases. Blair et al. () believe it   considerable pest of arable crops. It shares the
is only a matter of time before birds reach           same habitat preferences with Mallards Anas
southern Germany and the upper Danube,                platyrhynchos and Common Coots Fulica atra,
which from Ulm eastwards has extensive                with which it might compete. In South Africa
patches of apparently suitable habitat.               and Namibia it has hybridised with native
                                                      South African Shelducks Tadorna cana,
I                                                 though whether the offspring are viable is
Some migrant Egyptian Geese appear to                 unknown (Blair et al. ). E. F. J. Garcia
winter in parts of Italy (Blair et al. ).         (pers. comm. ) has seen hybrids with
                                                      Canada Geese Branta canadensis at Rutland
T N                                       Water, England.
Naturalised Egyptian Geese in The Nether-                Blair et al. () consider that Egyptian
lands date from about , when six birds            Geese will probably have expanded their
escaped from a park at Rijswijk: at about the         European range, especially in Germany and
same time a pair escaped from the Wassenaar           France, by , when the population will
Zoo, and these birds were the origin of the           probably exceed ,. If, say by ,
population that became established between            populations have become established in
Den Haag and Leiden, where breeding                   Austria, Hungary, and Switzerland, the appar-
began in . Other birds probably escaped           ently migrant wintering population in Italy
elsewhere in Zuid Holland, and those in               could rapidly increase, and the likelihood of a
Gelderland, Noord Holland and Friesland are           spread to its former natural range along the
also likely to be descended from escaped birds        Danube and into the side valleys south of
(Eikhoudt ), as are birds occurring since         Hungary (e.g. in Croatia) seems probable.
 in Drenthe (Lensink ).
   Lensink (a) estimated the number of            I
breeding pairs in – at between                ‘Wild-living birds have been seen near
and , and by  at –, after the            zoological centres and at fishponds from 
   Naturalised Birds of the World

onwards. Breeding is suspected’ (Blair et al.    B
: ).                                       Present since the s, the species reached a
                                                 maximum population of around  birds but
U A E                             has since declined to about eight; occasional
A slowly increasing population of Egyptian       breeding is believed to have occurred (Blair et
Geese was established from  to at least      al. ).
 in at least three localities (Al Ain, Abu
Abyad Island and Sir Bani Yas Island wetlands    B I
(Ain Al Fayda and adjacent islands)) and may     Since the s there have been over 
still occur in some numbers on fish ponds,        records, with occasional breeding of one
drainage pits and tidal mudflats (Blair           to two pairs (Blair et al. ) including in
et al. ). Richardson () said that        Ireland (Hallman et al. ).
a census in  revealed the presence
of around  birds, while Blair et al.          C R
() estimated an upper limit of             Since the s there have been intermittent
breeding pairs from a total population of .   records, but recently a small but apparently
Richardson () said that Egyptian Geese       stable population seems to have become
are seen regularly at Abu Dhabi’s Western        established near Prague zoo, possibly
Road Lagoons, where they are probably now        augmented by periodic escapes. Successful
self-maintaining.                                breeding has yet to be confirmed (Blair et al.
                                                 ).

                                                 F
Ruddy Shelduck                                   The earliest record dates from the s, and
Tadorna ferruginea                               breeding has subsequently been recorded in
                                                 the national population of – birds.
Natural Range: SE Europe, NW and NE              Recruitment from escapes is probably neces-
  Africa and SW and C Asia; winters in S         sary to maintain numbers (Blair et al. ).
  Europe, N Africa, S and E Asia.
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Austria; Belarus;    G
  ?Belgium; ?British Isles; ?Czech Republic;     Records of escapes date from the s;
  ?France; Germany; The Netherlands;             between eight and ten pairs breed in most
  ?Poland; Switzerland; ?Ukraine. Asia:          years, and the population and range seems to
  ?Israel. North America: Canada; USA.           be slightly increasing. Schleswig-Holstein
                                                 has a sub-population of around  birds,
Free-living Ruddy Shelducks occurring in the     including between one and three breeding
wild in the following (and possibly other)       pairs (Hallmann et al. , Blair et al. ).
European countries are mostly escapes from
captivity (Madge & Burn ).                   T N
                                                 In most years between seven and ten pairs
A                                          (Hallmann et al. (: ) say seven pairs in
Those recorded on the River Inn are believed      ‘with poor success’) breed on marshes and
to be natural immigrants (Blair et al. ).    small still waters, but given that winter counts
                                                 have recorded up to  individuals in the
B                                          Dutch Delta the number of breeders may well
The first record of breeding in the wild by       be higher (Blair et al. ).
escaped captive birds dates from , but
given the paucity of reporting breeding          P
may well have occurred earlier (Blair et al.     Between  and  Wroclaw Zoo deliber-
).                                           ately released a number of captive-reared
                                                         Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

broods which formed a small population from        Island and Vermont, and from New Jersey
which at least one pair bred successfully from     south to Florida, but breeding has so far not
 to . This population appears no           been recorded (AOU ).
longer to exist, though some individuals may
have dispersed to settle elsewhere (Blair et al.
).
                                                   Muscovy Duck
S                                        Cairina moschata
The existence of fragmented areas of open
montane forest may explain why Switzerland,        Natural Range: From S Mexico to Peru and N
where the species was first recorded as               Argentina.
breeding in , supports a population of         Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Austria; British
– birds, of which between two and six            Isles; ?Germany; ?The Netherlands; ?Spain.
pairs breed annually (Blair et al. ).            Africa: ?Mauritania; ?Senegal; ?South Africa.
                                                     North America: USA; West Indies. South
Impact: On at least one occasion hybridisa-          America: ?Chile. Atlantic Ocean: ?Azores;
tion in the wild with alien South African            Canary Is. Indian Ocean: ?Madagascar.
Shelducks T. cana has been reported (Blair et
al. ).                                         Muscovy Ducks were domesticated long
                                                   before the New World became known to
U                                            Europeans, and in common with many long-
Ruddy Shelducks of captive origin have             term domesticated birds the plumage of the
probably bred successfully in the wild             forma domestica is predominantly white. It
on several occasions in the Ascania-Nova           seems quite likely that the forma domestica
Reserve, where they have been present for          was the first bird from the Americas to be
several decades (Blair et al. ).               introduced to Europe, perhaps by the early
                                                   sixteenth century. Since then the species has
European Summary: ‘The European total              been introduced as a domesticated bird
number [of breeding pairs] among escapes is        virtually worldwide, but has been largely
significant in conservation terms …. Provided       ignored in the wild by ornithologists, perhaps
captive rearing has not robbed it of its migra-    because it is generally regarded as ‘farmyard
tory instinct, it should be able to … avoid        poultry’. Some feral populations are, however,
persistent harsh weather in winter, … [and]        believed to be of long standing, since
there is a reasonable chance that the species      the Muscovy is both hardy and adaptable.
will establish itself in the wild in Europe by     Because of the apparent prejudice against it,
’ (Blair et al. : ). This could be of    there has been little study of feral Muscovy
some significance, given the decline in west-       Ducks, and it is possible that the forma
ern wild populations (Madge & Burn ).          domestica is the most widely distributed of the
                                                   world’s exotic waterbirds (Blair et al. ).
I                                             The paucity of the following records (all taken
Since  a number of birds of probably           from Blair et al.  except where indicated)
captive origin have been established on            reflects the lack of interest in the species by
man-made waters near the Tel-Aviv zoo,             most ornithologists. Most figures are likely to
where breeding has probably occurred on at         be gross underestimates.
least one occasion (Blair et al. ).
                                                   A
C; U S                              Muscovy Ducks have occurred in the wild
Free-living escaped Ruddy Shelducks have           since at least . There are at present –
been recorded in the wild in California, Iowa,     breeding pairs from a population of over 
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Rhode         individuals.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

B I                                      S A
From at least the early s a colony of up to    It is believed that small numbers occur in the
 Muscovy Ducks survived in the wild near         wild and that the population may be slowly
Ely in Cambridgeshire. Between  and            increasing.
, Ogilvie & RBBP (–) recorded
successful breeding in Bedfordshire, Cam-          U S
bridgeshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Devon,          At an apparently unrecorded date 
Dorset, Greater Manchester, Norfolk, North-        Muscovy Ducks from Venezuela and Paraguay
umberland, Nottinghamshire, Suffolk and             were released in various parts of Florida,
Surrey. In  flocks of up to  birds were       where most, if not all, are believed to have
reported, and in the following year  were        fallen prey to Raccoons Procyon lotor (Bolen
counted on Lothing Lake and Oulton Broad           ). Domestic birds are locally common on
in Norfolk;  individuals were present at         ponds in Florida (Robbins ), where they
Ely in  and up to  in . In ,         hybridise freely with forma domestica Mallards
Muscovy Ducks occurred in the wild on shal-        Anas platyrhyncos (Robertson & Woolfenden
low lakes, drainage channels, village ponds        ) and white farmyard ‘Pekin’ ducks, and
and reservoirs over much of northeastern,          also occur in the wild in natural wetlands or
east-central, and southeastern England, where      remote coastal areas (Stevenson & Anderson
around  pairs bred annually from a total         ). Muscovy Ducks have recently been
population of about  (Blair et al. ).       declining in Dade County (James ). They
Hybridisation with Mallard Anas platyrhyn-         also occur as feral or vagrant birds on the Rio
chos and feral A. p. forma domestica is not        Grande in Texas (Hidalgo, Starr, and Zapata
uncommon. Ogilvie & RBBP rightly say that          Counties) (AOU ), where breeding was
Muscovy Ducks are not simply farmyard              recorded in  (Texas Ornithological
ducks and stress the need for full reporting.      Society ) and in San Patricio and Live
                                                   Oak Counties of Texas, in the lower Rio
G                                            Grande Valley. Individual feral birds are
The feral population, mostly from urban            found widely throughout much of North
localities in Schleswig-Holstein, is believed to   America (AOU , Sibley ), especially
be between  and , of which there are          in other Gulf Coast localities.
perhaps one to ten breeding pairs.
                                                   W I
T N                                    Muscovy Ducks are ‘… established from feral
Muscovy Ducks have occurred in the wild            stock in Cuba’ (AOU : ).
since at least ; Blair et al. () believe
the number of breeding pairs exceeds the five       C
to ten given by Lensink (a).                   ‘Since this duck is frequently kept in captivity
                                                   in Chile the Chilean records [in Talca and
S                                              Curico] may represent feral individuals or
J. Clavell (In Martí & del Moral ) records     populations that have originated from
Muscovy Ducks in the wild in Catalonia.            escapees, though deliberate introduction(s)
                                                   cannot be ruled out’ (Vuilleumier : ).
M
For several decades feral Muscovy Ducks have       A
been present in Mauritania, but successful         ‘Quite common as a farmyard duck, it is
breeding in the wild is unconfirmed.                thought to live ferally on occasion’ (Blair et al.
                                                   : ).
S
A few birds have lived in the wild from time       C I
to time, but breeding has not been confirmed.       J. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral ) reports
                                                            Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

the presence of Muscovy Ducks in the wild on         B
most islands and occasional breeding.                The earliest record of Mandarins in Belgium
                                                     probably dates from before . Estimates of
M                                           the current population vary considerably; a
Since the s Muscovy Ducks have lived             national reckoning of only perhaps ten
ferally or at least in only loose association with   scattered individuals does not match up with
man in Madagascar, where they have hybridised        another estimate of a stable  breeding pairs
freely with feral/hybrid domesticated Mallard        in the Brussels area alone (Blair et al. ).
types Anas platyrhynchos forma domestica.
                                                     B I
Impact: Concern has been expressed that              The earliest record of a Mandarin Duck
Muscovy Ducks and forma domestica Mallards           in Britain dates from before . In the
will soon hybridise, if they have not already        nineteenth and early twentieth century several
done so, with the rare endemic Meller’s Duck         attempts were made to establish the species in
A.melleri in Madagascar.                             the wild in Britain, but the most successful
                                                     were only of short duration. In , however,
Summary: Summing up the global status of             Jean Delacour obtained a consignment of
feral Muscovy Ducks, Blair et al. (: )         Mandarins from Hong Kong, from which he
said: ‘The Muscovy Duck occurs almost                selected four or five pairs for his friend Alfred
everywhere, but is seemingly invisible during        Ezra, who released them on his estate at
wildfowl counts!’                                    Foxwarren Park near Cobham, Surrey; here
   Blair et al. () surmised that in the          the birds bred successfully and dispersed
African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement area            northwards into south Buckinghamshire and
alone the population of feral Muscovy Ducks          southwestern Middlesex, and east and west to
may exceed ,, and appealed for studies          northern Surrey and central Berkshire. Their
to be made of their biology and behaviour lest       success is attributed primarily to the fact that
they eventually emerge as a pest species: their      they were released into a near-ideal habitat
aggressive nature and bulk could enable them         with, importantly, a profusion of nut-bearing
to dominate other waterbird species if large         trees to provide an abundance of winter
numbers were ever to become established.             feeding.
                                                        The largest and most important population
                                                     of free-flying Mandarins in Britain, which
                                                     is believed to be largely descended from
Mandarin Duck                                        Ezra’s birds, is centred on Virginia Water in
Aix galericulata                                     Windsor Great Park on the Surrey/Berkshire
                                                     border, from where by  Mandarin were
Natural Range: SE Siberia, Korea, E China            spreading to other waters both within and
  and Japan: winters south of oN.                  outside the park.
Naturalised Range: Europe: Austria; Belgium;            In , Ronald and Noel Stevens success-
  British Isles; ?France; Germany; ?Italy;           fully established a colony of free-flying
  ?Luxembourg; The Netherlands; Poland;              Mandarins at Walcot Hall in Shropshire, and
  ?Romania; Sweden; Switzerland; ?Ukraine.           since the Second World War other popula-
  North America: United States. Atlantic             tions have succeeded in becoming established
  Ocean: ?Azores.                                    in numerous places in England (especially in
                                                     the southeast, south-centre and parts of the
A                                              Midland counties), and also in Scotland; on
Present since at least , Mandarins in            the River Tay in Perthshire (where the 
Austria had by  reached a population of          post-breeding population numbered about
– breeding pairs plus  other individuals       ), and since the s on the Eye Water in
(Blair et al. ).                                 Berwickshire. In  up to six pairs bred at
   Naturalised Birds of the World

two places in the Loch Eck area of Argyll, and      the Middle Pleistocene when there is evidence
three pairs in Strathnairn in the Highland          of the existence of suitable temperate oak
District. Since  a population of between        woodland. For fuller details see Harrison
 and  Mandarins has been established on         (: –).
the Shimna River in County Down, Northern
Ireland (Ogilvie & RBBP ).                      F
   In  the British population was               The earliest record of Mandarin in the wild
estimated to number over  pairs; by the          dates from , but little is known about
mid-s Sharrock () judged that it had        the current population. One public garden
risen to – pairs; by the middle of the        supports some  full-winged birds, yet the
following decade it may have been as high as        national population is said to number only
, pairs (Davies ) and by the early          – individuals, of which about ten pairs
s it is believed to have exceeded ,         breed successfully (Blair et al. ).
individuals. By the mid-s Mandarins
were beginning to establish themselves              G
in parts of Wales (Lever ). Because of          The earliest records of free-flying Mandarin
their secretive nature it is likely that Mandarin   Ducks in Germany date from around 
populations are considerably under-recorded.        (Gebhardt ) or  (Blair et al. ).
   Bones discovered in Cromerian forest beds        The principal source was Berlin, where O.
in Norfolk, England, seem to refer to A.            Heinroth supervised releases in the s in
galericulata, which indicates its presence in       the central park (Großer Tiergarten) near the
                                                    zoo (Witt ), where the present popula-
                                                    tion of over  birds is self-maintaining
                                                    (Blair et al. ). During the Second World
                                                    War this project was abandoned, but by the
                                                    s the Großer Tiergarten was recolonised,
                                                    and from here in the s Mandarins
                                                    started to disperse southwestwards, arriving in
                                                    Potsdam around  (Witt ).
                                                       Recent estimates suggest that not only is
                                                    the Berlin population increasing, but that
                                                    from a total of –, birds between 
                                                    and  pairs breed successfully (Blair et al.
                                                    ), although Witt () says that in
                                                    winter the population is a minimum of
                                                    only . The declining Schleswig-Holstein
                                                    population comprises only – birds, but it
                                                    seems possible that the extensive areas of
                                                    apparently suitable habitat between Berlin
                                                    and the Polish border will be more to the
                                                    Mandarins’ liking (Blair et al. ). Geissen
                                                    () refers to the occurrence of Mandarin
                                                    Ducks in Koblenz. Reports from other parts
                                                    of Germany suggest a national total of
                                                    – breeding pairs.

                                                    Impact: Although Gebhardt () lists the
                                                    Mandarin as among those exotics that
                                                    cause ecological damage in Germany, Witt
               Mandarin Ducks                       () says that it does not compete with
                                                         Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)      

other species and that steps to reduce the         Switzerland dates from ; the present
population would not be justified.                  population of about , from which –
                                                   pairs breed, is believed to be increasing (Blair
I                                              et al. ).
Although first reported as long ago as the s
and since recorded in  provinces, the present    U
population is only a minimum of ten individ-       Whether the small population established for
uals (mostly in winter) (Blair et al. ),       the past two decades on the Ascania-Nova
and breeding has not been confirmed. Aix            Reserve breeds successfully is unknown (Blair
galericulata is not mentioned by Bertolino         et al. ).
(), and Baccetti et al. () confirms its
failure so far to become naturalised.              European Summary: Mandarin Ducks in
                                                   Britain and Europe have lost the instinct to
L                                         migrate, and have thus been able to become
About a dozen birds occur in spring in Lux-        established in the wild without the distraction
embourg, and as-yet unconfirmed breeding            of the need for migration. This loss of the
has probably taken place (Blair et al. ).      migratory instinct has, however, been a factor
                                                   in inhibiting the species’ spread in Britain and
T N                                    Europe, although in Britain and perhaps
Present since  (Blair et al. ), Man-       elsewhere there is a tendency to some seasonal
darin Ducks first bred in The Netherlands, in       dispersal in autumn (Lever ).
coastal sand-dunes (an atypical habitat) near          In recent years there does seem to have
the Hague, in the early s (Lensink ).      been a decline in the Mandarin population in
In  a pair nested along the eastern border     parts of their British range; on Virginia Water
of the Veluwe, where subsequently a signifi-        in Windsor Great Park in England, for
cant population became established; small          example, where a few years ago flocks of 
numbers of breeding birds are reported from a      Mandarin in winter were not uncommon,
few other localities (Lensink ). Lensink       now flocks seldom exceed – birds (pers.
(a) gave the – population at three       obs.). This decline, if permanent and wide-
to eight breeding pairs, and that in – at    spread, could be of serious conservation
– pairs. Blair et al. () say the current   significance, since the British population
breeding population, which is increasing,          alone still probably exceeds that in the whole
amounts to around  pairs.                        of the Far East outside Japan. Fortunately,
                                                   recent information suggests that numbers
P                                             in Europe are considerably higher than
According to Langley (), there is a            previously recorded, and ringing would reveal
developing colony of Mandarins in Lazincki         if, as suspected, part of this scattered popula-
Park in Warsaw.                                    tion has reacquired the instinct to migrate,
                                                   and ‘by  a truly vigorous and self-sustain-
R                                            ing population may become evident in several
There are several records, but breeding is as      new locations in Europe’ (Blair et al. ).
yet unconfirmed, though the species is poorly
recorded (Blair et al. ).                      U S
                                                   Before , when breeding was first
S                                             recorded, a free-flying colony of Mandarin
Despite  records since  there is so far no   Ducks was established by Lawton L Shurtleff
proof of breeding (Blair et al. ).             and Richard A. Cuneo at Vineburg and
                                                   Walnut Creek on Indian Meadow Ranch in
S                                        Sonoma County, north of San Francisco,
The earliest record of free-flying Mandarins in     California. Here, within six kilometres of
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Calistoga, they share with the closely related    M
and native Wood Duck A. sponsa an area of         In the s a shifting population of fluctuat-
rough, rolling hills, heavily wooded with a       ing size of feral or semi-feral domestic type
variety of oaks, Madrone Arbutus menziesii,       Mallard has been reported in Mali (Blair et al.
alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.) and     ).
other species. Since the Mandarins are given
supplementary feeding throughout the year         N
they cannot be regarded as fully naturalised      Since  up to ten breeding pairs of feral
(AOU ), and without such artificial            hybrid-type Mallard have nested in the
feeding might not survive. In  the            Oanob artificial water storage dam in the
population of Mandarins in Sonoma County          semi-desert area of central Namibia (Blair et
was estimated at around  birds (L. L.          al. ).
Shurtleff and R. A. Cuneo pers. comm. ,
Small , Shurtleff & Savage ). The          S A
birds continue to survive in the Calistoga        According to Siegfried (: ), ‘No definite
area today (AOU , Berner et al. ,         information exists concerning the status of
L. L. Shurtleff and R. A. Cuneo pers.              the Mallard in Southern Africa. It is known,
comm. ). Their principal predator is the      however, that an increasing number of water-
Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides, a          fowl fanciers are keeping exotic waterfowl on
translocated game-fish (see Lever a),          open waters and that at present live Mallards
which has taken a heavy toll of ducklings.        are being freely offered for sale by dealers. It
                                                  may well be that the species has already
A                                            succeeded in obtaining a foothold in the
Free-flying Mandarins may exist in the Azores,     wild’. Blair et al. (: ) say that from
although survival is difficult because of the       the original escapes ‘probably before ’ a
absence of suitable waters (Blair et al. ).   population of perhaps , breeding pairs
                                                  has become established in various localities;
                                                  up to  breeding pairs of feral hybrid type
                                                  Mallard have been recorded. Richardson et al.
Mallard                                           (: ), quoting Cohen (), say that
Anas platyrhynchos                                Mallard are ‘apparently increasing locally in
                                                  abundance in South Africa’.
Natural Range: An Holarctic species, ranging
  through Europe, Asia and N America;             Impact: According to J. Vincent (pers. comm.
  winters S to N Africa, India, and Mexico.       ), ‘This is a species which is starting to be
  Also Greenland and highlands of N and C         of some concern in a few isolated localities. …
  Mexico.                                         it has cross-bred with the indigenous African
Naturalised Range: Asia: ?Saudi Arabia. Africa:   Yellowbill (Anas undulata) … the offspring
  ?Mali; ?Namibia; South Africa. North            are fertile’. Hybridisation has also occurred
  America: West Indies. Australasia: Australia;   between Mallard and African Black Ducks A.
  New Zealand. Atlantic Ocean: Bermuda;           sparsa.
  ?Falkland Is. Indian Ocean: Madagascar;            Mallard in South Africa are controlled by
  Mascarene Is. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is;        shooting and the use of chloral hydrate baits
  ?Lord Howe I; ?Macquarie I; ?Norfolk I.         (the latter allow the freeing of non-target
                                                  species) and in some localities, such as the
S A                                      Ramsar site on the Orange River, Mallard have
A colony of Mallard on sewage farm ponds          been almost eradicated (Blair et al. ).
near Riyadh since  is believed to be
descended from escaped or released captive        W I
stock (Blair et al. ).                        The AOU (: ) says that Mallard are
                                                           Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)       

‘Introduced and established in the Virgin Is-        many North American birds were imported
lands’, but provides no further details. Raffaele     and large scale breeding and release
et al. () say that Mallard occur in the Virgin   programmes took place. By the mid-s,
Islands (St Croix) only as vagrants, but that in     Mallard were widespread and common on
 a flock was introduced to Grand Cayman.          both North and South Islands and on Stewart
                                                     Island, and occurred in small numbers on the
A                                            Chatham Islands; they are also occasional va-
The first Mallard introduced to Australia             grants on some more distant offshore islands,
were six that were released on Phillip Island,       and may be breeding on Macquarie Island
Victoria, in . In –  Mallard were       where they were first recorded in  (Gwynn
placed on a lake in the Melbourne Botanical          ). Since then, Mallard have colonised the
Gardens, Victoria, where they hybridised with        Chatham, Antipodes, Snares, Auckland and
the Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa              Campbell Islands (Heather & Robertson
(formerly the Australian Black Duck), before         ). The population, which disperses
all but disappearing around the turn of the          widely, was estimated in  to number about
century.                                             five million and continued to grow until ,
   Before  Mallard were breeding in, and         but has since declined to around three million
spreading from, ornamental waters around             (Heather & Robertson ) In most settled
Perth in Western Australia, and eight years          districts and on all lowland farms Mallard are
later they were established in several parks in      the dominant New Zealand duck; only in the
the Metropolitan area.                               undeveloped back country, where no Mallard
   Semi-domesticated Mallard now occur in            were ever released, is the indigenous Pacific
numerous urban parks and gardens (especially         Black Duck A. s. superciliosa more abundant.
in Sydney, New South Wales) and on
some farm dams and swamps, particularly in           Impact: As in Australia, Mallard and Pacific
southeastern Australia. In the wild, small           Black Ducks in New Zealand hybridise freely,
numbers are found in southeastern South              the dominant genes of the former soon
Australia, in southern New South Wales north         obliterating the latter’s characteristics to such
to southern Queensland, and in Tasmania              an extent that in some areas the alien appears
(Barrett et al. ).                               to be replacing the native species (Sage ,
                                                     Rhymer et al. ). Mallard graze on
Impact: In Australia naturalised A. platyr-          newly sown leys, and also eat grain, peas
hynchos x native A. superciliosa hybrids are         and beans, and cause considerable damage
common, the dominant genes of the former             by trampling growing crops (Heather &
soon obliterating the characteristics of the         Robertson ).
latter. Mallard in Australia have lost their
instinct to migrate, and hybrids may not             H I
survive as well as the native species which          The status of Mallard in the Hawaiian Islands
disperses in times of drought. Hybridisation         is equivocal. The AOU (: ) says they
also occurs when semi-domesticated Mallard-          are ‘Introduced and established in the …
type birds are introduced to farm dams and           Hawaiian Islands’, whereas Pratt et al. (:
swamps occupied by A. superciliosa (Scott            ) say they ‘winter S to … occasionally the
, Weller ).                                  main Hawaiian Is. … some of these breed in a
                                                     semiferal state on Kauai and Oahu’.
N Z
Table  lists introductions by acclimatisation       Impact: In the Hawaiian Islands hybridisation
societies of Mallard to New Zealand between          with A. platyrhynchos threatens the survival of
 and . Although most, if not all,            the endemic Hawaiian Duck A. wyvilliana
of the early importations were made with             (Griffin et al. ), classified as Vulnerable by
European stock, between about  and           the World Conservation Union.
     Naturalised Birds of the World

Macquarie, Lord Howe and                           readily hybridise (Jones ).
Norfolk Islands
Mallard have been recorded on Macquarie,           B
Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands (Barrett et al.      Free-flying Mallard in Bermuda are de-
).                                             scended from domestic breeding stock
                                                   imported in the s and s from the
M                                         UnitedStates. Locally bred captive birds
In the s, and probably in the first few        escaped or were released, and colonised such
decades of the twentieth century, Mallard were     waters as Spittal and Warwick Ponds, and
introduced to Madagascar by French colon-          considerable numbers began breeding in the
ists, as also were domestic Mallard-type           wild (D. B. Wingate  and pers. comm.
ducks, and it seems likely that today there is a   , AOU ). The species also occurs as an
shifting mixed population of feral and semi-       uncommon vagrant (Raine ).
feral birds (Blair et al. ).
                                                   F I
Impact: Concern has been expressed that            Since the s semi-domesticated Mallard
Mallard on Lake Alaotra may eventually             have occurred in small numbers in the
hybridise, if they have not already done so,       Falkland Islands (Navas ).
with the endemic and threatened Meller’s
Duck A. melleri (Blair et al. ).               Impact Worldwide: Summing up the ecolog-
                                                   ical impact of Mallard around the world,
M I                                  Callaghan & Kirby () and Simberloff
In   Mallard were introduced to the          () said that they will eventually reduce or
Tamarind Falls reservoir on Mauritius (Staub       even eradicate the genotypes of Pacific Black
), where by  the population had            Duck A. s. superciliosa, American Black Duck
increased to around  and was beginning to        A. rubripes and Hawaiian Duck A. wyvilliana;
spread to other reservoirs and to lakes and        in the longer term the Mexican Duck A. p.
marshland on the plateau (Jones ).             diazi and the Mottled Duck A. fulvigula may
                                                   suffer the same fate. In addition to hybridis-
Impact: Staub () reported that Mallard         ing, Mallard compete for food and nesting
had displaced the introduced Meller’s Ducks        sites with native species, cause eutrophication
A. melleri on the Tamarind Falls reservoir,        of water bodies and spread diseases.
although in captivity the two species do not

  Introductions by acclimatisation societies of Mallard Anas platyrhynchos in New
Zealand, –.

Date           Society         Locality                          Number
–        Otago           Kakanui, Riverton, etc.           +
           Southland       ?                                 
,      Auckland        The Domain                        
,      Canterbury      Botanic Gardens                   
           Wellington      Masterton, Wairarapa              
–      Wellington      Manawatu, Rangitikei, Wairarapa   Several hundred
           Taranaki        ?                                 ?
After      Taranaki        Lake Okareka                      Flock of  became established
–        Southland       ?                                 ,
–        ?               ?                                 Large numbers from the USA
           Wellington      Manawatu, Rangitikei, etc.         eggs and large numbers of birds

Sources : Thomson ; Oliver , .
                                                        Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)      

Meller’s Duck                                    Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles; The
Anas melleri                                       Netherlands.

Natural Range: E Madagascar.                     B I
Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Mascarene Is.   ‘It was first recorded as an escape in , and
                                                 as breeding in the wild [in Lincolnshire] in
M I                                . Sporadic breeding probably became
In about  Meller’s Duck was introduced       annual most years fairly soon after, and
to Mauritius where it is restricted to Pinton    although around seven breeding pairs are
du Milieu and Valetta Lakes and rivers on the    recorded most years, the total is very probably
high plateau, although in Madagascar it          higher, simply because of the species’
occurs in fast-flowing streams down to low        peripatetic nature and the low level of interest
elevations. On a number of occasions in the      in introduced birds. Over  individuals
s this population of up to  birds has      occur in winter counts’ (Blair et al. ).
been reinforced by others reared in captivity.       Between  and , Ogilvie & RBBP
It may well be at long-term risk through         (–) received reports of successful
possible hybridisation with domestic variants    breeding by Red-crested Pochards in
of Mallards A. platyrhynchos and Muscovy         Essex, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester,
Ducks Cairina moschata (Blair et al. ).      Lincolnshire, Middlesex, Norfolk, Notting-
   Since this is the only wild population of     hamshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Sussex and
A. melleri outside Madagascar, it is of          Wiltshire; the highest numbers of breeding
considerable conservation significance (Jones     pairs were six in  and , and seven in
). It is classified by the World Conserva-    . ‘British nesting records probably all
tion Union as ‘Lower Risk, near threatened’.     concern a population originating from
                                                 escapes, although continental birds are known
                                                 to visit’ (Berndt : ).

Northern Shoveler                                T N
Anas clypeata                                    The status of N. rufina in The Netherlands as
                                                 a native species or an exotic is uncertain, but
Natural Range: Europe, Asia, and N America.      the latter seems the more probable. The
  Winters in N and E Africa, India, China,       species was first recorded in , and between
  and Mexico.                                    that year and  Lensink (, a)
Naturalised Range: Asia: Saudi Arabia.           estimated the breeding population to number
                                                 – pairs. The current estimate of around
S A                                      pairs (Lensink , a, Blair et al. )
Possibly since the s a small breeding        represents a decline of some %, but this
population, believed to be derived from          species is extremely secretive while nesting.
escapes, has been established on a sewage farm
pond near Riyadh (Blair et al. ).

                                                 Ruddy Duck
                                                 Oxyura jamaicensis
Red-crested Pochard
Netta rufina                                      Natural Range: Canada, the USA and the
                                                   West Indies; winters S to N Mexico.
Natural Range: C and S Europe, SW and C          Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles; ?Aus-
  Asia, wintering in S Europe, N and NE            tria; ?Belgium; France; ?Iceland; ?Italy;
  Africa, and S Asia. In Europe the range is       ?The Netherlands; Spain; ?Sweden; ?Switz-
  discontinuous.                                   erland. Asia: ?Turkey. Africa: ?Morocco.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

B I                                    counties of England, but there were also
Ruddy Ducks now established in the British       major concentrations in Cheshire, Greater
Isles are the descendants of some that escaped   Manchester, Yorkshire and Anglesey; the
from the then Wildfowl Trust’s reserve at        species was also breeding regularly in Fife and
Slimbridge in Gloucestershire; the first two      on Tayside in Scotland, with perhaps –
birds flew away in the winter of –,         pairs nesting in Northern Ireland (Hughes
followed by about  more in , and by        ). The present Irish pre-breeding popula-
 a total of some  juveniles are believed   tion in Ulster and Wexford (Langley )
to have escaped (Hudson ). Four juvenile     numbers at least  individuals including
males spent the winter of – on             – breeding pairs, and both range and
Chew Valley Reservoir in Somerset, where in      population are increasing.
–  they were joined by some females           During the past – years the Ruddy
and where the first wild brood was observed       Duck has shown one of the most explosive
in  (King ).                             increases in population and distribution
   In  Ruddy Ducks began to appear on        of any bird in Britain (Hughes ). This
several waters in Staffordshire, where breeding   has been due largely to the availability of an
on Gailey and Belvide Reservoirs took place      abundance of suitable breeding habitats; little
in , and from where the birds began to       if any competition from native species; the
extend their range. Up to the mid-s,         fact that eggs and chicks have a high survival
however, breeding numbers in Somerset and        rate; brood parasitism by some females; and
Gloucestershire remained low, the principal      the ability to rear two broods per season
expansion in distribution and increase in        (Hughes ). Flooding of nests and some
numbers taking place in the west Midlands,       predation seem to be the species’ principal
where the birds spread to Shropshire (),     controlling factors.
Cheshire (–), Worcestershire (),          A remarkable aspect of the Ruddy Duck’s
Leicestershire (), Warwickshire ()       rapid colonisation of Britain has been
and Derbyshire (). In  Ruddy Ducks       the equally speedy development of a
bred for the first time in Northern Ireland       largely nocturnal and regular migration
(Lough Neagh), and in  in Wales (Isle of
Anglesey) and in Scotland. From three
known breeding pairs countrywide in 
the number had increased to  by
. Hudson () estimated the 
post-breeding population at a minimum
of  individuals, including – breeding
pairs; by the following year the totals had
risen to – and – respectively; the
total population increased to  (),
– (),  (), and , ()
(Vinicombe & Chandler ), an average
annual rate of increase since  of some
%. An increase in mortality during the
severe winter of – was followed by a
rapid recovery of the population to , by
–; by  some  pairs were breeding
in Britain (Hughes & Grussu ). By 
the total population was around , birds
(Hughes ).
   In the early s the stronghold of Ruddy
Ducks in Britain remained in the Midland                          Ruddy Duck
                                                      Anatidae (Ducks, Geese and Swans)     

pattern, as in North America (cf. Canada        T N
Geese Branta canadensis and Mandarin Ducks      Present in small numbers since at least ;
Aix galericulata). Following the birds’ late    for – and – Lensink (a)
summer moult Ruddy Duck leave Cheshire,         records a maximum of two breeding pairs
Shropshire and other major population           annually. However, around  birds winter in
centres, and disperse to lakes and reservoirs   The Netherlands annually, with the majority
in Staffordshire and parts of Somerset           dispersing – probably back to Britain – in
(Avon). Unlike all other species of British     spring.
wildfowl, Ruddy Ducks also have a
complete pre-breeding moult in early spring     S
(Vinicombe ).                               The earliest occurrence of Ruddy Ducks in
                                                Spain was in , and by the early s more
E                                          than  birds (excluding winter migrants but
Although many, if not most, records of Ruddy    including O. jamaicensis x White-headed
Duck in the Western Palaearctic are due to      Duck O. leucocephala hybrids) were resident.
natural dispersal from the thriving British     A Onrubia and T Andrés (in Martí & del
population, some are undoubtedly a result       Moral ) record breeding by pure pairs
of local releases and/or escapes. As it is      and records from  provinces.
impossible to differentiate between the two,
all are included in the following brief         S
summary derived from Blair et al. () and    Between  and  a total of  birds was
Hughes ().                                  recorded.

A                                         S
Individuals have been recorded in the wild      Between one and three birds are reported
since the late s.                           annually.

B                                         T
First reported in the s, since when only    First observed in the late s; a hybrid with
about three birds are recorded annually.        O. leucocephala was reported in .

F                                          M
Present in France since well before .       Ruddy Ducks have occurred in small
There is now a population of at least ,       numbers (up to ) in Morocco since ,
including ten (perhaps many more) breeding      where breeding was first recorded in  and
pairs in the west on Lac Grand-Lieu (Langley    where Ruddy Duck x White-headed Duck O.
).                                          leucocephala hybrids have been observed since
                                                .
I
First recorded in . There are now some      Impact: Ruddy Duck control in Morocco is
– individuals; breeding occurred for the    complicated by the presence of a further two
first time in .                              locally rare species (Red-knobbed Coot Fulica
                                                cristata and Marbled Teal Marmaronetta
Impact: Local persecution of Slavonian          angustirostris) which necessitates great care
Grebes Podiceps auritus has been observed in    when culling.
Iceland.
                                                Impact Worldwide: Concern has been
I                                           expressed about the potential impact on the
First recorded in ; four individuals        native White-headed Duck (classified as Vul-
currently occur in two provinces.               nerable by the World Conservation Union)
   Naturalised Birds of the World

through hybridisation with the naturalised        G
Ruddy Duck in Spain and elsewhere. The            Since the s a mixed flock of escaped or
former species breeds in small numbers in         released Greater Flamingos (some of which
Europe in Spain, Romania, Hungary, Turkey         may be of the American subspecies roseus) and
and the former USSR; in Africa in Tunisia,        Chilean Flamingos have bred successfully at
Morocco, and perhaps Algeria; and in Asia in      Zwillbrocker Venn near the Dutch border.
China. Some third-generation hybrids have         Among about  birds some % are ruber
been recorded; first- and second-generation        with up to six breeding pairs: there are –
hybrid back-crosses seem to be fertile and        breeding pairs of chilensis. When the weather
dominant but too few third-generation             is favourable breeding appears to be annual
hybrids have been studied for meaningful          with occasional successful hybridisation. The
results. The literature on whether or not to      role played by recruitment from further
attempt to eradicate Ruddy Ducks in the           escapes in maintaining this apparently stable
Western Palaearctic (particularly in Britain,     flock has not been ascertained (Gebhardt
which is the source of most Palaearctic birds)    , Blair et al. ).
in order to protect the local Spanish and other
populations of White-headed Ducks is exten-       T N
sive, and the following references are only a     Flamingos (mainly chilensis) occur through-
selection from the past decade: Gantlett ,    out the year, most, if not all, being wanderers
Green , Department of the Environment,        from the German population. Winter counts
European Wildlife Division , Hughes           of over  birds in the Dutch Delta and
, , Perennou , Persson & Ur-          Ijsselmeer in some years suggest that the
diales , Storkersen , Hughes et al.       European population of both species may be
, Avery , Goodwin , Hughes et         much larger than realised (Blair et al. ).
al. , Lawson , Walton , Nummi         In – Lensink (a) listed nine to 
, Bear , Smout . The author           breeding pairs of chilensis and one or two pairs
considers such proposed eradication entirely      of ruber.
unjustified (see e.g. Smout ).
                                                  European Summary: Were the Chilean
                                                  Flamingo, which is a hardier species than
                                                  P. ruber, to become established in Europe in
                                                  less marginal habitats and conditions than
     PHOENICOPTERIDAE                             those in Germany and The Netherlands, it is
        (FLAMINGOS)                               likely to thrive when its numbers have reached
                                                  the critical figure to stimulate successful
Greater Flamingo                                  reproduction, regardless of further recruit-
Phoenicopterus ruber                              ment (Blair et al. ).

Natural Range: Caribbean coasts of C and S        U S
  America and the West Indies; S Europe, C        There are several deliberately released wild
  Asia, NW India, and N, E and S Africa.          mixed flocks of ruber and chilensis Flamingos
                                                  in the United States, the breeding
Chilean Flamingo                                  status of which is uncertain. A flock of
Phoenicopterus chilensis                          deliberately introduced P. r. roseus, dating
                                                  perhaps from the s, was established in the
Natural Range: Peru and Uruguay to Tierra         wild in Hialeah, Florida (Blake ), for
  del Fuego.                                      some  years before apparently dispersing
                                                  back to its normal Caribbean range (Blair et
Naturalised Range: Europe: Germany; The           al. ).
  Netherlands. North America: USA.
                                                        Ardeidae (Herons, Bitterns and Egrets)    

    THRESKIORNITHIDAE                               Future Trends: Blair et al. () considered
  (IBISES AND SPOONBILLS)                           that Sacred Ibises will probably attempt to
                                                    establish colonies elsewhere in Europe (in-
Sacred Ibis                                         cluding possibly the British Isles) before .
Threskiornis aethiopicus
                                                    Potential Impact: If it becomes widely estab-
Natural Range: Sub-Saharan Africa, Iraq,            lished in Europe, the Sacred Ibis may cause
  Aldabra I. and W Madagascar.                      damage to seedlings of winter wheat. Its
Naturalised Range: Europe: France; Italy;           apparent dominance of heronries will have a
  ?Spain. Asia: ?UAE. Atlantic Ocean: Can-          local impact on Grey Herons Ardea cinerea,
  ary Is.                                           Little Egrets Egretta garzetta, and Night
                                                    Herons Nycticorax nycticorax (Blair et al. ).
F
Sacred Ibises were accidentally and/or deliber-     U A E
ately introduced at Golfe de Morbihan on the        Richardson () recorded a free-flying popu-
coast of Brittany probably in the late s or     lation of around  based on al Ain zoo, with
early s. Initially the birds nested in occu-    smaller numbers on Sir Bani Yas Island and
pied heronries, but as the number of Ibises         perhaps elsewhere. Blair et al. () said that
grew the herons declined. For a time the Ibis       between  and  up to ten pairs out of a
colony apparently stabilised at around            population of  birds bred in wetlands at al
breeding pairs, but after the establishment of      Ain and on Sir Bani Yas Island (Ain al Fayda),
a further colony at Lac Grand Lieu near             but that the species’ present status was un-
Nantes the total population in  was esti-       known.
mated at about  birds, and by  the
numbers had increased to over , individ-        C I.
uals, with some  breeding pairs. New             J. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral ) says
colonies continue to be formed, based on            that breeding has occurred in the Canaries
marshes, lake margins, and muddy coastal            since .
regions. The species is likely to continue to in-
crease and spread in France (Blair et al. ).
Langley () recorded it in Morbihan in
Loire-Atlantique, Briere, and Grandlieu.                    ARDEIDAE
I                                                 (HERONS, BITTERNS AND
Since  or  a small population con-                   EGRETS)
taining around ten breeding pairs has been
established at Lake Fiume Sesia in northwest-       Black-crowned Night Heron
ern Italy, where breeding first occurred in      Nycticorax nycticorax
and where in  the population numbered
. Sacred Ibises have been reported from five       Natural Range: C and S Europe (and N
provinces and as probably nesting in most             Africa) eastwards to E China and Japan,
years in mixed heronries in two provinces in          Taiwan, the Sunda Is. and the Philippines;
the northwest and northeast, where the popu-          winters in C Africa and SE Asia. Also from
lation may be slowly increasing (Baccetti et al.      SE Canada to SW Peru, Chile, and SW Ar-
, Bertolino , Blair et al. ).             gentina, and the Hawaiian and Falkland Is.
                                                    Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles.
S
J. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral ) records      B I
the presence of a wild colony in the grounds        In  some Black-crowned Night Herons of
of Barcelona zoo since .                        the North American race hoactli escaped from
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Edinburgh zoo in Scotland, where five months
later they were joined by the remainder of the
captive colony which had been established
since . Dorward () estimated the pop-
ulation in  at , and by the early-s
Young & Duffy () judged it to be between
 and . Since their escape the birds have
regularly nested within the zoo grounds,
where breeding has been recorded in every
month except August and September when
the adults are moulting. Insufficient food may
account for the high (perhaps % or more)
rate of fledgling mortality. Although the birds’
main source of food has been from within the
zoo grounds, some have flown up to –km
to feed on intertidal waters of the Firth of
Forth and on the River Almond (H. G. Young
and K. Duffy, pers. comm. , ).
   In  Ogilvie & RBBP () reported
the presence of at least  birds in the zoo
grounds, including five to ten breeding pairs;
the total for the following year was estimated
to be  individuals (Ogilvie & RBBP ).
Ogilvie & RBBP () were also informed
that a free-flying colony of up to  Black-
crowned Night Herons of the nominate
European subspecies was established in Great
Witchingham Park in Norfolk. The birds in
Edinburgh zoo do not breed outside the zoo                         Cattle Egret
grounds, and both colonies are said to depend
on supplementary feeding. Edinburgh zoo is
apparently trying to reduce the number of its     Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Chagos
free-flying birds. According to Blair et al.         Archipelago; ?Mascarene Is.; Seychelles Is.
(), both the above colonies seem to be          Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
stable or declining only slowly.
                                                  C A
                                                  In  Captain Georges Lanier imported
                                                   Cattle Egrets from the Seychelles to the
Cattle Egret                                      Chagos Archipelago to control insect pests
Bubulcus ibis                                     (nine others may have been introduced two
                                                  years previously), and by  a colony of 
Natural Range: Originally only locally in SW      nests had become established at Point Est on
  Palaearctic, Ethiopian, and Oriental re-        Diego Garcia (Bourne ).
  gions, including parts of N and tropical
  Africa, S Iberia, and SW Arabia sporad-         Impact: If Cattle Egrets were to spread to other
  ically E to S China and Japan, Taiwan and       islands in the archipelago they might have a
  E Malaysia. Since the late s (AOU           negative impact on colonially nesting seabirds.
  ) the species has dramatically extended
  its range naturally in the Western Hemi-        M I
  sphere (see Crosby , Lever ).           Cattle Egrets may have been successfully
                                                            Cathartidae (New World Vultures) 

introduced to the island of Rodrigues (Roun-        Egrets were introduced to the Hawaiian
tree et al. ).                                  Islands in an attempt to control flies that were
                                                    damaging hides and causing lower weight
S I                                  gains in cattle (Breese ).
It is possible that Cattle Egrets were originally
introduced to the Seychelles in the late nine-
teenth or early twentieth century. In ,
some were released on Frégate and Praslin
Islands to control insect pests, where they               CATHARTIDAE
became well-established; they later spread to         (NEW WORLD VULTURES)
other islands in the group and also to the
neighbouring Amirante Islands (Penny ).         Turkey Vulture
                                                    Cathartes aura
Impact: On Frégate, Cattle Egrets prey on the
eggs and chicks of White Terns Gygis alba,          Natural Range: From S Canada and the N
and may have affected the surviving popula-            USA, S through C America to Patagonia
tion of the endemic Seychelles Magpie-robin           and the Falkland Is.
Copsychus sechellarum, which is classified           Naturalised Range: North America: West
as Critically Endangered by the World                 Indies.
Conservation Union. Other species, such as
Sooty Terns Sterna fuscata, have been attacked      W I
on Bird Island (Feare ), and in the Amir-       The status of the Turkey Vulture as a naturally
antes Cattle Egrets preyed on nesting seabirds      occurring species or as an introduced exotic in
on Noeufs Island.

H I
In ,  Cattle Egrets from Florida (Rob-
bins ) were released on Kauai, Molokai,
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii where the first
successful breeding occurred in the following
year. In  a further  Egrets were liberated
on Oahu, where a year later the population
was around  (Thistle ). Pratt et al.
(: ) said that Cattle Egrets were ‘… now
abundant from Kauai to Hawaii. Rare visitor
to NW Hawaiian Is. and Johnston Atoll,
probably as strays from the main islands’. The
AOU (: ) records the species as ‘…
established on most of the larger Hawaiian
Islands, wandering to French Frigate Shoals
and Midway’.

Impact: On Oahu, Cattle Egrets feed on
Louisiana Red Crawfish Procambarus clarkii,
whose burrows cause flooding by undermin-
ing embankments and irrigation ditches
around taro and watercress paddies (Breese
). On Kauai, concern has been expressed
that they might displace nesting Red-footed
Boobies Sula sula in Kilanea Crater. Cattle                         Turkey Vulture
   Naturalised Birds of the World

parts of the West Indies is equivocal. Accord-    and established on Puerto Rico. All three
ing to Wetmore (), birds of the nominate      authorities treat C. aura as a native or natural
subspecies (southern Canada to Costa Rica         colonist elsewhere in the West Indies.
and Cuba) are said to have been introduced
by Spanish government agencies from Cuba
to Puerto Rico in about , where they
become established in the southwest, but
increased only slowly. Wetmore () esti-             FALCONIDAE
mated the population in  at no more than      (FALCONS AND CARACARAS)
; it had doubled a decade later. They occur
mainly in open country and near large towns,      Chimango Caracara
probably as a result of the absence of Black      Milvago chimango
Vultures Coragyps atratus which occupy these
habitats on the mainland.                         Natural Range: From Paraguay and Uruguay
   Turkey Vultures may also have been               to S Argentina, and from S Chile to Tierra
introduced to Hispaniola (after ) and,          del Fuego.
according to Blake (), to Grand Bahama.       Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Easter I.
   According to Bond (: ) Turkey Vul-
tures were ‘introduced in Puerto Rico from        E I
Cuba (about ), and only recently estab-       In  Chimango Caracaras (presumably of
lished in Hispaniola, where now known from        the form C. m. temucoensis) were introduced
both the Dominican Republic and Haiti’.           from mainland Chile to Easter Island in the
Raffaele et al. (: ) say ‘There is uncer-   South Pacific, where Harrison () reported
tainty as to whether or not Turkey Vulture was    that although they numbered no more than
introduced to … Hispaniola and Puerto Rico        about  they occurred over most of the
or extended its range naturally’. The AOU         island, where their presence was confirmed by
() lists the species as introduced to         Araya & Millie ().




                                      Chimango Caracara
                               Accipitridae (Secretary Bird, Osprey, Kites, Hawks and Eagles)   

Impact: Harrison () found that                 on the neighbouring island of Moorea they
Chimango Caracaras were controlling the            frequent marshland near Papetoai and the
populations of two other alien species, the        central plateau. Throughout the Society Is-
Chilean Tinamou Nothoprocta perdicaria             lands they hunt in a variety of habitats, in-
which had been introduced in , and the         cluding bracken-covered hills, montane
House Sparrow Passer domesticus which              forests, valleys, plantations, prairies, culti-
arrived from the Chilean mainland also in          vated land around villages, and occasionally
. By preying on the young of colonially-       on beaches and rocky reefs (Holyoak ).
nesting seabirds Caracaras have had a marked          Holyoak and Thibault () traced the
effect on such species as the Red-tailed            natural dispersal of Western Marsh Harriers
Tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda and the             from Tahiti to other islands in Polynesia,
Kermadec Petrel Pterodroma neglecta.               where between the early s and the early
   Chimango Caracaras also feed on insects         s they became established on Bora-Bora,
associated with the faeces of domestic             Huahine, Maupiti, Raiatea, Tahaa, Tetiaroa
cattle Bos ‘taurus’ and domestic horses Equus      and Tupai. Pratt et al. (), who give the
‘caballus’. However, they also probe their hides   date of introduction to the Society Islands as
for ticks, causing damage which not only           , say the species is common on Bora-Bora,
injures the animals but also reduces the           Raiatea, Moorea, Tahiti and Tetiaroa.
commercial value of the hides (Johnson et al.
). Caracaras are, however, efficient and         Impact: Although rats and mice remain the
useful scavengers.                                 main constituents of Marsh Harriers’ diet in
                                                   the Society Islands, their predation is believed
                                                   to have at least contributed to the decline in
                                                   Polynesia of the Grey-green Fruit Dove
                                                   Ptilinopus purpuratus, the Pacific Imperial Pi-
       ACCIPITRIDAE                                geon Ducula pacifica, the Polynesian Imperial
(SECRETARY BIRD, OSPREY,                           Pigeon D. aurorae, the White Tern Gygis alba,
                                                   the Blue Lorikeet Vini peruviana, the Spot-
KITES, HAWKS AND EAGLES)                           billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha and the

Western Marsh Harrier
Circus aeruginosus
Natural Range: Europe, NW Africa and the
  Middle East to C Asia, wintering in S
  Europe, Africa, and S Asia.
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Society Is.
  (with natural dispersal from Tahiti to other
  islands in Polynesia).

S I
In  or  Western Marsh Harriers were
introduced by the German Consul to control
rats on Tahiti in the Society Islands. In the
early s the population was said to be low,
but by the s was apparently increasing
and  years later the species was said to be
abundant. On Tahiti, Marsh Harriers occur
mainly in the mountains below ,m and
on the plateau of the southwest coast, while                   Western Marsh Harrier
 Naturalised Birds of the World

Long-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus caffer.         by Oliver ), Wekas may have been first
Seitre & Seitre (), however, considered          introduced to Macquarie Island in . The
that the possible extinction on Tahiti of            earliest documented importation, however,
D. aurorae could be due, at least in part, to        was made in  by whalers and sealers who
hunting by man, while predation by Black             released Stewart Island Wekas G. a. scotti as a
Rats Rattus rattus (see Lever ) is more          source of food. More, believed to have been of
likely to be the principal cause of the decline      the nominate subspecies, were introduced
of V. peruviana in the Society Islands and on        between  and .
Bora-Bora.                                              According to Brothers & Skira (), from
                                                     whom much of the following is derived, most
                                                     Wekas on Macquarie Island occurred in tus-
                                                     sock grassland (Poa foliosa and Stilbocarpa
                                                     polaris) on the coastal terraces, especially in
  RALLIDAE (RAILS, WATER-                            the northwest, covering an area of some  sq
    HENS AND COOTS)                                  km above sea level. A few birds were discov-
                                                     ered in low coastal valleys up to m above
Weka                                                 sea level and one km inland, and a small num-
Gallirallus australis                                ber on the high plateau. Brothers & Skira
                                                     () estimated the population at up to .
Natural Range: New Zealand (North Is.,                  Chick mortality of Wekas on the island
  South Is., Stewart Is.).                           appears to be high, the main predators being
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Chatham             feral Cats Felis catus and Brown Skuas Sterco-
  Is., Macquarie I. Open Bay, Motunui,               rarius antarcticus lonnbergi, both of which also
  Jacky Lee, Big Solander, Codfish, Kapiti            occasionally kill adult Wekas; some eggs
  and Kawau Is.                                      may be taken by Black Rats. Although few
                                                     introduced Rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus are
C I                                      eaten by Wekas, introduced House Mice Mus
According to Peters (), Wekas of the nom-        musculus and Black Rats (see Lever ) may
inate subspecies (north and west South               be important food items.
Island) were introduced to the Chatham                  The comparative scarcity of Wekas on
group, but he provides no date. Atkinson &           Macquarie until at least the s has been
Bell (: ), who say that two races for-        attributed to a combination of their own low
merly occurred on the islands, state that ‘The       fecundity and predation by feral Cats. The
Weka now on Chatham and Pitt Islands                 population explosion that took place around
[south of Chatham] is the Buff Weka (Galli-            is believed to have occurred following
rallus australis hectori) of eastern South Island,   the introduction of Rabbits in –: the
which was introduced to the Chathams in              rapid increase and spread of Rabbits provided
’. The birds have thrived in the Chatham         an alternative and easier source of food for
Islands, where they became widely distributed.       Cats, and the Wekas’ prospects were further
                                                     enhanced by the abundance of burrow-
Impact: Wekas, together with introduced feral        nesting petrels and other birds as a readily
Cats Felis ‘catus’ and Black Rats Rattus rattus      available food source. The Weka population
(see Lever ) may be jeopardizing the             on Macquarie has tended to be highest when
survival of the endemic Chatham Island               that of Rabbits is also greatest (both providing
Magenta Petrel Pterodroma magentae, listed by        an easily accessible food for Cats) and in
the World Conservation Union as Critically           habitats inimical to both mammals. Thus,
Endangered.                                          wherever there are few Rabbits, predation on
                                                     Wekas by Cats is intensified. The introduc-
M I                                     tion to Macquarie in  of the European
According to Sir Walter Lowry Buller (quoted         Rabbit Flea Spilopsyllus cuniculi as a vector of
                                                        Rallidae (Rails, Waterhens and Coots) 

myxomatosis was followed by a decline in
the Rabbit population and a corresponding
increase in predation by Cats on Wekas, which
Brothers & Skira () reported to be then
rare throughout the island.

Impact: Although Brothers & Skira (:
) claim that ‘the presence of Wekas on
Macquarie Island for over a century has had a
disastrous effect on the native fauna’, it is hard
to determine the individual roles played by
Wekas, Rats and Cats in exterminating
between  and  the endemic ground-
nesting Red-fronted Parakeet Cyanoramphus                                Weka
novaezeelandiae erythrotis and, by ,
the endemic race of the Buff-banded Rail             islands. By the late s, Fairy Prions had
Gallirallus philippensis macquariensis, and in      considerably declined, allegedly due to
extirpating from the main island such               predation of their chicks by Wekas, and
burrow-nesting species as the Blue Petrel           Blackburn () reported heavy Weka preda-
Halobaena caerulea, Grey Petrel Procellaria         tion of Mottled Petrels Pterodroma inexpectata
cinerea and Common Diving Petrel Pele-              on Codfish Island, where they are presumed
canoides urinatrix, all of which breed on           to have been responsible for the earlier
nearby terrestrial predator-free islets. Most       eradication of a large colony of Cook’s Petrels
reports tend to implicate Cats as the prime         P. cookii. Miller () says that the decline in
culprits, although Wekas do prey at times on        numbers and distribution of the endemic
Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus and White-         Open Bay Islands Leech Hirudobdella
headed Petrels Pterodroma lessoni; Antarctic        antipodum may be due to predation by intro-
Prions Pachyptila desolata became restricted to     duced Wekas.
the high plateau herbfield on Macquarie
where Wekas are rare. (See also Cooper ).

Open Bay, Motunui, Jacky Lee,                       Purple Swamphen
Big Solander, Codfish, Kapiti                       Porphyrio porphyrio
and Kawau Islands
In the early s, Wekas from Stewart Island       Natural Range: From SW Europe, NW Africa,
(G. a. scotti) were successfully introduced as a      and sub-Saharan Africa and Madagascar,
source of food for sealers and ‘mutton-birders’       eastwards to Thailand, Indochina and
(hunters of ‘mutton birds’: Short-tailed Shear-       Yunnan. Also occurs on numerous Indone-
waters Puffinus tenuirostris) to all the above          sian islands, the Philippines, New Guinea
offshore islands of New Zealand (Atkinson &            and its associated islands, Australia, New
Bell ). Oliver records that G. a. hectori         Zealand and many Pacific islands.
(eastern South Island) is believed to have been     Naturalised Range: North America: USA.
successfully introduced by Sir George Grey
(then Governor of New Zealand) to Kawau             U S
Island in Hauraki Gulf in .                     Pranty et al. () have traced the origin,
                                                    current status, and distribution of the Purple
Impact: On all these islands Wekas have been        Swamphen in the United States. The species
implicated in the predation of various              was first reported, at Pembroke Pines in
burrow-nesting petrels, and also of the Buff-        south-central Broward County, Florida, in
banded Rail, which is common on Weka-free            (Pranty & Schnitzius ). Successful
   Naturalised Birds of the World

breeding was recorded in , and by early          H I
 the population numbered at least             Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse of the Asian race
individuals. The birds are believed to be            hindustan, or according to Berger () erlan-
confined to five shallow artificial wetlands, in        geri from Saudi Arabia, were in  released
what was formerly a part of the Everglades,          for sporting purposes on Hawaii, Molokai
that have been planted with a variety of native      and Kauai, but only survived on Hawaii.
trees and forbs. The population, which               These plantings of  birds were followed in
appears to be predominantly or solely P. p.           by the liberation of a further  at Ahu-
poliocephalus (India to Yunnan and the Malay         moa, Puu Hualalai, Hale Laau and Pohakuloa
Peninsula), is believed to be derived from           on Hawaii (Paton et al. ), where Bump &
escapes from local aviculturists.                    Bohl (: ) claimed the experiment was
                                                     ‘the most successful to date’. Between 
Potential Impact: Since Purple Swamphens in          and the early s various authors described
Pembroke Pines seem to breed throughout              the birds as having either disappeared or
the year, and rear two or even three broods          as being, at best, established but rare. A. J.
annually, it might be expected that they will        Berger (pers. comm. ) wrote that ‘a popu-
soon begin to expand their range outside             lation estimated to be in the low hundreds [is]
suburban Pembroke Pines; Pranty et al.               in the Waimea plains area of the island of
(), however, considered that Swamphens           Hawaii’, where they occurred over an area of
were unlikely tocolonise native wetlands such        more than  sq km of pastures dominated
as the Everglades, which are favoured by na-         by exotic herbs and grasses. Pratt et al. (:
tive Purple Gallinules P. martinica. On the          ) said that Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse
other hand, in their native range Purple             were ‘apparently established in the S Kohala
Swamphens have been known to disperse for            District S and W of Waimea’, where Pratt
up to ,km so they have the potential to          () confirmed the birds’ survival. The
colonise large parts of Florida.                     AOU (: ) says the species is ‘estab-
   Although mainly vegetarians, in their native      lished … [in the] North Kona district of
range Swamphens also eat molluscs, fish,              Hawaii’. The birds’ principal limiting factor
lizards, frogs, snakes, birds’ eggs, nestlings and   appears to be the generally lower temperatures
small adult birds; they also on occasion cause       of Waimea compared with those in their
damage to grain and vegetable crops. No              native range (Bump ).
interaction with native species or economic
damage has yet been reported in Florida.


                                                            COLUMBIDAE
                                                         (DOVES AND PIGEONS)
          PTEROCLIDIDAE
           (SANDGROUSE)                              Rock Dove (Feral Pigeon)
                                                     Columba livia
Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse
Pterocles exustus                                    Natural Range: Originally confined to Palae-
                                                       arctic and Oriental regions, extending
Natural Range: Africa: from Senegal, Gambia            S into parts of the Ethiopian region.
  and Mauretania E to Sudan, Egypt (Nile             Naturalised Range: The Rock Dove is the
  Valley), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya           ancestor of the Feral Pigeon, which is now
  and Tanzania. Also S and W Arabia, SE                virtually cosmopolitan and whose distribu-
  Iran, Pakistan, and India.                           tion is confused by extensions of range
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.          through hybridisation with domestic stock.
                                                       The following are the better documented
                                                            Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

  accounts of the species’ introduction and            In Finland, Feral Pigeons are descended
  present naturalised status throughout the         from courier birds introduced in the nine-
  world. (See also Johnston & Janiga ).         teenth century, which in the s established
                                                    wild populations in larger urban areas in the
  Europe: British Isles; European mainland.         south (Saari ). In about , Feral
Asia. Africa. North America: Canada;                Pigeons were introduced to various parts of
Mexico; USA; West Indies. South America.            Finnish Lapland (Alapulli ), where they
Australasia: Australia; New Zealand. Atlantic       became permanently established only at
Ocean: Bermuda; Cape Verde Is; St Helena I;         Rovanimi – the northerly sites of Pelhosen-
South Georgia I. Indian Ocean: Andaman              nimi, Sodentyta, Ivalo and Kemijarvi being
and Nicobar Is; Comoro Is; Madagascar;              occupied more briefly (the last-named until
Mascarene Is; Seychelles Is. Pacific Ocean:          the First World War) – although stray courier
Easter I; Galápagos Is; Hawaiian Is; Juan Fer-      or racing pigeons can be encountered almost
nandez I; Lord Howe I; Norfolk I; Polynesia.        anywhere in Finnish Lapland. Today, Feral
                                                    Pigeons breed in all European countries,
B I                                       where large cities may support populations in
Feral Pigeons in the British Isles are the          excess of , birds and densities of 
descendants of native Rock Doves that were          breeding pairs or more per square kilometre
probably first captured and domesticated by          (Saari ).
Neolithic man; some were subsequently
released or escaped when meat became more           Impact: Large numbers of Feral Pigeons in
readily available through improved methods          some European cities may well account for
of preservation and distribution. Exactly when      the recent urban increase of such predators as
this occurred is unknown but by the                 the Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis and
late fourteenth century Feral Pigeons were          Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (Würfels
well established in London, and probably            ).
elsewhere.
   Wherever Rock Doves and Feral Pigeons            A
have come into contact they have tended to          In Asia, Feral Pigeons occur to at least oE.
interbreed, and since the twentieth century         They are common in much of southeast Asia,
they have occasionally been joined by lost          and are also found in Korea, Inner Mongolia,
racing pigeons. This interbreeding must have        parts of China, Japan, Taiwan and Hainan. In
greatly influenced the genetic composition of        Thailand, where they are believed to have
many wild populations, and while urban and          been introduced many years ago from India,
inland rural colonies of Feral Pigeons are          Feral Pigeons are widely established near
entirely descended from released or escaped         human settlements. Populations in Korea,
domesticated stock, many coastal commun-            Manchuria and on Honshu (Japan) are prob-
ities are composed of hybrids, with few pure        ably descended almost exclusively from
Rock Doves remaining (Fitter ).                 escaped or released domestic birds, while
                                                    those elsewhere in China and in Mongolia
C E                                  may include a mixture of Rock Dove stock. In
Rock Doves were domesticated in the eastern         Malaysia, isolated populations occur in the
Mediterranean (perhaps first in Egypt) around        Batu Caves north of Kuala Lumpur and in
 . The history of their establishment         Selangor, and since about  in Singapore
on the European mainland is probably much           (Goodwin ). In Japan, where the OSJ
the same as in the British Isles, starting          () records the species in Hokkaido,
perhaps in the eleventh century (Saari ).       Honshu, Sado, Shikoku, Kyushu and the
They are now widely distributed, mostly in          Amami and Ryukyu Islands, Brazil () says
urban inland localities, at least as far north as   that as early as  it ranged from Hokkaido
oN in Norway.                                     to the Nansei Shoto.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

A                                                In the West Indies, Bond () recorded
Domesticated pigeons from Holland were             Feral Pigeons in Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico,
first introduced to Cape Town, South Africa,        St Croix, Trinidad and Antigua (and probably
in  by the Governor, Jan van Riebeeck.         elsewhere). Raffaele et al. (: ) found C.
Racing pigeons did not appear until the s,     livia in the West Indies to be ‘common … in
when some were imported by the British for         the northern Bahamas, Greater Antilles, the
carrying despatches during the Boer War.           Virgin and Cayman Islands, and in most large
From both of these sources birds must from         towns in the Lesser Antilles. It is semi-feral
time to time have escaped to the wild though,      and may be entirely feral, locally, on Puerto
as elsewhere, when this took place is not          Rico and perhaps on other islands’.
recorded. Feral Pigeons are expanding both            In the western United States (e.g. in the
their population and range in South Africa         Great Basin) and in high montane habitats
(Brooke et al. , Richardson et al. ).      the Feral Pigeon population is low, but the
   In other countries in southern Africa, Brooke   species is present throughout the year, albeit
() traced populations of Feral Pigeons in      at low density, in central Utah, southwestern
Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.           Wyoming, southeastern Colorado, and central
Elsewhere on the continent, Feral Pigeons are      montane New Mexico (Johnston & Garrett
found in northern Algeria, Morocco and             ). In the Channel Islands of California C.
Tunisia in northwest Africa; in most of Egypt      livia is only a transient visitor (Power ).
and the northern Sudan (northeast Africa); and        Schorger () traced records of Feral
in west Africa in Benin, Chad, Ghana, Guinea,      Pigeons in Wisconsin and Illinois in the late
Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Togo.             s, and Spiker () recorded Rock Doves
   Temperature appears unimportant in shap-        nesting in the wild in Iowa. In some parts of
ing the distribution of Feral Pigeons in Africa,   Colorado and Oregon, Feral Pigeons have
where they occur in the warmest and coolest        reverted to living on cliffs away from man
regions; nor are they apparently affected by        (James ).
the amount of precipitation or by drought. As         In Canada, according to Marc Lescarbot,
commensals of man, their distribution seems        quoted by Saunders (), ‘pigeons’ were first
to be almost entirely dependent only on the        introduced to New France by Poutrincourt in
presence of human settlements that provide         ; a few populations occur away from
food, shelter and nesting-sites (Brooke ,      human settlements, e.g. in parts of the
Richardson et al. ).                           Okanagan Valley in British Columbia.
                                                      In Mexico, Feral Pigeons occur in many
Impact: C. livia is known to interbreed in         urban, and in some rural, habitats, but are
captivity with the Speckled Pigeon C. guinea.      scarce or absent in Yucatán and Campeche
Hybridisation and competition for food and         (Peterson & Chalif ).
nesting sites must be a possibility where the         In parts of North America many thousands
two species coexist in southern Africa.            of pigeons are still reared annually for homing
                                                   and racing, and some of those birds that fail to
C; M; U S;                     ‘home’ supplement the feral population each
W I                                        year (Robbins ).
Domesticated pigeons were probably first
imported to the United States by early settlers    Impact: In the United States, Feral Pigeons in
in  (Schorger ), and their feral           the Front Range in Colorado are a useful
descendants are today widely established in        source of food to Peregrine Falcons Falco
close proximity to man throughout much of          peregrinus that have been reintroduced to
North and Central America from the central         their former range (Johnston & Garrett ).
parts of the Canadian provinces southwards
through Mexico, including Socorro Island           S A
(AOU ), into Central America.                  Most large urban conurbations in South
                                                          Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

America, especially those in the south,           Port Jackson, New South Wales, in . They
support colonies of Feral Pigeons (Goodwin        were sufficiently well-established on Rottnest
), whose range extends as far south as        Island by  to be polluting the water
Tierra del Fuego in Chile and Argentina.          supply. In  they occurred in Perth and
Those in towns and villages of the Peruvian       Fremantle, and a decade later were recorded
Andes, and on the coast, are said to be           on Garden Island and in various parts of the
descended from birds imported by the Span-        Perth metropolitan district.
ish conquistadors in the sixteenth century.          Today, Feral Pigeons occur mainly in
The subspecies introduced to Argentina is         eastern Australia as far north as Queensland
the nominate C. l. livia from the western         and south to Kangaroo Island, South
Mediterranean, central Europe and northern        Australia (where they were first recorded in
Africa.                                           ), southwestern Western Australia, and
   In Chile, Feral Pigeons were not mentioned     Tasmania (Barrett et al. ).
by Hellmayr (), though this may have
been because of their semi-‘domesticated’         N Z
status. Philippi () and Johnson ()        As in Australia, domestic pigeons were proba-
both refer to the species’ presence in the Juan   bly introduced to New Zealand by the early
Fernandez Islands but say nothing about its       settlers, perhaps in the s (Wodzicki ).
occurrence on the Chilean mainland. Araya         By the mid-s Oliver () found Feral
& Millie (: ), however, state that Feral   Pigeons in most urban and rural districts
Pigeons were then common ‘in parks and gar-       throughout the country, and a decade later
dens of our cities’ but give no information on    Wodzicki () reported them to be
distribution other than to say that wild-type     common, though of restricted distribution,
birds occur on Masatierra (Juan Fernandez         on both North and South Islands. Kinsky
Islands) and on the mainland at Vega del          () found Feral Pigeons to be most
Chanaral. Sick (: ) said that Feral        abundant in parts of Hawke’s Bay, Marlbor-
Pigeons occurred ‘in all towns’ throughout        ough, Canterbury, Otago and in all principal
South America (all quoted by Vuilleumier          cities. In some places, Feral Pigeons have
).                                            reverted to their Rock Dove ancestors’ sea cliff
                                                  habitat (Falla et al. ). Feral Pigeons in
Impact: In some Bolivian cities, C. livia is      New Zealand are described by Heather &
encroaching on the habitat of the native Eared    Robertson (: ) as ‘widespread and
Dove Zenaida auriculata, on which it may be       locally common’.
having a negative impact.
                                                  B
A                                         Domestic pigeons were first introduced to
Domestic pigeons were probably originally         Bermuda in the early eighteenth century.
introduced to Australia by the First Fleet in     Feral birds nest on some of the island’s more
. The earliest recorded liberation was at     precipitous coastal cliffs (Wingate , pers.
Cape Liptrap in Victoria before . Feral       comm. ) and the species is now abundant
Pigeons are now established in many of the        in the islands (Raine ).
larger urban areas and in some suburban
and rural ones over most of the continent         Impact: It is believed that the large numbers
(especially in the east and southeast), and       of Feral Pigeons breeding on Bermuda’s cliffs
according to Frith () occasionally well       have caused White-tailed Tropicbirds Phaeton
away from human settlements – for example         lepturus to abandon some of their ancestral
in the wheat-lands of Victoria.                   nesting sites (Raine ).
   Long () traced the spread of Feral
Pigeons in Western Australia, where they were     C V I
probably introduced by the early settlers from    Escaped domestic pigeons are recorded as
     Naturalised Birds of the World

nesting on cliffs on São Nicolau and São               C I
Thiago before  (Moseley ). The birds’         Hawkins & Safford (in prep) consider that
survival is confirmed by Hazevoet ().              Columba livia is not fully naturalised in the
                                                      archipelago, but occurs on all four islands,
S H                                             with keepers in numerous villages and
The earliest report of domestic pigeons, intro-       towns on Mayotte and Grand Comore; lesser
duced from Europe (Gosse ) and ‘several           numbers occur on Moheli and Anjouan
parts of India’ (D. F. Navarrete in Cummins           (Louette ).
: ), on the island of St Helena seems to
have been by Odoardo Lopez in                     M
(Hartwell ). They were recorded again in          Feral Pigeons occur in settled localities
 by J. C. van Neck (Commelin ), and           throughout Madagascar (Morris & Hawkins
by various visitors to the island in the              ).
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the
early nineteenth century, Feral Pigeons were          M I
described as abundant on the island (Barnes           Domesticated pigeons from Europe were
), and Mellis () found them to be             probably first introduced to Mauritius
extremely common in both the wild and                 in about  by the French East India
domestication. Carrier pigeons, kept by the           Company, and were originally restricted to
military during the First World War, may              the St Denis, Port Louis and Signal Mountain
have been released after the cessation of hos-        regions (Meinertzhagen ). They now
tilities in  (Haydock ).                      occur mainly in parks, gardens, cultivated
    Rowlands et al. (: –), from             land and urban areas (Jones ), but also in
whom the above references are derived,                montane areas and on sea cliffs, e.g. at Corps
described Feral Pigeons on St Helena as:              de Garde, Moka Range, Black River Gorges
                                                      and Souillac (Hawkins & Safford in prep).
      … common throughout the island apart
                                                         On Rodrigues, where Feral Pigeons were
      from the most arid and most thickly
                                                      introduced sometime between  and ,
      wooded parts. Population at least ,
                                                      they are present in most urbanised areas and
      with the largest numbers found on pas-
      tures, arable land and around settlements.      also nest on cliffs at Cascade Victoire and
      A roost has existed for at least a century at   East Coast (Probst , Showler ). In
      Heart Shape Waterfall in James Valley           , Showler (: ) found them to be
      and today contains s of birds … and          ‘widespread but not common’.
      s [roost] in the gorge leading to Pros-         Feral Pigeons were well established on
      perous Bay. … In  abundant                  Réunion by the s (e.g. Maillard ),
      throughout the island.                          and today occur on sea cliffs and in inland
                                                      ravines as well as in settled areas (Hawkins &
S G I                                  Safford in prep).
Watson () reported the presence of Feral
Pigeons at the whaling station on South               S I
Georgia in .                                      Feral Pigeons are found on the granitic islands
                                                      of Mahé, Praslin, La Digue and Silhouette;
A  N I                           their arrival may be fairly recent, since in the
Kloss () mentions an introduction of              s they were known only on Frégate. On
domestic pigeons in  to Car Nicobar,              Mahé the population greatly increased during
where he saw numbers of them two years                the s, from where if not controlled it is
later. Abdulali () says that Feral Pigeons        likely to spread (Skerrett et al. ).
were established around Nancowry on
Camora Island in the Nicobars and also at             E I
Port Blair on South Andaman.                          Domesticated pigeons are believed to have
                                                          Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

been introduced to Easter Island in ,         Molokai (common); Kauai, Maui, and
the same year as the Chimango Caracara            Hawaii (uncommon), and on Lanai (local and
Milvago chimango and House Sparrow Passer         uncommon). Scott et al. (: ) say that
domesticus.                                       Feral Pigeons ‘occur on all main islands and
                                                  are well established in many urban areas’; this
G I                                 is confirmed by Pratt et al. () and the
Feral Pigeons were first recorded in the           AOU ().
Galápagos Islands in  or  (Harmon et
al. ). They have been reported on all the     J F I
inhabited islands – Santa Cruz, Isabela, San      Domestic pigeons were possibly introduced to
Cristóbal and Floreana (C. A. Valle pers.         the Juan Fernandez Islands by the first epony-
comm. ). Although the species is not          mous colonist in . Philippi (: ) said
mentioned by Harris (), Swash & Still         that Feral Pigeons occurred ‘al estado comple-
(: ) say that Feral Pigeons are ‘a fairly   tamente silvestre en la isla de Masatierra (Juan
common, introduced resident occurring             Fernandez)’, and their presence is confirmed
around human habitation’.                         by Johnson (), Sick (: who says
                                                  that only in Juan Fernandez in the South
Impact: In the Galápagos Islands (and             American region has C. livia reverted to its
elsewhere) C. livia displays a high prevalence    Rock Dove ancestors’ wild habitat), Araya &
of Trichomonas gallinae and some evidence         Millie () and Jaramillo et al. ().
of cancer. The former is now found in the
endemic Galápagos Dove Zenaida galapa-            N I; L H
goensis wherever Feral Pigeons occur (Harmon      I
et al. ).                                     According to Smithers & Disney (), a few
                                                  Feral Pigeons were established around build-
H I                                  ings and in coastal caves on Norfolk Island.
Domesticated pigeons were first introduced         They have also been observed on Lord Howe
to the Hawaiian Islands in  (Schwartz &       Island (Barrett et al. ).
Schwartz ). They were formerly abundant
on all islands except Kauai but in the early      P
twentieth century the population declined as      In eastern Polynesia, Feral Pigeons are estab-
a result of over-shooting, changing land-         lished in the Cook, Society, Tubuai, Tuamotu,
usage: which lessened their feeding range, and    Gambier and Marquesas groups and have
probably tapeworm infestation. Schwartz &         been on Tahiti since the early nineteenth
Schwartz () estimated the total popula-       century (Holyoak & Thibault ). In west-
tion at around ,, of which , (%)        ern Polynesia, the Feral Pigeon ‘is not a recent
were on Hawaii, with about  each on            arrival, for it was certainly present soon after
Lanai and Molokai and  on Oahu. The             the turn of the [twentieth] century and there
birds roosted and nested throughout the year      is evidence that it may have first arrived with
on sheltered coastal cliffs, in rocky gulches,     missionaries as early as the s’ (Watling
and in collapsed lava tubes at up to ,m       : ). In Fiji, Feral Pigeons became locally
elevation on the slopes of Mauna Kea on           common on all the larger islands; they were
Hawaii.                                           first noted in Samoa on Savaii in .
   Peterson () found Feral Pigeons locally       As elsewhere, Feral Pigeons in Polynesia are
on all the above islands and also on Midway,      centred on towns and villages, especially in
,km to the northwest. The Hawaiian            Fiji, though some, e.g. in the Marquesas, have
Audubon Society () recorded the presence      reverted to nesting on coastal cliffs. Popula-
of Feral Pigeons also on Kauai and                tions that seem to be least dependent on man
Maui, while Zeillemaker & Scott ()            occur in the Gambier archipelago and the
reported their occurrence on Oahu and             Marquesas (Holyoak & Thibault ).
   Naturalised Birds of the World

   Pratt et al. (: ) say of Feral Pigeons     The reasons for the species’ dramatic range
in Polynesia that they ‘can be expected almost       expansion have yet to be established.
anywhere in the Pacific, and have often been        Naturalised Range: Asia: Bahrain; Qatar; China;
overlooked in the literature. Reported from          Japan. North America: USA; West Indies.
Hawaii, Fiji, French Polynesia, Samoa, and
Micronesia’.                                       B; Q
                                                   Eurasian Collared Doves have for many years
Impact: Where the two species occur together       been imported as cage-birds from India and
in Polynesia, Holyoak & Thibault ()            Iran to Bahrain and Qatar, where some were
believed that Feral Pigeons may compete for        released in the s and where the species
nesting-sites with the native Blue Noddy           subsequently became established in the
Procelsterna cerulea.                              wild. Since then the population has greatly
                                                   increased, and S. decaocto is now one of the
Worldwide Impact: Research has shown that          most numerous birds in Bahrain. Although the
pigeons (among other species) are responsible      Eurasian Collared Doves’ invasion of Arabia
for the spread of a number of diseases,            could be part of their natural range expansion,
including psittacosis or ornithosis, cryptococ-    Hirschfeld & King () suggest that they
cal meningitis, histoplasmosis, toxoplasmosis      may well have been introduced to Arabia,
and encephalitis, which are communicable to        since early breeding records in Bahrain
humans. Pigeons also damage and deface             coincide with reported releases.
buildings with their droppings, weaken mor-
tar by pecking at it for its lime content, block   C
gutters, downpipes, and drains with nesting        According to Stresemann & Nowak (),
material, reduce the yield of agricultural crops   with whom Goodwin () agrees, S. de-
(especially grain), and compete with domestic      caocto was transported by man from India to
fowl for food. In some places Feral Pigeons        northern China, where it escaped and spread
have become a local hazard at airports.            into Mongolia, Manchuria, and North and
                                                   South Korea. Vaurie (), however, considers
                                                   that the species arrived in northeastern China
                                                   naturally and/or by introductions from west-
Eurasian Collared Dove                             ern Inner Mongolia and/or western China.
Streptopelia decaocto
                                                   J
Natural Range: Originally probably confined         Eurasian Collared Doves from China were
  to Afghanistan, India, Burma, Sri Lanka          imported as cage-birds to Honshu in the
  and Chinese Turkestan, from where many           eighteenth or early nineteenth century (cer-
  years ago it colonised naturally (and/or was     tainly before about ), where they escaped
  perhaps introduced to) Iran. Thence it           and by  had become established in the
  spread westwards to Turkey, possibly as          Kwanto region near Tokyo (Fisher ). By
  early as the sixteenth century but certainly     the s they were confined to the Kanto
  by the early s. From Turkey the species      Plain in Saitama where, however, they were
  expanded its range further west into main-       said to be increasing (Brazil ), having pre-
  land Europe, first arriving in England            viously almost died out due to over-shooting
  in , and by the early s most of          (Brazil ).
  continental Europe, apart from northern
  Scandinavia and the Iberian Peninsula, had       U S
  been colonised. S. decaocto also invaded         Eurasian Collared Doves were probably intro-
  much of the Middle East and parts of             duced by man, or colonised naturally south-
  North Africa, and is presently ‘saturating       eastern Florida from the Bahamas (where the
  the Iberian Peninsula’ (Hengeveld ).         species was introduced in ), in the late
                                                          Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

s or early s, where by  they had         northern islands in the Bahamas (Grand
formed a breeding colony in Dade County. In          Bahama, Abaco, Bimini, Eleuthera, An-
the following decade they spread north, ini-         dros), to Cuba, to the Lesser Antilles
tially along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and       (Montserrat, St Kitts, Dominica, Guade-
became established state-wide, from where            loupe) … apparently spreading in the
they are ‘rapidly colonising in North America’       Caribbean.
(Sibley : ). Populations that became
established in Texas and North Carolina in          According to Raffaele et al. (: –)
the early s may derive from Florida           the Eurasian Collared Dove in the West Indies
(Smith , Stevenson & Anderson ,           was:
James , Ramagosa & Labisky ).
   According to the AOU (: )                  Introduced to New Providence in the
Eurasian Collared Doves are now:                     Bahamas in , it is now a common
                                                     year-round resident in the northern Ba-
   … common to abundant from the Tampa               hamas (New Providence, Abaco, Bimini,
   and Palm Beach areas south to Key West,           Grand Bahama, Andros and several of the
   breeding locally west to Destin in the            Berry Islands) and is still expanding its
   Panhandle; also established locally in            range. It apparently spread to Cuba from
   coastal Georgia, South Carolina, and              the Bahamas in the s and is now
   southeastern Louisiana, occurring casu-           fairly common locally around Havana
   ally north to North Carolina (nesting             and at the extreme western tip of the
   ) and Pennsylvania, and west to               Guanahacabibes Peninsula. … a common
   southwestern Louisiana, Arkansas, and             resident in the Cayman Islands, likely the
   central and northwestern Texas (origin            result of a separate introduction. Intro-
   uncertain); a small population in south-          duced to Guadeloupe in , the species
   eastern Colorado is of uncertain origin.          is locally common, including on nearby
                                                     Les Saintes. It is now locally common on
                                                     Martinique where first reported in .
Impact: In Pinellas County, Florida, S.
                                                     A few individuals have been reported
decaocto is hybridising with a feral population
                                                     from St Christopher [St Kitts], Nevis,
of the Ringed Turtle Dove or Barbary Dove
                                                     Montserrat and Dominica; nesting has
S. risoria (James ), a domesticated variety      been recorded on the latter two islands.
believed to be derived from the African              It can be expected that the entire West
Collared Dove S. roseogrisea.                        Indies will soon be colonised by birds
                                                     from the existing populations.
W I
In  a small number of Eurasian Collared
Doves were released on the island of Guade-       Impact Worldwide: Wherever it occurs, S.
loupe, where a population became established      decaocto is a pest of stored grain; it also
based in the town of Saint-Claude. S. decaocto    competes with other species for resources such
now occurs throughout Guadeloupe, and has         as food, and contributes to the transmission
spread to Martinique, Dominica, Montserrat        of diseases (Ramagosa & Labisky ).
and Nevis. This population is clearly distinct
from one in the Bahamas, from where
Eurasian Collared Doves have colonised
Florida, Cuba and other islands (Barré et al.     Barbary Dove (Ringed Turtle Dove)
). The AOU (: ) says that S.           Streptopelia risoria
decaocto in the Caribbean is established:
                                                  Natural Range: The African Collared Dove
   in the Bahama Island (New Providence             S. roseogrisea, the ancestor of the domestic
   ), whence it has spread to other             Barbary Dove, occurs from Senegal,
 Naturalised Birds of the World

  Gambia and Mauritania to Sudan, Eritrea,          N Z
  Ethiopia, N Somalia and SW Arabia.                A small population of Barbary Doves became
Naturalised Range: Europe: Spain. North             temporarily established in Masterton Park in
  America: USA; West Indies. Australasia:           North Island in the s (Stidolph ).
  New Zealand. Atlantic Ocean: Canary Is.           Small colonies, probably totalling less than
                                                     individuals, now occur near Whangarei,
S                                               in South Auckland, Rotorua, Whakatone and
The earliest record of the Barbary Dove in          especially near Havelock North (Heather &
Spain was from the city of Valencia in .        Robertson ).
F. J. García (in Martí & Del Moral )
reported at least – pairs nationally,           Impact: In rural localities Barbary Doves feed
principally on the east coast in Valencia,          on newly sown grain (Heather & Robertson
where the population is declining as that of        ).
the Collared Dove S. decaocto increases. Two
pairs have been recorded in Mallorca in the         C I
Balearic Islands.                                   Langley () says that in the Canaries
                                                    Barbary Doves are scattered throughout the
U S                                       islands, where the population is increasing
According to D. Goodwin (pers. comm.                on all the main islands except El Hierro.
), all pre- records of introductions to     F. J. García (in Martí & Del Moral )
the United States of ‘Ringdoves’ and ‘Collared      estimated the total population at between 
Doves’ refer, unless clearly stated otherwise, to   and  pairs.
Barbary Doves.
   Barbary Doves are established locally in
parts of Florida (e.g. Winter Park, Orange
County, and St Petersburg, Pinellas County),        Madagascar Turtle Dove
from where they have colonised parts of             Streptopelia picturata
Alabama, where by  they occurred in
Athens, Birmingham, Auburn, Montgomery,             Natural Range: Madagascar, Aldabra (South
Hayneville and Mobile, and the Houston                Is.), Isles Glorieuses and Comoros. (May
region of eastern Texas (Long ). The AOU          also be native on some other islands in the
(: ) records S. risoria as ‘introduced         Malagasy region).
and established in west-central Florida             Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Agaléga Is;?
(Pinellas County) … and apparently also               Chagos Archipelago; Mascarene Is;
eastern Texas (Houston region) and Alabama            Seychelles Is.
(Montgomery). Other North American
populations (e.g. in Los Angeles) have failed          The status of S. picturata on Indian Ocean
to become established’. Sibley (: )          islands is extremely complex and has yet to be
says that the ‘Ringed Turtle Dove … fares           satisfactorily resolved. Hawkins & Safford (in
poorly in the wild. Small populations may           prep.) say it is endemic in the Malagasy region
persist in some southern cities’. See also          i.e. Madagascar, the Comoros, Seychelles,
Vuilleumier , Johnston & Garrett ,          Mascarenes, the Iles Eparses (a collection
James .                                         of French-administered islands – Glorieuses,
                                                    Juan de Nova, Bassas da India, Europa
W I                                         and Tromelin – surrounding Madagascar),
Bond (: ) lists ‘Streptopelia risoria’ as    Cargados Carajos/ St Brandon, and Agaléga.
occurring in a semi-feral state on New              However, although it is apparently endemic
Providence in the Bahamas and on Puerto             to the region it does not occur naturally on all
Rico. The AOU () confirms the bird’s             the islands in the region.
survival on these two islands.                         Benson (a) suggests that Madagascar
                                                            Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

                                                    native to the Mascarenes (Mauritius, Réunion
                                                    and Rodrigues), but the species was presum-
                                                    ably eradicated before being replaced by
                                                    importations from Madagascar. Staub ()
                                                    reported S. picturata to be widely established
                                                    on Mauritius but to be scarce on Réunion
                                                    except around Saint Philippe in the southeast.
                                                    It was clearly well-established on the latter by
                                                    the s (e.g. Maillard ). Jones ()
                                                    listed it as widespread in suitable habitats on
           Madagascar Turtle Dove                   Mauritius.

Turtle Doves may have been imported to the          S I
Amirantes, the Chagos Archipelago and the           From Mauritius or Madagascar S. p. picturata
Seychelles (and possibly to other Indian            has apparently been imported to the
Ocean islands) by seventeenth- or eighteenth-       Seychelles, where according to Newton ()
century pirates and corsairs as a source of food.   the species was then established but uncom-
                                                    mon on Mahé, to which it was believed to
A I                                     have been imported around . Diamond
According to Guého & Staub (),                  & Feare () record the species as breeding
S. picturata was introduced from the                on all the main islands. Madagascar Turtle
Mascarenes to the Agalégas soon after the           Doves (possibly picturata x rostrata hybrids)
islands were settled by the French in . The     were translocated to the Amirantes before
species survives there in small numbers.            , where they interbred with S. p. ald-
                                                    abrana: formerly endemic to Aldabra (Benson
C A                                  a).
Madagascar Turtle Doves were well estab-
lished and widely distributed on Diego Garcia       Impact: Except on Cousin, Cousine and pos-
in the early s, having possibly been intro-     sibly Frégate (Diamond & Feare ), intro-
duced from the Seychelles (Hutson ).            duced S. picturata has produced a hybrid
Some authorities have even assigned a               swarm in the Seychelles with the rare endemic
subspecific name to the Chagos population            S. p. rostrata (Penny , Simberloff ).
which could, however, be a hybrid of intro-
duced races. Alternatively, the species could
even be native to the archipelago, in which
case it would not, as is currently believed, be     Spotted-necked Dove
endemic to the Malagasy region (R. J. Safford       (Spotted Dove)
pers. comm. ).
                                                    Streptopelia chinensis
M I                                   Natural Range: From Pakistan eastwards
Although Cheke (: ) admits that ‘the            through Nepal, Bhutan, Assam, India, Sri
information is too poor even to establish             Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma and mainland
whether the Malagasy Turtle Dove Strepto-             SE Asia to C and E China, Taiwan and
pelia picturata [on Mauritius and Réunion] is         Hainan.
introduced or native’, he goes on to argue per-     Naturalised Range: Asia: Indonesia. North
suasively in favour of the former, possibly in        America: Mexico; USA; West Indies. Aus-
the eighteenth century (Mauritius) and                tralasia: Australia; New Zealand. Indian
nineteenth century (Réunion). It is now               Ocean: Mascarene Is. Pacific Ocean: Fiji Is;
known from subfossil deposits (Mourer-                Hawaiian Is; New Britain; New Caledonia;
Chaviret et al. ) that S. picturata was once      Philippine Is; Polynesia.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

I                                         seem to be contracting their range in Santa
Meyer () records the introduction of S. c.    Barbara County and in the San Diego region,
tigrina to several eastern Indonesian islands,    but may be continuing to spread in the San
including Sulawesi (from Java around ),       Joaquin Valley (Johnston & Garrett ).
the Moluccas and some small islands in            Peterson () refers to an expansion of
the Flores Strait. The AOU () also            range into southern Arizona.
refers to the species’ successful introduction
to Sulawesi. Dickinson () says that S.        Impact: Although in some suburban habitats
chinensis has been introduced to the Sunda        S. chinensis seems to outnumber the smaller
Islands and eastward to Timor in Indonesia.       native Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura,
                                                  White-winged Dove Z. asiatica and Band-
U S; M                             tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata, there
Spotted-necked Doves of the nominate sub-         seems little evidence of any interspecific
species were first introduced from eastern         competition (Gottschalk ).
China to California in the early twentieth cen-
tury, where by  they were common resi-        W I
dents in North Hollywood (Grinnell & Miller       According to the AOU (: ), ‘A small
). By the early s they had become         population may persist on St Croix, [US]
abundant throughout much of the Los Angeles       Virgin Islands (introduced in )’. Raffaele
basin and a decade later had spread west to       et al. (: ) said that S. chinensis was ‘very
Santa Monica, south to Inglewood, north to        local around Estate Canaan in the Virgin
Pasadena and to Alhambra. By around           Islands (St Croix) resulting from releases in
they had expanded their range eastwards over      . It bred in small numbers in the wild
the coastal plains south of the San Gabriel       before Hurricane Hugo struck St Croix
Mountains, were to be found in Los Angeles        in . Its present status is unknown’. This
and Orange Counties, and had been recorded        population is not mentioned by Bond ().
in San Bernardino County eastwards to River-
side County. By the s, Spotted-necked         A
Doves had spread northwards to Santa Bar-         The offspring of eight Spotted-necked Doves
bara and Santa Monica, eastwards to Pear          of the nominate subspecies, imported to the
Blossom, southeast to Palm Springs and south      Botanic Gardens in Melbourne by the
to Oceanside and San Diego, and subse-            Victoria Acclimatisation Society (see Lever
quently to the Salton Sea. By the early s     ), were released near Melbourne and
the population appeared to have stabilised        at Cape Liptrap between  and .
and the rate of expansion had decreased,          Twenty more were unsuccessfully liberated in
probably due to the presence of deserts and an    Adelaide, South Australia, in , and the
absence of the species’ favoured Eucalyptus       present population in that state is descended
trees (Hardy , Vuilleumier ). Spotted-    from birds that escaped from the Adelaide zoo
necked Doves appeared on Santa Catalina in        in . Spotted-necked Doves in Perth, West-
the Channel Islands after the mid-s,          ern Australia, are derived from stock deliber-
probably as a result of an independent            ately released by the South Perth zoo in and
introduction (Johnston & Garrett ).           after . The species was reported by
   The AOU (: ) says that Spotted-         Chisholm () to be then common in
necked Doves are currently ‘established … in      Sydney, New South Wales, from where it had
southern California (primarily from Santa         spread inland to the Blue Mountains. Spot-
Barbara, where now rare, and Bakersfield           ted-necked Doves may have been introduced
south to San Diego and the Coachella Valley)      to southern Queensland in  (Chisholm
and (probably) extreme northwestern Baja          ), but the population in the north of the
California (Tijuana area [Mexico]), casually      state is descended from birds liberated at
to Imperial Valley’. Spotted-necked Doves         Gordonvale in the s.
                                                           Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

   By the early s, Spotted-necked Doves        M I
were well established in Perth, in Adelaide and    Oustalet () quotes J. Desjardins as saying
many adjacent rural areas, in parks and            that Cossigny de Palma imported tourterelles
gardens in Melbourne, in some of the larger        from Bengal to the island of Mauritius in
provincial cities in Victoria, and in Sydney and    which Oustalet () suggested were
Brisbane. In the south and in Western Aus-         S. chinensis – a proposal with which Cheke
tralia they occurred mainly in urban environ-      () concurred. The earliest definite record
ments, but in Queensland also in rural areas.      of the species in Mauritius was in  by
Pizzey () recorded Spotted-necked Doves        Oustalet (). Meinertzhagen (), Staub
within their range as common and well estab-       () and Cheke () reported S. chinensis
lished in urban and some rural localities from     to be common on the island, where it is now
Cooktown in northern Queensland to the             ubiquitous (Jones ). The form present
Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo Island in South        is believed to be the Asiatic S. c. tigrina
Australia. Populations in Tasmania were cen-       (Hawkins & Safford in prep.).
tred on Hobart (since ) and Launceston;
the species was also present on Rottnest and       F I
other offshore islands. The position is little      In about  (Pratt et al. () say in the
changed today (Barrett et al. )                early s) Spotted-necked Doves from
                                                   Australia were imported as cage birds to Viti
Impact: Where the two species occur sympat-        Levu, where they were first recorded as being
rically (e.g. in New South Wales), S. chinensis    established in . Thirty years later they had
has largely displaced the native Bar-shoul-        spread from here to all the main islands,
dered Dove Geopelia humeralis. In Western          including Nukulau and the coasts of Taveuni,
Australia, Spotted-necked Doves have been          and to some of the smaller islands, and were ‘a
accused of spreading the flea Echidnophaga          very common species in most man-modified
gallinaceae. In parts of eastern Australia they    habitats’ (Watling : –), mainly below
damage germinating pine seedlings and horti-       ,m elevation (Pratt et al. ).
cultural crops, and consume food intended
for domestic poultry (MacLean ).               Impact: In the Fiji Islands Spotted-necked
                                                   Doves are a serious pest of sorghum and
N Z                                        lodged (wind- or rain-flattened) or harvested
Wodzicki (: ) said that the ‘Malay          rice (Parham , Watling ).
Spotted Dove’ (= S. chinensis) was introduced
to New Zealand early in the twentieth cen-         H I
tury, and was then ‘locally abundant, North        Spotted-necked Doves of the nominate sub-
Island’, where it became established and com-      species are believed to have been first
mon in and around Auckland, from Albany            introduced to Hawaii from China in ,
south to Papakura and Karaka. According to         and according to Caum () were very com-
Heather & Robertson (: ):                   mon on Oahu by . Schwartz & Schwartz
                                                   () said they were well established in the
   The Spotted Doves in the Auckland area,
   from Albany to Pukekohe, probably ori-          archipelago before the turn of the century,
   ginated from escaped cage birds and from        and Fisher () said they had colonised Ni-
   a substantial liberation at Mt Eden in the      ihau from Kauai (where they had been intro-
   s. They are mainly found … around           duced around ) by about . In about
   Howick, Whitford, Clevedon and                   they were also introduced to Maui,
   Karaka; a few birds have been recorded          Hawaii, Molokai and Lanai (Caum ).
   as far south as Miranda on the Firth            Schwartz & Schwartz () said they were
   of Thames. Small populations have               widespread throughout the islands, mainly up
   established recently in rural Bay of Plenty     to ,m elevation though in some places to
   near Te Puke and Opotiki.                       ,m, and in a wide variety of habitats.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

They estimated the total population to               became naturalised in the extreme north
number , birds. In , eight                  around Rabaul.
Spotted-necked Doves from California were
successfully released on the Puu Waawaa              N C
Ranch on Hawaii.                                     Delacour () says that S. chinensis tigrina
   Zeillemaker & Scott () said that              from southeast Asia was introduced in  to
Spotted-necked Doves were common in                  New Caledonia, where it became established
 agricultural land and pastures, in exotic forests   in numerous villages and cultivated localities,
and scrubland, and in mixed Metrosideros             but was greatly reduced in numbers by
collina and Acacia koa native woodland               shooting in Noumea.
on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui and
Hawaii, while Walker () lists them as also       P I
present on Kahoolawe.                                Although the AOU () lists S. chinensis
   Scott et al. () found that during the         as occurring naturally in the Philippines,
preceding  years the species’ range had            Dickinson () says it was introduced there.
greatly expanded on Hawaii, Maui and Molo-
kai. In Kona, considerable numbers occurred          P
at Puu Waawaa, at Kahuku, and in agricul-            According to the AOU (: ), Spotted-
tural localities in south Kona (Honomalino to        necked Doves are established on ‘various
Manuka) and south and east of Kailua. On             islands of Polynesia’, but no further data are
eastern Maui, S. chinensis was present on the        provided. Pratt et al. () make no mention
northwest slopes of Haleakala, at low altitude       of populations in Polynesia.
in the Keanae Valley, and at low densities
across Kahikinui. On Molokai, the species
showed a massive intrusion into the northern
valleys. In western Maui, Lanai and Kauai            Laughing Dove
Scott et al. () found little change in the       Streptopelia senegalensis
species’ distribution from that recorded by
Schwartz & Schwartz (). Throughout the           Natural Range: Sub-Saharan Africa. Also NW
islands, Scott et al. (: ) found Spotted-       Africa, the Levant, southern Arabia, the
necked Doves to be ‘widely distributed at all          Indian subcontinent and E to Xinjiang.
elevations in low numbers, although they are         Naturalised Range: Australasia: Australia.
usually absent from high elevation forests and         Atlantic Ocean: Principe I. Indian Ocean:
grasslands’. The AOU (: ) said the              ?Mafia I. Mascarene Is; ?Socotra I.
species was established ‘on the main islands
from Kauai eastward’.                                A
                                                     In – Laughing Doves of the nominate
Impact: Spotted-necked Doves in the Hawai-           form (western Arabia and sub-Saharan Africa)
ian Islands are implicated in the dispersal of       were released near Perth, Western Australia, by
the exotic Banana Poka Passiflora mollissima          the South Perth zoo, where they were regarded
and of Lantana Lantana camara (Lewin ).          as established before . Until at least 
More seriously, Shehata et al. () found          numbers were recaptured for transfer elsewhere
a high prevalence (%) of Plasmodium                in the state, where they appear to have thrived
relictum capistranoae malarial infection in S.       wherever pine trees were available for nest-
chinensis in the islands, which poses a threat to    ing. Since the mid-s Laughing Doves have
native birds.                                        been extending their range in southern Aus-
                                                     tralia; by  they were established in several
N B                                          localities between Geraldton and Tambellup
According to Mayr (), the race tigrina has       east to Beacon and Merriden, with discrete
been introduced to New Britain, where it             populations at Kalgoorlie and Esperance
                                                           Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

(Sedgwick , Jenkins ). By the late         Naturalised Range: Asia: Sumatra. Pacific
s they had reached Cue and Mount Mag-            Ocean: Mariana Is.
net east of Geraldton. Pizzey () recorded
them east to Southern Cross (km from            S
Perth), north to Geraldton (km) – occasion-     Although firm evidence is lacking, Delacour
ally to Shark Bay (km) – and km south        () considered that the presence of
to Albany. Laughing Doves became established       S. bitorquata on the island of Sumatra is
on Rottnest Island (around ) and sub-          probably due to human intervention.
sequently on Garden Island off the Perth coast
(Storr ). They remain confined to south-        M I
western Western Australia (Barrett et al. ).   According to Pratt et al. (), Island
                                                   Collared Doves of the Philippine and Borneo
P I                                    race dusumieri were introduced in the s,
According to Snow (), Laughing Doves           presumably by the Spanish, to the Mariana
from São Tomé in the Gulf of Guinea were           Islands from Guam north to Saipan. Until at
introduced in  to another Portuguese           least the mid-s they were abundant in
island, Principe, km to the north, where        rice fields, grasslands and open country in the
they became common in settled areas and in         south, but thereafter declined, according to
plantations. How the species arrived in São        Ralph & Sakai (), surviving only in small
Tomé is unknown.                                   numbers on Guam, Rota and Saipan. Pratt et
                                                   al. (: ), however, say the species
M I                                       remains ‘common’.
Mackworth-Praed & Grant () consider
that Laughing Doves of the nominate
subspecies may have been introduced to
Mafia Island off the coast of Tanzania.              Zebra Dove
                                                   Geopelia striata
M I
Laughing Doves in the Mascarenes are               Natural Range: From S Burma through Thai-
restricted to Mauritius, where the descendants       land to Sumatra, Philippines, Java and
of around  birds that escaped or were              Lombok.
released from an aviary in about /         Naturalised Range: Asia: Borneo; Sabah;
(R. J. Safford pers. comm. ) are now              Sulawesi; Molucca Is. Atlantic Ocean: St
established in the Tamarin and Black River           Helena I. Indian Ocean: Agaléga Is; Chagos
area in the southwest. The form in Mauritius         Archipelago; ?Îles Glorieuses; Juan de Nova
is believed to be the Asiatic S. c. cambayensis      I; Madagascar; Mascarene Is; Seychelles Is.
(Hawkins & Safford in prep.).                         Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is; Philippine Is;
                                                     Society Is.
S I
Laughing Doves on Socotra Island may be            B; S
natives or introduced (Hawkins & Safford            Smythies () says that the few Zebra
in prep.).                                         Doves then surviving in southern Borneo
                                                   were descended from birds released by local
                                                   tribesmen. In , two pairs were liberated at
                                                   Tanjong Aru, Kota Kinabalu, on the coast of
Island Collared Dove                               Sabah in northern Borneo, where Gore ()
Streptopelia bitorquata                            found the species to be established.

Natural Range: Philippine Is. and N Borneo,        S; M I
  and from Java E to Timor.                        According to Peters (), Zebra Doves were
   Naturalised Birds of the World

probably introduced to Sulawesi and also to       Raymond Mein, introduced Zebra Doves to
Ambon in the Moluccas. Stresemann ()          the Chagos Archipelago, where in the same
recorded them on the southern peninsula and       year a group of  was observed by Loustau-
in the south-central region of Sulawesi, where    Lalanne () at Pointe Este. Hutson ()
Escott & Holmes () reported them at           reported that local islanders claimed that in
Gorontalo in the extreme north.                   about  a dozen birds had been released on
                                                  Diego Garcia, but he treated the report as
S H I                                  suspect as Zebra Doves were first seen there
Zebra Doves may have been introduced to St        some six years previously. By  Zebra
Helena as early as the second half of the eigh-   Doves had dispersed from Pointe Este, but
teenth century by French ships homeward           were nowhere common.
bound from Mauritius, which are known
to have stopped in St Helena. Unidentified         Î G
doves seen on the island from  could have     Benson et al. () were informed by
been of this species (Rowlands et al. ).      M. Penny that H. Desramais had introduced
The only known introduction was reported by       Zebra Doves in  to Îles Glorieuses, where
Melliss (), at an apparently unrecorded       they still occur (Probst et al. ).
date but before the early s when the
species was reported to be fairly common.         J  N I
Today, Zebra Doves on St Helena are a domi-       Introduced Zebra Doves occur on Juan de
nant species, being common, tame and virtu-       Nova Island off the west coast of Madagascar
ally ubiquitous, occurring in settlements and     (Bertrand ).
wherever there is vegetation, including tall
trees, though generally avoiding high, exposed    M
and arid habitats (Rowlands et al. ). They    Although Rand () said that introduced
are also known to visit some of St Helena’s       Zebra Doves had apparently died out on
offshore islands. See also McCulloch .         Madagascar, Staub () found them to
                                                  be common in lowland areas. Presumably
A I                                   either Rand was mistaken or there was a
According to Guého & Staub (), Zebra          further introduction to the island.
Doves (probably introduced from the
Mascarenes) are well established on both Île      M I
du Nord and Île du Sud in the Agalégas.           Bernardin (), writing of his visit to
                                                  Mauritius in –, referred to a ‘tourterelle’
C A                                which Cheke () believed was the Zebra
In  an immigrant from the Seychelles,         Dove noted by Sonnerat () shortly there-
                                                  after. Meinertzhagen () said the species
                                                  had been introduced to Mauritius from the
                                                  Malay Peninsula around , while Benedict
                                                  () and Staub () said the birds were
                                                  imported from the Sunda Islands and
                                                  Malaysia by Cossigny de Palma in . They
                                                  reached (or were transferred to) Round
                                                  Island off Mauritius before , and later
                                                  appeared on neighbouring Flat Island. Zebra
                                                  Doves are now common and widespread on
                                                  Mauritius (Showler , Hawkins & Safford
                                                  in prep.).
                                                     By the s, Zebra Doves were well
                  Zebra Dove                      established also on Réunion (e.g. Maillard
                                                           Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons) 

), and remain so today up to an altitude       agricultural land and pastures and in residen-
of c. ,m (Barré et al. ).                  tial areas and community parklands on Kauai,
   According to Staub (, ), Zebra          Oahu, Molokai, Lanai and Maui, and
Doves were introduced to Rodrigues in .        common on Hawaii; the species has also
Bertuchi (), however, says they did not        occurred on Kahoolawe. Berger (), Pratt
arrive until , when some were released by      et al. () and Pratt () confirm its
the crew of a visiting vessel. Jones ()        continuing abundance an all the main islands.
recorded the species to be widely established in
suitable habitats. According to Showler (:     Impact: Zebra Doves in the Hawaiian Islands
) the Zebra Dove ‘… is very common, espe-        are associated with the spread of introduced
cially in open woodland, at all altitudes’.        grasses, herbs, and shrubs (Stone ). They
                                                   were found by Shehata et al. () to
S I                                 be entirely free from Plasmodium relictum
Newton () found Zebra Doves to be well         capistranoae malarial infection.
established in lowland regions in the
Seychelles, where they became one of the           P I
commonest land birds, especially near              Whitehead () suggested that Zebra Doves
settlements, in the archipelago (Barré &           may have been introduced as cagebirds to the
Barau ). They now occur on all the main        Philippines. Du Pont () says that Zebra
granitic islands: Bird, Denis, Coëtivy,            Doves from Borneo have been imported to
D’Arros, St Joseph, Desroches, Farquhar and        Lubang, Luzon, Mindoro and Verde.
Assumption; on the last-named they were
introduced from Mauritius in  (Skerrett        S I
et al. ; Hawkins & Safford in prep.).           In  W. A. Robinson successfully released
According to Benson (b) and Penny               Zebra Doves from the Hawaiian Islands at
(), the species was probably introduced to     Paea in Tahiti. By the early s they had
Cosmoledo Atoll, where Hawkins & Safford            colonised maritime areas of Papara on the
(in prep.) imply it may have died out.             south coast to Arue on the north via the entire
                                                   west coast, and by the mid-s they were
H I                                   established and common continuously along
Zebra Doves were introduced to Oahu by the         the coast from Arue to Papeari (Thibault &
Honolulu City Council in  and to Kauai         Rives ). Pratt et al. () said that
by Dora Isenberg, and also to Maui and             G. striata was expanding its range on Tahiti
Molokai (Caum ). By the mid-s G.           and Holyoak & Thibault () considered
striata was established on all the main islands    that new populations might be developing on
except Hawaii, to which, according to Munro        the neighbouring island of Moorea.
(), it had only recently been transferred,
but which Schwartz & Schwartz () say
was probably colonised naturally from Maui
between  and . By the late s,          Common Ground Dove
Zebra Doves were well established in suitable      Columbina passerina
habitats on all the larger islands except
Hawaii, where they occurred only on the            Natural Range: From the S USA, S through
Kona coast and in parts of North Kohala.             C America and the West Indies to S
Schwartz & Schwartz () censused the              Venezuela W to N Brazil.
total population at nearly ,.                Naturalised Range: Atlantic Ocean: Bermuda
   In –,  Zebra Doves were released
on the Puu Waawaa Ranch on Hawaii, where           B
they are now established. Zeillemaker & Scott      According to D. B. Wingate (pers. comm.
() said G. striata was abundant on             ), the Common Ground Dove was
   Naturalised Birds of the World

‘probably introduced [to Bermuda] as a caged     Mourning Dove
bird from the Bahamas [where the form is         Zenaida macroura
C. p. bahamensis] in the s or s
because no specific mention was made of           Natural Range: From northern N America S
small doves by the first settlers’. However,        through the Caribbean to Costa Rica and
the AOU () and Raine () treat              W Panama.
C. passerina as a native resident in Bermuda.    Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
(See also e.g. Bourne ).
                                                 H I
                                                 Mourning Doves were unsuccessfully intro-
                                                 duced to the island of Hawaii in  or 
Emerald Dove                                     (Walker ). Between  and  a total
Chalcophaps indica                               of  birds were released on the Puu Waawaa
                                                 Ranch on Hawaii, where they became locally
Natural Range: From India and SE Asia            established (Lewin ). Although Zeille-
  through Indonesia to N and E Australia.        maker & Scott () make no mention of
Naturalised Range: Asia: Hong Kong (China).      Z. macroura in the islands, Pyle (: , )
                                                 lists it as a ‘new introduction: apparently
H K (C)                                established and breeding, but for less than 
According to Webster (), Emerald Doves       years’: it had actually been on Hawaii for a
have been introduced to Hong Kong (China),       maximum of  years. Berger () said that
where some are resident and breed in the Tai     Mourning Doves were established only in the
Po Kau Forestry Reserve and possibly in parts    North Kona region on Hawaii. Scott et al.
of the new territories. See also Viney et al.    (: ), who were told that in  the
.                                            population numbered between  and ,
                                                 birds, found the species to be ‘restricted to the


Caribbean Dove
Leptotila jamaicensis
Natural Range: N Yucatán peninsula and
  islands, NE Belize, Honduran Is, Cayman
  Is, Jamaica, San Andrés Is. (off EC
  Nicaragua).
Naturalised Range: North America: West
  Indies.

W I
Brudenell-Bruce () says that Caribbean
Doves of the nominate subspecies were
introduced from Jamaica to New Providence
in the Bahamas as part of a project to restore
the islands’ avifauna decimated by hurricanes
in the s. Bond () and the AOU
() confirm the species’ introduction
to and establishment on New Province,
where Raffaele et al. () describe it as an
uncommon and local resident.
                                                                 Mourning Dove
                                                        Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)     

north slopes of Hualalai and the high-elevation   to be breeding on St John’s Island south of
open woodland on Mauna Loa’ in the Kona           Singapore in the s (T. Silva pers. comm.
area. Pratt et al. (), Pratt () and the   ).
AOU () confirm the species’ continuing
presence on Hawaii, where Pratt et al. ()
say the population may be gradually increasing.
                                                  Tanimbar Corella
                                                  Cacatua goffini
                                                  Natural Range: Tanimbar I.; Tula (Kai Is.).
PSITTACIDAE (COCKATOOS                            Naturalised Range: Asia: Singapore.
      AND PARROTS)
                                                  S
Galah                                             Dickinson () describes this species (listed
Eolophus roseicapilla                             by the World Conservation Union as ‘Lower
                                                  Risk: Near Threatened’) as occurring in the
Natural Range: Australia and Tasmania.            wild on Singapore Island, to which Wells
Naturalised Range: Australasia: New Zealand.      () adds its satellites (St John’s, Sentosa).

N Z
A shipment of smuggled Galahs released by a
vessel off the coast of Horowhenua in the          Yellow-crested Cockatoo
s failed to become established. Recently,     Cacatua sulphurea
however, escaped cage-birds have formed wild
breeding populations in South Auckland and        Natural Range: Sulawesi and adjacent islands,
in the northern Waikato, and have been              Masalembu Besar I. (Java Sea), the main
observed on Pakihi and Ponui Islands in             Lesser Sunda Is. (Lombok to Alor and
the inner Hauraki Gulf. The bulk of the             Timor) and Sumba I.
population, estimated at fewer than , is       Naturalised Range: Asia: ?China (Hong
centred on Ponui Island/the Hunua Ranges            Kong); Singapore.
and the Pukekohe/Port Waikato regions. The
largest recorded flock comprised  birds          C (H K)
(Heather & Robertson ).                       Webster () recorded the presence (but not
                                                  the breeding) of this species in Happy Valley
Impact: Since E. roseicapilla is a major pest     and at the university, while Viney ()
of grain crops in Australia (Heather &            saw it in Happy Valley, at the university,
Robertson ), the species requires careful     at Victoria Barracks, and on Stonecutters
monitoring in New Zealand.                        Island west of Kowloon, where breeding
                                                  was strongly suspected. See also Viney et al.
                                                  .

Little Corella                                    S
Cacatua sanguinea                                 Rowley (in Forshaw ) said that small
                                                  groups of C. sulphurea appeared to be estab-
Natural Range: S New Guinea and much of           lished in the Botanic Gardens in Singapore,
  Australia apart from the S.                     and T. Silva (pers. comm. ) said that in
Naturalised Range: Asia: Singapore.                some had been seen on Sentosa Island.
                                                  Dickinson (: ) says the species is ‘Feral
S                                         in Singapore’.
Little Corellas were established and presumed
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo                                From the s onwards large numbers
Cacatua galerita                                     of Sulphur-crested Cockatoos were imported
                                                     from Australia to New Zealand, where
Natural Range: New Guinea and adjacent               escaped pets became established near
  islands, Aru Is., N, E and SE Australia, and       Auckland and at Wellsford, Hunua Hills,
  Tasmania.                                          Glen Murray and Fordell, and in Turakina
Naturalised Range: Asia: ?Indonesia; Singa-          Valley, Hunterville, Waikato, and Wainuio-
  pore. North America: ?USA; West Indies.            mata (Oliver ). This distribution was
  Australasia: New Zealand. Pacific Ocean:            confirmed by Kinsky (). Falla et al.
  Palau Is.                                          () found C. galerita to occur in limestone
                                                     country between the lower Waikato and
I                                            Raglan, and in the watersheds of the Turakina
Sulphur-crested Cockatoos of the New                 and Rangitikei in North Island, with a small
Guinea race triton may have been introduced          colony in the Wainuiomata Valley. Heather &
to Ceramlaut and Goramlaut in the Moluccas
(Long ).

S
Although Madoc () states only that
escaped Sulphur-crested Cockatoos were
occasionally found in the wild in Singapore,
C. J. Hills (pers. comm. ) says they have
been breeding there for over  years. Seng
() lists this species only as escaped.

U S
Although the species is not mentioned by the
AOU () and is included by Sibley (:
) among those species of which there are
‘as yet no stable feral populations’, Troops &
Dilley (: ) say ‘Nest sites documented
in the Miami area’, while Lee et al. ()
state that the species has been established in
southern Florida since the late s.

W I
Sulphur-crested Cockatoos first bred success-
fully on New Providence in the Bahamas in
the mid-s, where by  there was a pop-
ulation of six free-flying birds (Lee et al. ).

N Z
Writing of the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo in
New Zealand, Thomson (: ) stated that
‘This species is frequently to be seen on the
Waitakerei Ranges, where it appears to have
established itself ’, having been introduced in
the early s (Heather & Robertson ).
Baker () says the first introduction took
place in .                                                 Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
                                                        Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)      

Robertson (), who estimated the               Red Shining Parrot
probable population at less than ,, said      Prosopeia tabuensis
that the species occurs in scattered locations
from Northland to Canterbury (South               Natural Range: Fiji Is.
Island), the principal sites being western        Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Tonga Is.
Waikato (c. ), Turakina (c. ) and
Wellington (c. ).                               T I
                                                  According to Watling (: ):
Impact: In the past, Sulphur-crested Cocka-
toos have been accused of damaging haystacks         There is little doubt that the range has
by pulling them apart to get at the seed heads.      been extended by human agency. … there
However, according to Heather & Robertson            was a considerable trade with the
(), although they occasionally feed on           Samoans and Tongans for its red feathers,
grain crops they cause only minor damage,            and there is documented evidence of live
probably because the population is regularly         parrots being taken to Tonga in the eigh-
cropped for the pet trade.                           teenth century. Either it was purposely
                                                     introduced to the islands of ’Eua and
P I                                        Tongatapu there, or escaped birds became
Sulphur-crested Cockatoos of the New                 naturalised there. The population on
Guinea form triton have been introduced              Tongatapu has died out … but it still
to the Palau Islands, where around               thrives on ’Eua.
they were said to be breeding and spreading
(Ripley ). According to Pratt et al. (:     Red Shining Parrots are today common on
) they were ‘Introduced after World            ’Eua in inland forests, in deep wooded gullies,
War II … found … from Koror to Eil Malk.
May be spreading. Population small but
increasing’.



Kuhl’s Lorikeet
Vini kuhlii
Natural Range: Rimitara I. (Tubai Is.).
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Line Is.;
  Kiribati Is.

L I; K I
Kuhl’s Lorikeets are said to have been
imported from Rimitara to Teraina and
Tabuaeran by local people, where they
are believed to have become established
before  and where they are now common.
In  six were transferred to Kiritimati
Island. Although Pratt et al. () say that
V. kuhlii has disappeared from Kiritimati,
Dickinson () lists it as still occurring
there and also as present in the Kiribati
Islands.
                                                                Red Shining Parrot
 Naturalised Birds of the World

and in forest ecotone in the east of the island.    Natural Range: SE Queensland to SE South
They also occur in plantations and in                 Australia and Tasmania.
coastal forests (Pratt et al. ). Rinke ()   Naturalised Range: Australasia: New Zealand.
estimated the population at ,, ± %.             Pacific Ocean: Norfolk I. (elegans).
Because of increasing deforestation and
predation by the island’s human population          N Z
(for feathers, meat, and pets) Rinke ()         In  a small shipment of Crimson and
believed that the number of Red Shining             Eastern Rosellas that had been refused entry
Parrots on ’Eua will decline.                       to New Zealand was released off Otago Heads
                                                    on South Island, where before  they
                                                    became established in the Waitakere Range.
                                                    Wodzicki (: ) described them as
Crimson Rosella                                     ‘locally common, North and South Islands’,
Platycercus elegans                                 while Kinsky () said that in North Island
                                                    Eastern Rosellas were well established and
Natural Range: NE Queensland to SE South            spreading throughout Northland, and also
  Australia, including Kangaroo I.                  occurred in Wairarapa, Waikanae and the
                                                    upper Hutt Valley; in South Island they were
                                                    found mainly in Otago. Falla et al. () said
Eastern Rosella                                     that Rosellas were well established in North
Platycercus eximius                                 Island near Auckland from where they were
                                                    spreading south, and in South Island a small
                                                    population survived near Dunedin. Since
                                                    – a small colony of P. elegans is said to
                                                    have been established in suburban Welling-
                                                    ton. Baker () confirms the two species as
                                                    members of New Zealand’s exotic avifauna.

                                                    Impact: As early as the s damage to
                                                    orchards by Eastern Rosellas was being
                                                    reported near Dunedin (Oliver ). This,
                                                    however, is said to have been more than
                                                    compensated for by their destruction of
                                                    the larvae of the Golden-haired Blowfly
                                                    Calliphora laemica which had also been
                                                    introduced from Australia.

                                                    N I
                                                    Introduced Crimson Rosellas were well
                                                    established and abundant on Norfolk Island
                                                    by at least the late s (Smithers & Disney
                                                    ). See also Barrett et al. .

                                                    Impact: Competition for food and nesting sites
                                                    with Crimson Rosellas has probably con-
                                                    tributed to the decline of the endemic Norfolk
                                                    Island Parakeet Cyanoramphus cookii (King
                                                    –), which is classified as Critically En-
                                                    dangered by the World Conservation Union.
                Crimson Rosella
                                                     Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)        

                                               in central and southwestern Honshu (Tokyo,
                                               Yamanashi, Okayama).

                                               U S
                                               By the early s, several thousand free-
                                               flying Budgerigars, the descendants of escaped
                                               or deliberately released cage-birds, were
                                               established near St Petersburg on the Gulf
                                               coast of Florida. By the mid-s they had
                                               spread north to New Port Richey and km
                                               south to Englewood, with smaller colonies
                                               established elsewhere. The population in St
                                               Petersburg was estimated to number some
                                               ,. On the Atlantic coast, Budgerigars
                                               were established at Cocoa, Dade County, and
                                               by  occurred at Jacksonville near the
                                               border with Georgia.
                                                  Shapiro (: ) wrote that:
                                                  the budgerigar is abundant in Ft Laud-
                                                  erdale and Ft Pierce on the east coast, and
                                                  ranges extensively from Spring Hill in the
                                                  north down to Sanibel Island on the west
                                                  coast. Very few sightings were noted in
                                                  the interior or the northern part of
                                                  the state. The heaviest concentrations
                                                  appear to be near Venice, St Petersburg,
                                                  Seminole, Largo and Holiday.

                                                  Wenner & Hirth () summarised the
               Eastern Rosella                 status and distribution of Budgerigars in Flor-
                                               ida as being restricted to residential localities,
                                               breeding in colonies of  or more on the
                                               Gulf coast from Hudson to Fort Myers, with
Budgerigar                                     transient flocks occurring elsewhere. On the
Melopsittacus undulatus                        Atlantic coast, Budgerigars bred near Fort
                                               Pierce, Port St Lucie and Fort Lauderdale,
Natural Range: The interior of Australia.      with transient flocks from Miami and
Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan. North Amer-    West Palm Beach to north of Fort Pierce,
  ica: USA. Atlantic Ocean: ?Canary Is.        and sporadically north to Jacksonville. The
                                               densest populations occurred from Charlotte
J                                          to Citrus Counties, in New Port Richey,
Budgerigars occur in much of lowland coastal   Clearwater, St Petersburg, Largo, Seminole,
Honshu north to Miyagi-ken, Shikoku, and       Sarasota, Bradenton, Venice, Englewood and
western Kyushu, and also on Okinawa, and       Port St Lucie, where some roosts were
may have bred at Niigata-Ken, Honshu. Birds    estimated to hold more than , birds.
that escape from captivity regularly augment   Budgerigars were virtually absent from the
the naturalised population. In winter, Bud-    interior of Florida.
gerigars often join flocks of Eurasian Tree        James () listed M. undulatus as
Sparrows Passer montanus (Brazil ). The    occurring in Pinellas and Pasco Counties and
OSJ () lists M. undulatus as breeding      elsewhere on the Gulf coast. The AOU ()
   Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                   additional source of food for Red-shouldered
                                                   Hawks B. lineatus and Red-tailed Hawks B.
                                                   jamaicensis. They compete for food and/
                                                   or nesting sites with Purple Martins Progne
                                                   subis, Red-bellied Woodpeckers Melanerpes
                                                   carolinus and Mourning Doves Zenaida
                                                   macroura. Localised damage to citrus trees has
                                                   been reported (A. E. Shapiro pers. comm.
                                                   ).

                                                   C I
                                                   J. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral ) refers
                                                   to a colony of up to  pairs having nested in
                                                   Tenerife.



                                                   Eclectus Parrot
                                                   Eclectus roratus
                                                   Natural Range: The Moluccas, Sumba, Tan-
                                                     imbar, Aru, Biak, Admiralty, Bismarck and
                                                     Solomon Is; New Guinea and neighbour-
                                                     ing islands; Cape York Peninsula, Australia.
                                                   Naturalised Range: Asia: Seram. Pacific
                                                     Ocean: Palau Is.

                  Budgerigar                       S
                                                   Forshaw () records the successful intro-
                                                   duction of the New Guinea form polychloros
said the species was established in west-central   to the Gorong Islands southeast of Seram.
Florida (Charlotte and Citrus Counties).
According to Peterson (), thousands used       P I
to be established on the west coast of Florida     Ripley () records the presence of this
with lesser numbers on the southeast coast,        species in the Palau Archipelago. Forshaw
but that in recent years the population has        () believed the birds were probably of the
dramatically declined.                             New Guinea race. Pratt et al. (: ) says
   A. E. Shapiro (pers. comm. ) listed a       that Eclectus Parrots were ‘Introduced after
number of factors that contributed to the          World War II to Palau where confined to the
establishment of the Budgerigar in Florida:        forested “rock islands” from Koror to Eil
precocious breeding; breeding throughout the       Malk. Uncommon ….’
year; the ability to raise more than one brood
annually; the ability to survive for lengthy
periods without water; the species’ ready use
of artificial nest boxes and feeding tables; its    Rose-ringed Parakeet
nomadic tendency which helped it to expand         (Ring-necked Parakeet)
its range; and its ability to adapt to inclement   Psittacula krameri
weather conditions.
                                                   Natural Range: From S Mauritania and
Impact: Budgerigars in Florida provide an            Senegal to Sudan and Somalia. Also NW
                                                        Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)   
  Pakistan through India and Sri Lanka to SE
                                                  recorded from numerous counties in Eng-
  China.
                                                  land, Wales, and Scotland, and breeding had
Naturalised Range: Europe: Austria; Belgium;      been confirmed in England in Berkshire,
  British Isles; Germany; The Netherlands;        Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Norfolk, Greater Man-
  Portugal; Spain. Asia: Arabia; China; Iran;     chester, Greater London, Merseyside and West
  ?Iraq; Israel; Japan; Singapore. Africa:        Yorkshire, and in Wales in Clwyd. B. Hawkes
  Egypt; Kenya; South Africa; Tanzania            (pers. comm. ) estimated the total British
  (Zanzibar). North America: USA. Atlantic        population at about ,, of which % were
  Ocean: Canary Is; ?Cape Verde Is. Indian        in Greater London () and Kent ().
  Ocean: Mascarene Is; Seychelles Is. Pacific         Pithon & Dytham () reported that
  Ocean: Hawaiian Is.                             in  there were some , Rose-ringed
                                                  Parakeets in the four main roosts, in Esher
A                                           and Reigate in Surrey, at Lewisham in Greater
Langley () records the presence of a          London, and Ramsgate in Kent. Ogilvie &
colony of Rose-ringed Parakeets in the city of    RBBP () recorded P. krameri in  as
Innsbruck.                                        breeding in Buckinghamshire, Kent, Middle-
                                                  sex, Surrey, Berkshire and Dorset, and said
B                                           that the total population may have numbered
Cramp et al. () state that small popula-      several thousand; the roost at Esher peaked at
tions of Rose-ringed Parakeets have been          around , birds. Ogilvie & RBBP ()
established in Brussels since about , and     estimated the national total in  as in ex-
also in Antwerp. Their survival is confirmed       cess of ,. By  this figure had risen to
by Hawkes () and Lever ().                over ,, with more than , at the
                                                  Esher roost; Butler (), however, suggests
B I                                     that the true totals may have been higher than
Rose-ringed Parakeets first bred in the wild       recorded. Despite reports in the popular press
in Britain (in Norfolk) as early as , and     (e.g. Utton ) that the population was
according to Chandler () may have             then around , and is expected to reach
occurred in south London between  and         , by the end of the decade, the present
. However, in the twentieth century           total is likely to be between , and ,,
P. krameri first appeared in the wild in the       and is continuing to increase except in parts of
British Isles (in England) in , and by    northwest England.
populations had become established near              The rise in the population of Rose-ringed
London in Surrey and Essex, and around            Parakeets in Britain has been attributed by
Gravesend in Kent (Hudson ). Breeding         C. Butler (in Owen ) to their ability to
was first confirmed in Surrey in , and          breed at a young age; high fledgling success;
within two years successful nesting was also      the absence of natural predators; and
recorded in Greater London and Kent. By the       longevity. To these can be added their ability
mid-s, the species had expanded its range     to withstand the harshest weather, and their
in Kent and had become established in             acceptance of artificial feeding in winter
south Buckinghamshire and east Berkshire,         (pers. obs.). The sources of the British (and
and later in neighbouring parts of the Thames     European) populations are likely to have been
Valley (Lever ).                              ‘homing’ birds that failed to return and
   In northwestern England, Rose-ringed           escaped and deliberately released pets owned
Parakeets became established in the southern      by sailors returning to London and Liverpool
suburbs of Greater Manchester, where breed-       (Lever , ). The subspecies imported
ing was first recorded in , westwards          into Britain appear to originate entirely from
to Liverpool, Merseyside, where successful        the Indian part of the birds’ natural range
nesting first took place in .                  (borealis/manillensis) (Morgan , Pithon &
   By , Rose-ringed Parakeets had been        Dytham ).
   Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                    Common Kestrels Falco tinnunculus, and for
                                                    winter food at bird-tables with various other
                                                    species (pers. obs.).
                                                       Lever (, ) recorded damage caused
                                                    by Rose-ringed Parakeets to the buds and
                                                    blossom of various trees and shrubs, and
                                                    to pears, plums and especially apples, and
                                                    expressed the view that were the birds to
                                                    increase and spread in fruit-growing counties
                                                    such as Kent serious depredations were likely
                                                    to occur. This is unfortunately coming
                                                    to pass, and damage is being increasingly
                                                    reported by viniculturists, orchardists and
                                                    farmers. Crops to have suffered include apples,
                                                    cherries, grapes, pears, plums, raspberries,
                                                    strawberries, barley and maize (Owen ).
                                                    Were Rose-ringed Parakeets to become
                                                    established in even greater numbers in urban
                                                    and suburban habitats they could pose a
                                                    threat to humans from psittacosis.

                                                    G
                                                    In  six Rose-ringed Parakeets became
                                                    established in the grounds of Köln zoo, where
                                                    breeding occurred two years later. Thereafter
                                                    the population rapidly increased, and by 
                                                    numbered between  and , including 
                                                    breeding pairs. New breeding sub-popula-
                                                    tions were subsequently formed at Brühl
                                                    (), Erfstadt and Bonn, where breeding
                                                    first occurred in , and probably also at
                                                    Wiesbaden and between Leverkusen and
                                                    Düsseldorf, where around  were counted
                                                    in  (B. Hawkes pers. comm. , Cramp
                                                    et al. ). The species’ survival in Germany
             Rose-ringed Parakeet                   is confirmed by Hawkes (), Ernst (),
                                                    Gebhardt () and Lever ().
Impact: Breeding takes place before that of
most British birds – in favourable years as         T N
early as January (pers. obs.) – the birds nesting   Rose-ringed Parakeets first bred in The Hague
mainly in the old nest-holes of Great Spotted       in the late s, where by – the
Woodpeckers Dendrocopos major and Green             population numbered about . A few years
Woodpeckers Picus viridis. Hence P. krameri         later a colony settled in Rotterdam, and by
competes advantageously with such native            – Amsterdam, Haarlem and parts of
hole-nesting species as European Starlings          Zeeland had been colonised (Teixeira ).
Sturnus vulgaris, Great Tits Parus major,           The national population rose between 
Eurasian Nuthatches Sitta europaea, Eurasian        and  from – to several hundred
Tree Sparrows Passer montanus, Eurasian             (Taapken , Cramp et al. , Lensink
Jackdaws Corvus monedula, Tawny Owls                ). Lensink (a) put the number of
Strix aluco, Little Owls Athene noctua and          breeding pairs at – in – and –
                                                          Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)   

in –, and listed the species as definitely    Parakeets breed on Al Batinah, especially near
established. The claim by Lensink () that      Al Khaburah and Suwaiq (de Schauensee &
Rose-ringed Parakeets are vulnerable to harsh      Ripley , in Forshaw ). In Yemen at
winters in The Netherlands is not in accord        least  pairs were established in Tawahi,
with the position elsewhere (see e.g. Murgui       Crater, Ma’alla and north to Shaykh Uthman  ¯
: ).                                        (Ennion ). The species also occurs in
                                                   Hijaz in Saudi Arabia, and probably breeds
P                                           south of Kuwait on the Arabian Gulf (Jen-
‘… it has been recorded regularly in the city of   nings a, b, Stagg ), and seems well
Lisbon and in Cascais town, where it proba-        established at King Abdul-Aziz University in
bly breeds. Several roosts are known, but no       Jeddah (Felemban ). Jennings () lists
figures are available’ (Costa et al. : ).    P. krameri as breeding in Qatar (Dohar),
                                                   Saudi Arabia (Dharan, Riyadh, and Jeddah),
S                                              Bahrain (Manama), United Arab Emirates
A breeding population has been present in          (Dubai and Abu Dhabi), Oman (Muscat and
Barcelona and Málaga since the mid-s           Salalah), Yemen (Sa’aa) and Aden.
(Batllori & Nos ). The Spanish breeding
bird Atlas (A. Román Muñoz in Martí & del          C (H K  M)
Moral ) found – breeding pairs, a        P. krameri in Hong Kong and Macau since
figure considered to be a considerable under-       before  may be descended from natural
estimate. Birds were concentrated along the        dispersers or more probably from escaped
Mediterranean coast, with – pairs in          cage-birds. By the mid-s the species was
Barcelona alone. Elsewhere, Sevilla and            abundant and widespread, particularly in
Madrid, and Mallorca in the Balearic Islands,      northern Hong Kong, on the Mong Tseng
supported small numbers. The species was re-       Peninsula and near Homantin and Kowloon
ported to be increasing and extending its range    Tong (Forshaw ). Its survival is confirmed
steadily since the beginning of the s..        by the AOU (). See also Viney et al. .

A                                             I
Gallagher & Woodcock () say that the           Free-flying flocks have been observed in
Rose-ringed Parakeet has been introduced           Tehran and at Bandar Abbas, but establish-
to the Arabian Gulf, northern Oman, and            ment is unconfirmed (Forshaw ().
Yemen (Aden), where populations are derived
from escaped cage-birds (Jennings b). The      I
species is established and breeding in Bahrain,    Between  and  free-flying Rose-ringed
the United Arab Emirates and on the Musan-         Parakeets occurred near Baghdad, and in 
dam Peninsula on the Arabian Gulf (Mein-           and later others were reported at Karradah
ertzhagen ). In Bahrain, Rose-ringed           Sharqiyah and at Al Kut where, however,
Parakeets have been established since at least     the population may have been declining
, and roosts of up to  individuals occur    (Marchant & McNab ).
in Manama. Between May and September
many birds migrate to Saudi Arabia (Hirsch-        I
feld & King ). Rose-ringed Parakeets           Rose-ringed Parakeets first escaped from Tel
were first reported in the United Arab Emi-         Aviv zoo and private collections in the s,
rates in , where numbers are increasing in     since when they have increased and spread
suburban areas along the coast between Dubai       over most of the coastal plain and the Jordan
and Abu Dubai and also in inland localities.       and Galilee Valleys (B. Hawkes pers. comm.
In March, some birds migrate northwest from        , Cramp et al. ). Some birds may also
the Gulf coast over-flying Das Island               be natural dispersers from Egypt. The species
(Richardson ). In Oman, Rose-ringed            is now common also in the northern valleys,
   Naturalised Birds of the World

and in the Jordan Valley as far south as           Parakeets P. k. borealis (Pakistan and India to
Jericho. Roosts of hundreds and perhaps            China) were first noted around Sordwana Bay,
thousands exist along the coastal plain and        Zululand, in , where up to  occurred in
elsewhere (Mendelssohn & Yom-Tov ).            a single flock. These birds could have been
                                                   natural dispersers from Zanzibar or more
J                                              likely escaped cage-birds. P. A. Clancey (pers.
Rose-ringed Parakeets are fairly common            comm. ,  and T. B. Oatley pers.
around Tokyo in central Honshu, and breed in       comm. ) said that Rose-ringed Parakeets
considerable numbers in Osaka, Nagoya, and         were also established and breeding in the Bur-
Tokyo, and as far south as the Ehima Prefec-       man Bush at Durban, where they were first
ture on Shikoku, and Miyazaki-ken in south-        observed in  and where by the early s
ern Kyushu. Since , a large communal           flocks of up to  were not uncommon, and
roost of  individuals has been established      the species is probably increasing (Maclean
at Tokyo Kogyo Daigaku (Brazil , ,         ). Since the Rose-ringed Parakeet is
Eguchi & Amano ). The OSJ () lists         preadapted to arid and semi-arid savanna, it
P. k. manillensis (southern India and Sri Lanka)   has the potential to extend its current range
as breeding in central Honshu (Chiba, Tokyo).      into the drier regions of South (and southern)
                                                   Africa (Brooke , Richardson et al. ).
S                                             According to Weissenbacher & Allan (),
Escaped Rose-ringed Parakeets were said by         flocks of adult and juvenile Rose-ringed
Medway & Wells () to have established          Parakeets had occurred in and around Johan-
breeding colonies in Singapore. Their survival     nesburg since ; whether these colonies
is confirmed by the AOU () and Wells            survive is uncertain.
().
                                                   T (Z)
E                                              Mackworth-Praed & Grant () say that
Rose-ringed Parakeets of the form P. k.            Rose-ringed Parakeets of the form borealis
manillensis from southern India and Sri Lanka      (Pakistan and India to China) were intro-
(Goodman ) escaped from Giza zoo               duced to Zanzibar before , where they still
between  and , and are said to have        survive (AOU ) in and around Zanzibar
been already abundant when others were set         town.
free in  in the Egyptian delta (Nicholl
). By  they were apparently well estab-    U S
lished in and around Cairo and at El Giza. By      Small numbers of Rose-ringed Parakeets,
 they had spread to Zamalek, where             believed to be of the form manillensis (south-
breeding was confirmed, and by the middle of        ern India and Sri Lanka), occur in Florida and
the decade several hundred birds were said         California. The earliest recorded breeding
to be established in the Cairo/Giza locality       record for Florida was in  in North
(Cramp et al. ). The birds’ survival is con-   Miami, Collier County but prior breeding is
firmed by the AOU ().                           believed to have occurred. Although Steven-
                                                   son & Anderson () considered that the
K                                              species was established in Dade, Collier, and
Rose-ringed Parakeets were found to be             Dixie Counties, James (), who lists it as
breeding in the Nairobi National Park in           occurring in North Miami, suggests there was
. These may have been escaped cage-birds       no well-established breeding population. The
(Cunningham van Someren ) or possibly          AOU () says that Rose-ringed Parakeets
naturally occurring vagrants (Forshaw ).       are established in small numbers in Dade,
                                                   Collier, and Dixie Counties.
S A                                          A small colony of Rose-ringed Parakeets
Vincent () mentioned that Rose-ringed          that may have been established near Los
                                                       Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)    

Angeles, California in  had died out         naturally on Mauritius, they were in fact
by  (Hardy ). By the mid-s,          introduced by man. Carié () records that
however, another population of about –       some escaped from an aviary in Grand Port
became established in Santa Clara County.        Louis in about , where they rapidly
Small (: ) said that they occurred        increased and became established in native
principally ‘in the vicinity of Pt Dume and      lowland forest (especially the Macabé Forest)
nearby Zuma Canyon LA, where more                in and around the Black River Gorges in the
than  birds reside. A few occur at the         southwest. Carié () also recorded another
Los Angeles County Arboretum …‘. Garrett         population at Pamplemousses, and Guérin
(: ) describes P. krameri as present      (–), who said that the former popula-
                                                 tion had spread across Mahébourg Bay to
   in coastal Los Angeles County, mainly in      Pointe d’Esny and Beau Vallon, considered
   Malibu (especially lower Zuma Canyon),        that the birds were still centred on St Louis
   Playa del Rey, and Westchester. There is a
                                                 and Pamplemousses, as also did Rountree et
   small population in the San Gabriel Val-
                                                 al. (), who added that they were also to be
   ley (Temple City) and scattered reports
   from other areas. … The population in
                                                 found on coastal plains in the south and
   lower Zuma Canyon has diminished              southeast and at Alma and Quartier Militaire.
   from thirty or more individuals to eleven     Newton () recorded them prior to 
   or fewer since the mid-s … The over-      also at Reduit and Vacoar, and regarded them
   all population in the greater Los Angeles     as more widely distributed than had Rountree
   area is estimated at > individuals.         et al. (). James () recorded them as
                                                 widely established in suitable habitats. See
   Although Sibley () says that Rose-        also Sinclair & Langrand .
ringed Parakeets are found in both Florida
and California, the AOU () makes no          Impact: Cheke () and others (e.g. Feare
mention of them in the latter state, but says    ), have drawn attention to the potential
that since  a small population has existed   threat posed by P. krameri to the endemic Mau-
in Hampton, Virginia.                            ritius Parakeet P. echo (classified by the World
                                                 Conservation Union as Critically Endangered)
C I                                   where the two species occur sympatrically, as
Perez () recorded the first breeding of       in the Macabé Forest. Although no hybridisa-
escaped P. krameri in  on Gran Canaria,      tion is known to have taken place, nest site
where a decade later Trujillo Ramirez ()     competition is believed to occur.
found the species in Maspalomas, Ayaguares          The Grey-headed Lovebird Agapornis
and Los Palmitos Park. Small numbers of          canus, introduced from Madagascar, was once
breeding birds have since been reported from     common on Mauritius, but disappeared in
Tenerife and Fuerteventura, and birds have       the s when P. krameri became widely es-
been observed in Lanzarote (A. Román             tablished (Cheke , Jones , ). The
Muñoz in Martí & del Moral ).                Rose-ringed Parakeet would have competed
                                                 with A. canus for maize (Guérin –,
C V I                               Jones , ), although as Jones ()
According to Mackworth-Praed & Grant             points out, the latter died out on Réunion and
(), Rose-ringed Parakeets were probably      Rodrigues in the absence of the former.
introduced to the Cape Verde Islands.               Some local damage to maize Zea mays crops
The species is, however, not referred to by      by Rose-ringed Parakeets has been reported
Bannerman & Bannerman ().                    on Mauritius (Benedict ).

M I                                S I
Although Gallagher & Woodcock ()             Although it has been suggested that P. krameri
indicate that Rose-ringed Parakeets occur        could be a natural colonist in the Seychelles, it
   Naturalised Birds of the World

is known that at least one introduction was        RBBP ), where a population has yet to
made (in ), and other birds may have also      become established.
arrived on ships from India. It is now a breed-
ing resident on Mahé (Skerrett et al. ).       B
                                                   Alexandrine Parakeets have been recorded in
Impact: If a viable population were to develop     the wild in Bahrain since , and from 
in the Seychelles, Rose-ringed Parakeets could     small flocks have been regularly reported in
restore an important part of the natural seed      gardens in Busaytin, Muharraq, southeastern
dispersal and pollinator niche that is essential   Manama, and the Sehla area of Manama,
to the ecosystem of the archipelago and which      where Hirschfeld & King () believed they
was lost with the extinction of the endemic        were likely to become established. This is
parakeet P. wardi (Skerrett et al. ).          confirmed by Jennings ().

H I                                   J
Munro () indicated that escaped                The OSJ () says that Alexandrine Para-
Rose-ringed Parakeets had occurred in the          keets breed in Tokyo, central Honshu.
Hawaiian Islands (principally on Oahu) for
many years without becoming permanently            S A
established. In the s about  were            Jennings () lists this species as also breed-
observed near Kalaheo on Kauai, and in         ing in Jeddah.
Paton et al. () found the species in
Hanapepe Valley and near Kukuiolono on             U A E
Kauai and confirmed breeding. Pratt et al.          One or two pairs of Alexandrine Parakeets
() recorded very local breeding in the         have bred around the fort at Abu Dhabi and
Hanapepe Valley, Kauai; Waimanalo, Oahu;           the species occurs throughout the year at
and Hilo, Hawaii, but said the birds were only     Zabeel and other places in Dubai and in Abu
well established on Kauai. Pratt () and the    Dhabi, where Richardson () believed
AOU () confirmed the species’ presence          there were several breeding populations. This
on these three islands.                            is confirmed by Jennings ().



Alexandrine Parakeet                               Grey-headed Lovebird
Psittacula eupatria                                Agapornis canus
Natural Range: From E Afghanistan to               Natural Range: Madagascar.
  Bangladesh, E Assam, N Burma, N and W            Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: ?Seychelles
  Thailand and Indochina. Also Sri Lanka             Is; ?Comoros Is.
  and Andaman Is.
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?British Isles. Asia:   S I
  Bahrain; Japan; ?Saudi Arabia; UAE.              Grey-headed Lovebirds were introduced to
                                                   Mahé in the Seychelles in , where they
B I                                      became abundant. In the s they were still
Between  and  one or two pairs of          very common, but thereafter suffered a
Alexandrine Parakeets out of a population of       dramatic decline and became rare except in
around a dozen bred successfully at Fazacker-      Victoria, Port Launay, Anse la Mouche and
ley, Merseyside (Ogilvie & RBBP –).        Anse Boileau in the west. A small colony,
In  and  hybrid P. eupatria x P.           descended from a separate introduction,
krameri birds nested successfully at Sidcup in     became established on the island of Silhouette
Greater London (Butler , Ogilvie &             (Penny , Diamond & Feare ).
                                                      Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)   

                                                wild in the former country by the mid- to late
                                                s. Yellow-collared Lovebirds colonised
                                                residential parts of Nairobi, while Fischer’s
                                                Lovebirds settled around Lake Naivasha and
                                                some other localities (Cunningham van
                                                Someren , , Zimmerman , Ellis
                                                ). In about , both species became
                                                established on the coast near Mombasa
                                                (especially at Nyali Beach) where hybridis-
                                                ation has occurred (Barlass ).

                                                Impact: In agricultural districts, damage to
                                                grain crops (especially millet) has been
                                                recorded (Long , Lever ).



                                                Blue-and-Yellow Macaw
                                                Ara ararauna
           Grey-headed Lovebird                 Natural Range: E Panama S to Paraguay, S
                                                  Brazil and N Argentina.
C I                                 Naturalised Range: North America: ?West
Grey-headed Lovebirds have been introduced        Indies.
to the Comoros archipelago, where by the late
s they were quite common in cultivated      W I
and open country on Anjouan and Mayotte         T. Silva (pers. comm. ) reported that this
and occurred in smaller numbers on Moheli       species had recently been observed in the wild
and Grand Comore (Peters , Benson           in Puerto Rico, but that no breeding had
).                                          yet been recorded. Successful breeding and
                                                establishment was first reported by Pérez-
                                                Rivera (). This species is not mentioned
                                                by Raffaele et al. ().
Fischer’s Lovebird
Agapornis fischeri
Natural Range: Rwanda and Burundi to NW         Chestnut-fronted Macaw
  Tanzania.                                     Ara severus
                                                Natural Range: Panama S to E Venezuela,
Yellow-collared Lovebird                          N Bolivia, N and C Brazil and the Guianas.
Agapornis personatus                            Naturalised Range: North America: USA.

Natural Range: NE and C Tanzania.               U S
Naturalised Range: Africa: Kenya.               According to O. T. Owre (pers. comm. ,
                                                ), Chestnut-fronted Macaws had for
K                                           several years been nesting successfully around
Fischer’s and Yellow-collared Lovebirds,        Miami in Dade County, Florida, where he es-
introduced to Kenya from Tanzania as cage-      timated the population to number at least .
birds, were established and breeding in the     Troops & Dilley (: ) said that ‘Paired
   Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                  the wild in England at Bromley in Greater
                                                  London in , and in  at nearby
                                                  Beckenham. In  a nest containing four
                                                  eggs was found in Bromley (Butler ,
                                                  Butler et al. ). Since this species can
                                                  survive at high elevations in South America,
                                                  the climate of southern England should not
                                                  prevent its establishment there.

                                                  S
                                                  Breeding has been recorded in four -km
                                                  squares in Catalonia (ICO )

                                                  U S
                                                  Since the early s, Blue-crowned Parakeets
                                                  have occurred in the upper Florida Keys,
                                                  where they may be breeding (Robertson &
                                                  Woolfenden , James , Kaufman
                                                  , Sibley ). Garrett () recorded
                                                  flocks of up to  regularly in the west-central
                                                  San Fernando Valley in California, especially
                                                  at Northridge, and others in the Simi Valley,
                                                  Ventura County; in Redondo Beach; and in
                                                  the San Gabriel Valley in Monrovia: the total
                                                  Los Angeles population was estimated at
                                                  fewer than  individuals. This species is not
        Fischer’s Lovebird (above) and            included by the AOU ().
       Yellow-collared Lovebird (below)

birds have been present in Miami for several
years. Numerous nest sites have been              Mitred Parakeet
documented’. Nevertheless, Stevenson &            Aratinga mitrata
Anderson () and James () claimed
that there is no evidence for establishment,      Natural Range: C Peru to NW Argentina.
although Sibley () lists the species as oc-   Naturalised Range: Europe: Spain. North
curring mainly in Florida. See also AOU ().     America: USA.

                                                  S
                                                  A population of – birds is established
Blue-crowned Parakeet                             in Barcelona and others probably breed in
Aratinga acuticaudata                             Gerona. A group of five individuals has been
                                                  present in Mallorca (Balearic Islands) since
Natural Range: N Venezuela, NE Colombia, S         (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral ).
  and NE Brazil, E Bolivia, N Argentina, W
  Uruguay.                                        U S
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?British Isles;        Mitred Parakeets were present in Long Beach,
  ?Spain. North America: USA.                     Los Angeles County, California, by 
                                                  (Garrett , Johnston & Garrett ).
B I                                     Small () recorded flocks of up to  in the
Blue-crowned Parakeets were first noted in         San Francisco and Sacramento areas, in
                                                       Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)    

downtown Los Angeles, near Pt Dume, on Pt        fifteenth-century tower beside the Botanical
Fermin, in the San Gabriel Valley and in west-   Gardens (Murgui ). The species also
ern San Diego County, and believed they were     occasionally breeds in Barcelona (J. Clavell in
then the most numerous psittacid in the Los      Martí & del Moral ).
Angeles area. Mitred Parakeets were reported
by Gallagher () in Malibu (especially        U S
Zuma Canyon and Pt Dume), west Los Ange-         Troops & Dilley () reported attempted
les, Culver City, Venice, central Los Angeles,   breeding by this species in Miami, Florida,
Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, San              where James () confirms its presence in
Pedro, Long Beach, Huntington Beach,             Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach Counties. In
Highland Park, Temple City, Arcadia and El       California it was not mentioned by Hardy
Monte. Flocks of up to  were observed,        () and was only recorded sporadically by
and the total population in the Los Angeles      Johnston & Garrett (). More recently,
area was estimated at .                       small flocks have been observed in Temple
   Kaufman () and Sibley () say that     City and adjacent Monrovia, and in Redondo
A. mitrata also occurs in Florida. The AOU       Beach, where the greater Los Angeles popula-
() makes no mention of this species.         tion has been tentatively estimated by Garrett
                                                 () at about . This species is not
                                                 included by the AOU (), although Sibley
                                                 () lists it as occurring mainly in Florida
Green Parakeet                                   and California.
Aratinga holochlora
Natural Range: Mexico (including Socorro I.),
  and E Guatemala to N Nicaragua.                Orange-fronted Parakeet
Naturalised Range: North America: USA.           Aratinga canicularis
U S                                    Natural Range: Pacific slope of Mexico to W
Green Parakeets are established in large           Costa Rica.
numbers (Kaufman ) in the lower Rio          Naturalised Range: North America: USA;
Grande Valley in southern Texas, probably as       West Indies.
a result of introductions (AOU ) but
perhaps partly as a consequence of natural       U S
vagrancy from Mexico (Sibley ). T. Silva     According to Owre (: ), Orange-
(pers. comm. ) referred to successful        fronted Parakeets have been ‘reported from
breeding in Texas near Corpus Christi.           throughout the Miami area [of Florida] and
                                                 from northward along the Atlantic Coastal
                                                 Ridge’, where breeding was suspected. Troops
                                                 & Dilley () say that Orange-fronted
Red-masked Parakeet                              Parakeets were believed to be breeding in
Aratinga erythrogenys                            Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The
                                                 AOU () quotes Stevenson & Anderson
Natural Range: W Ecuador, NW Peru.               () as saying that reports from Florida are
Naturalised Range: Europe: Spain. North          based on escaped cage-birds. Peterson ()
  America: USA.                                  records this species as also occurring locally in
                                                 southern California.
S
Since  Red-masked Parakeets have been        W I
established in Valencia where about a dozen      ‘Introduced to Puerto Rico, probably in the
pairs now breed and roost in holes in the        s, this species is locally uncommon at
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Cabezas de San Juan near Fajardo where it         W I
occurs in small numbers’ (Raffaele et al. :   Salvadori (–), quoting Graf von
). The species’ presence in Puerto Rico is     Berlepsch, said that Brown-throated Parakeets
confirmed by the AOU ().                       were introduced to St Thomas in the Virgin
                                                  Islands before the s (apparently from
                                                  Curaçao where the subspecies is the nominate
                                                  pertinax), where a century later the popula-
Brown-throated Parakeet                           tion was widespread and numbered about
Aratinga pertinax                                  (Forshaw ). T. Silva (pers. comm.
                                                  ) believed that the birds had not been
Natural Range: Panama S to N and E                introduced by man but had probably arrived
  Colombia and N Brazil and the Guianas,          naturally as storm-borne vagrants. Brown-
  including Aruba, Curaçao, Bonaire,              throated Parakeets are today fairly common
  Tortuga and Margarita Is.                       residents, particularly in the east. From St
Naturalised Range: North America: ?USA;           Thomas the birds spread naturally to Tortola,
  West Indies.                                    St John, Puerto Rico, Culebra, Vieques, Saba
                                                  and Dominica. Brown-throated Parakeets are
U S                                     uncommon on Saba, where there appear to be
According to Owre (: ), the Brown-         two separate colonies, one at Wall’s Bay and
throated Parakeet ‘is reported to have bred at    the other in the Bottom, and on Dominica
Key West, Florida [in –], and there are     (Raffaele et al. ). The populations on the
increasing reports of the species in the Miami    other islands have died out (Wiley , AOU
area’. Troops & Dilley () found this          ). The species has recently been recorded
species to be becoming increasingly common        on Guadeloupe and Martinique (Raffaele et
around Miami, where the AOU () quotes         al. ).
Stevenson & Anderson () as saying that
reports from Florida are based on escaped
cage-birds.
                                                  Nanday Parakeet (Black-hooded
                                                  Parakeet; Nanday Conure)
                                                  Nandayus nenday
                                                  Natural Range: SE Bolivia and SW Brazil to
                                                    C Paraguay and N Argentina.
                                                  Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Spain. Asia:
                                                    Israel. North America: USA; ?West Indies.
                                                    Atlantic Ocean: Canary Is.

                                                  S
                                                  Four pairs nested in Málaga province in ,
                                                  and breeding has also occurred in the Llobre-
                                                  gat Delta and perhaps elsewhere in Barcelona
                                                  (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral ).

                                                  I
                                                  Nanday Parakeets first appeared in Israel in
                                                  Emeq Hefer and south to the Carmel (Pardes
                                                  Hanna and Binymina) in the s,
                                                  becoming established there during the s
           Brown-throated Parakeet                (A Keller, pers. comm. to Mendelssohn
                                                        Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)   

), presumably originally as escaped cage-     San Gabriel Valley, Huntington Beach, Or-
birds.                                            ange County, the Palos Verdes Peninsula and
                                                  the San Joaquin County foothills (Vuilleu-
U S                                     mier , Johnston & Garrett , Small
Hardy (: –) says that ‘this South       , Garrett , AOU , Kaufman
American species has been observed for            , Sibley ). Small () estimated
several years in Loma Linda, San Bernardino       the Californian population at fewer than ;
County [California]’, where Fisk & Crabtree       Garrett () said the total was over .
() believed the breeding colony was             Nanday Parakeets are also established and
derived from birds that escaped from captivity    breeding in St Petersburg, Dade County, near
in Yucaipa in . In the s and s        Miami, Florida (Troops & Dilley ,
birds were seen in Pasadena, west Los Angeles     Robertson & Woolfenden , James ,
and the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Los Angeles       AOU , Kaufman , Sibley ).
County) and at Moss Landing, Monterey
County. By the s, Nanday Parakeets were       W I
established in residential areas and neighbour-   Although T. Silva (pers. comm. ) said that
ing canyon bottoms dominated by California        Nanday Parakeets were not uncommon in
Sycamores Platanus racemosa from Brentwood,       Puerto Rico (Mayaguez), Raffaele et al. (:
western Los Angeles to Pacific Palisades, and      ) reported the species to be ‘Rare and local
from central Malibu to lower Zuma Canyon.         on Puerto Rico where it was introduced
They have also been reported from Culver          probably in the early s. The species
City and Rancho Park, West Los Angeles, the       occurs in very small numbers primarily along
                                                  the northeastern coast’. The AOU (: )
                                                  says only that the species is ‘widely reported’
                                                  in Puerto Rico.

                                                  C I
                                                  According to J. Clavell (in Martí & del Moral
                                                  ), Nanday Parakeets may breed in the
                                                  Canaries.



                                                  Monk Parakeet
                                                  Myiopsitta monachus
                                                  Natural Range: Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay,
                                                    Uruguay and N and W Argentina.
                                                  Naturalised Range: Europe: Belgium; British
                                                    Isles; Czech Republic; ?Germany; Italy;
                                                    ?The Netherlands; ?Portugal; Spain. North
                                                    America: USA; Canada; West Indies. South
                                                    America: ?Venezuela. Atlantic Ocean:
                                                    Canary Is.

                                                  B
                                                  Released and escaped Monk Parakeets had by
                                                   formed a colony of – breeding pairs
                                                  in Brussels (Rabosee et al. , Truffi &
               Nanday Conure                      ˇt
                                                  Sˆastny ).
                                                        ´
   Naturalised Birds of the World

B I                                      breeding pairs of Monk Parakeets in The
Ogilvie & RBBP () reported the estab-          Netherlands in –, where Truffi &
lishment in  of a breeding colony of           ˇt
                                                   Sˆastny () regard the population as non-
                                                          ´
 Monk Parakeets at Borehamwood in                viable.
Hertfordshire, which had increased to ,
including five or six breeding pairs, by the fol-   S; P
lowing year (Ogilvie & RBBP ). (Myiop-         Monk Parakeets are well established and
sitta monachus is the only parrot among over       spreading in Spain, where the  Atlas
 species that builds a large communal nest      found a population of at least , pairs,
of sticks, in which several pairs of birds can     which is increasing by some % annually
breed, and which is also used for roosting).       (A. Román Muñoz in Martí & del Moral
This colony had further increased to ,           ). Monk Parakeets were first recorded in
including seven breeding pairs, by  (But-      the wild in Barcelona in  (Batllori & Nos
ler , Ogilvie & RBBP ). Previous           ). By  a total of  were counted in
colonies in Devon (–) and Cheshire           Catalonia, principally in coastal areas near
(–) have died out (Butler ).             Barcelona, and in –  nests were
                                                   noted in the city. In –  nests were
C R                                     found at  sites in Barcelona (Clavell et al.
The population of escaped and released Monk                                      ˇ
                                                   , Sol et al. , Truffi & Stastny , Sol
                                                                                       ´
Parakeets in the town of Sázava and the            ) including Ciutadella (Langley ),
Sázava River valley in central Bohemia num-        and in   nests were counted in the city,
bered  in , and by  had risen to       where the birds were almost ubiquitous
 ˇ                    ˇt
(Zoha , Truffi & Sˆastny ).
                            ´                      (J. Clavell in Mayer ). The  Atlas
                                                   (Martí & del Moral ) similarly found 
G                                            pairs in Catalonia, where the rate of increase
                      ˇt
Although Truffi & Sˆastny () say that
                            ´
Monk Parakeets have not succeeded in
establishing viable populations in Germany,
Gebhardt () lists them as having been first
introduced in  and as established locally.

I
Since  a colony of escaped or released
Monk Parakeets has been established in
Genoa, where the population numbers about
–. Since the early s, another small
colony has been present in Friuli (Udine),
where ten birds were counted in . At least
 pairs have bred regularly since  in the
                                ˇt
Pastrengo zoo-park (Truffi & Sˆastny ).
                                      ´
Biondi et al. () identified two breeding
colonies in Infernetto-Castlefusano and Ostia
Antica-Dragona, while Bertolino ()
recorded nesting in Piemonte at Saint
                                       ˇt
Giovanni de Busca in . Truffi & Sˆastny    ´
() said a colony at Lake Maggiore is not
self-sustaining.

T N
Lensink (a) lists between one and ten                         Monk Parakeet
                                                        Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)      

has been –% annually since the s.          () found the species to be widely
Other large concentrations noted by Martí &       distributed in southern Florida, with smaller
del Moral () are  pairs in Andalucía       populations in suburban habitats on the east
(chiefly along the coast in Málaga province)       coast from Jacksonville, Duval County, to
and in coastal Valencia ( pairs). There         Plantation Key, Monroe County. Monk Para-
are also populations in the Balearic Islands,     keets also breed in the Tampa–St Petersburg
especially in Mallorca but also in Menorca        region and elsewhere on the Gulf coast.
and Ibiza.                                           The AOU (: ) described Myiopsitta
   Away from the coast, Monk Parakeets have       monachus as:
nested in Madrid since around , where
although Pascual & Aparicio () said the          Introduced and established in the eastern
population did not exceed a dozen birds, at          United States from Illinois, Michigan,
least nine nests were found in  (editorial       southern Quebec, southern New York,
comment in Mayer ). The Madrid popu-             Connecticut and Rhode Island south to
lation was at least  pairs at the time of the      New Jersey, with individual reports west
 Atlas. Langley () recorded the              and south to California, Oregon, Idaho,
species as abundant in Casa de Campo,                Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Virginia
Madrid, and as also occurring in Portugal.           (control measures in progress in several
   Langley () estimated the total                localities); and in Texas [and] Florida.
European population (including the Canary
Islands) at over , pairs.                        The birds in southern Quebec, Canada,
                                                  presumably represent a natural dispersal from
U S; C                             one of the northeastern states.
Free-flying Monk Parakeets were first                  Kaufman (), Sibley (), and Peter-
reported in the United States in New York in      son () reported breeding in Connecticut,
, where nesting occurred in .             New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois (Chicago),
Successful breeding was confirmed in Florida       Oregon and elsewhere.
in or before  (Owre ); Michigan              All free-flying Monk Parakeets in North
(); Ohio, Oklahoma, North Carolina,           America are descended from escaped or
North Dakota and Nebraska (); and             released cage-birds. The population was esti-
Texas () (see e.g. Niedermeyer & Hickey       mated in the mid-s to number several
). In the late s/early s, Monk        thousand (S Pruett-Jones in James ).
Parakeets were seen in Connecticut, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts (Clark     Impact: In their native range Monk Parakeets
, Devine & Smith , Olivieri &             are extremely destructive to a wide variety of
Pearson ), and by the mid-s the           crops. In the United States they feed on
species was said to occur in southern and         maize, wheat, sorghum, barley, oats, passion-
eastern states from Texas, Alabama and            fruit, citrus fruits, tomatoes, figs, apricots,
Florida north to Wisconsin and Maine. Sev-        plums, persimmons, loquats, pears, grapes,
eral small colonies became established in         mulberries, peaches and cherries. Shields et al.
Chicago, Illinois, where T Silva (pers. comm.     () observed that in New Jersey young
) believed many may die in severe winters.    American Elms Ulmus americanus had the top
On the west coast, Hardy () reported a        metre of their crown completely stripped
number of short-lived populations in the          of buds, flowers, and fruits. Many willows
early s in southern California (see also      Salix spp. also suffered considerable damage,
Johnston & Garrett , Garrett ).           probably due to their utilization by the birds
   In  an eradication programme               for food and nesting material.
considerably reduced both the number and
distribution of Monk Parakeets in the United      W I
States (Small ). Nevertheless, James          Although Bond () makes no mention of
     Naturalised Birds of the World

Monk Parakeets in the West Indies, Raffaele et
al. (: ) say the species was:
      Introduced to Puerto Rico, probably dur-
      ing the s, it is common around El
      Morro in Old San Juan, the Isla Grande
      Reserve in Santurce and on the campus of
      the University of Puerto Rico in Río
      Piedras. It is also fairly common in the
      Luquillo Beach–Fajardo area and uncom-
      mon elsewhere on the coast. The species
      is expanding its range on the island. A
      feral breeding population exists in the
      Cayman Islands in George Town on
      Grand Cayman. Monk Parakeet is rare on
      Guadeloupe where there is one active nest
      site …. The population on Eleuthera in
      the Bahamas, first recorded about ,
      appears to be extirpated.
                                                             Green-rumped Parrotlet
   The AOU () lists Myiopsitta monachus
as introduced to and established on all the       Old Harbour around ; thereafter they
above islands, and also in the Dominican          expanded their range and became ‘widespread
Republic [Hispaniola].                            in rather open country in lowlands on the
                                                  southern side of the island’, and also in
V                                         natural forests and cultivated localities in
Ulloa & Badillo ) refer to the risk posed     upland areas. In the early s they were
by the introduction of Myiopsitta monachus to     also introduced to Barbados, where they
Venezuela, but do not indicate if the birds are   became rare and were decreasing (Bond ,
established and breeding.                         AOU ). They have also been introduced,
                                                  unsuccessfully, to Martinique (Raffaele et al.
C I                                    ).
Monk Parakeets are common and increasing
in Tenerife and Gran Canaria, and have also
been reported on Fuerteventura, La Gomera
and La Palma (A. Román Muñoz in Martí &           Canary-winged Parakeet
del Moral ).                                  (White-winged Parakeet)
                                                  Brotogeris versicolurus
                                                  Natural Range: SE Colombia and NE Peru to
Green-rumped Parrotlet                              S French Guiana and CN Brazil.
Forpus passerinus
Natural Range: N Colombia and N Venezuela         Yellow-chevroned Parakeet
  S through the Guianas to Brazil.                Brotogeris chiriri
Naturalised Range: North America: West
  Indies.                                         Natural Range: N, C, and S Bolivia, Paraguay,
                                                    N Argentina to NE, C and SE Brazil.
W I
Bond (: ) says that Green-rumped           Naturalised Range: North America: USA;
Parrotlets were introduced to Jamaica near          West Indies.
                                                         Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)   

U S
These two forms were previously considered
as conspecific, but were split by Collar ()
on the grounds of morphological differences
and near sympatry (Sibley & Monroe ).
   By the early s, Canary-winged Para-
keets, imported as cage-birds, were established
in San Pedro and the nearby Palos Verdes
Peninsula, Los Angeles County, and in River-
side County, California (Hardy ), and in
 breeding was recorded at Pt Fermin, San
Pedro. Since the s, when the species had
spread over much of the Los Angeles basin, B.
versicolurus has been gradually replaced in
southern California by B. chiriri (Johnston &
Garrett ), and flocks of parakeets in the
Los Angeles basin have been composed                          Canary-winged Parakeet
principally or exclusively of the latter species
(Garrett ). Today, Yellow-chevroned Para-      the source, and thus in species, of birds
keets are widely distributed in the Los Angeles    imported into the United States (Johnston &
Basin, from south-central and downtown Los         Garrett ). See also: AOU (), Kauf-
Angeles westward to West Hollywood and             man (), Sibley (), Peterson ().
Beverly Hills and northward to Highland
Park, Eagle Rock, South Pasadena and San           Impact: In Miami, Canary-winged Parakeets
Marino. Populations also occur from San            were said by Owre () to be damaging
Pedro and the Palos Verdes Peninsula north to      Mango Mangifera indica and other fruit
Redondo Beach and Torrance (Garrett ).         crops.
The southern California population of both
species was estimated by Small () at           W I
probably less than . Garrett () put the     Bond () and Raffaele et al. () said that
Yellow-chevroned Parakeet population at a          in the s B. versicolurus was introduced to
minimum of  and that of the Canary-             Puerto Rico, where Forshaw () recorded a
winged Parakeet at not more than .               population of several hundred and where
   From the s, Canary-winged Parakeets         the species is now locally common with
also maintained wild populations in Florida,       flocks exceeding , individuals. It has also
largely in Sarasota and Tampa–St Petersburg        been recently recorded from the Dominican
along the Gulf coast and between Miami and         Republic in Hispaniola (Raffaele et al. ).
Fort Pierce on the Atlantic coast (James ).
In , nearly  were counted at a roost in
Coconut Grove, and the total population in
the Miami metropolitan area was estimated          Hispaniola Parrot
at between , and , birds. By ,         Amazona ventralis
when flocks several hundred strong were not
uncommon, Canary-winged Parakeets were             Natural Range: Hispaniola and satellite
said to be the commonest parrot in Florida. In       islands.
recent years, B. chiriri has, as in southern       Naturalised Range: North America: ?USA;
California, almost entirely replaced B.              West Indies.
versicolurus in southern Florida (Robertson &
Woolfenden ; Smith & Smith ). This         U S
temporal replacement is a result in changes in     This species frequently occurs in the wild in
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Florida, but establishment is unproven (Sibley   in Temple City (Mabb a). Large popula-
).                                           tions are also present in the northern San
                                                 Fernando Valley (Panorama City and Mission
W I                                      Hills west to Northridge and north to
According to Forshaw (), a shipment of       Sylmar), with a smaller colony on the Malibu
Hispaniola Parrots refused entry to Puerto       coast near Pt Dume and the lower Zuma
Rico was liberated off the port of Mayaguez in    Canyon. Frequent breeding has been
the west of the island, where several hundred    confirmed in the San Gabriel Valley (Mabb
became successfully established. They            b), in Orange County (Gallagher )
are today locally common in forests and          and at Pt Dume, Malibu (Garrett ). The
woodlands of the foothills, especially in        last-named author conservatively estimated
western and north-central localities (Raffaele    the California population at , individuals.
et al. ).                                    Vuilleumier (: ) describes the population
   According to the AOU (), Hispaniola       as ‘very small and geographically restricted’.
Parrots have also been successfully introduced      Owre (: ) said that Red-crowned
to St Croix and St Thomas in the Virgin          Parrots were ‘the most abundant of the
Islands.                                         amazons [members of the genus Amazona]
                                                 now present in southeastern Florida, They
                                                 have been reported from the Florida Keys and
                                                 are commonly seen throughout metropolitan
Red-crowned Parrot                               Miami and in Fort Lauderdale. Troops &
(Green-cheeked Parrot)                           Dilley () found A. viridigenalis to be fairly
                                                 common in urban areas of Miami and Fort
Amazona viridigenalis
                                                 Lauderdale, especially in Coconut Grove,
Natural Range: NE Mexico.                        Coral Gables, South Miami and along the
Naturalised Range: North America: USA;           Middle River and at Colohatchee Park in Fort
  West Indies. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.        Lauderdale. The AOU () and Kaufman
                                                 () confirm the species’ presence in Dade
U S                                    and Monroe Counties in southern Florida.
‘A breeding population in southern Texas
(lower Rio Grande Valley, recorded northwest
to Falcon Dam) is most likely established
from escapes from captivity, but a wild origin
for some of the individuals cannot be ruled
out’ (AOU : ). Sibley () and
Peterson () concur with this assessment.
   First recorded in California in , Hardy
() considered Red-crowned Parrots to be
both extremely local and rare, but the species
has been increasing in urban Orange County
since the early s, where Gallagher ()
recorded flocks of – in Santa Ana, Or-
ange, Tustin, Anaheim and Fullerton. Small
() reported small flocks in the Hacienda
Heights and Monrovia areas and in San Diego
County, and estimated the state population at
around . The principal centre of this
species in California is from Altadena,
Pasadena and Highland Park east to Glen-
dora, and up to  birds have been estimated                  Red-crowned Parrot
                                                       Psittacidae (Cockatoos and Parrots)   

W I                                      (Although A. oratrix, A. ochrocephala, and the
‘Introduced to Puerto Rico probably in the       Yellow-naped Parrot A. auropalliata have
late s, the species occurs in small num-     frequently been regarded as conspecific,
bers very locally around the coast. Near Sali-   Dickinson () follows the AOU () in
nas, as many as  birds have been reported      treating all three as separate species.)
in a single flock’ (Raffaele et al. : ).
                                                 U S
H I                                 Troops & Dilley (: ) recorded A. ochro-
‘… a small group has persisted since  in     cephala in Florida as ‘Established in local
the Hawaiian Islands (on Oahu)’ (AOU             colonies in Coconut Grove, Coral Gables,
). This population is not mentioned by       South Miami and at Colohatchee Park and
Pratt et al. ().                             along the Middle Road in Fort Lauderdale’.
                                                    In southern California few attempts have
                                                 been made until recently to distinguish
                                                 between A. oratrix and A. ochrocephala, and
Lilac-crowned Parrot                             the introduction of both species was reported
Amazona finschi                                   indiscriminately, with the birds occurring
                                                 widely in the western San Gabriel Valley, west
Natural Range: W Mexico.                         Los Angeles and elsewhere, where Hardy
Naturalised Range: North America: USA.           (: ) reported them to be ‘locally fairly
                                                 common … in flocks … to an estimated
U S                                     individuals’ over a wide area, including
Since at least  Lilac-crowned Parrots have   Glendale, Alhambra, Pepperdine College,
been established and breeding in the San         north Pasadena, Westwood, west Los
Gabriel Valley of California, with smaller       Angeles, Lomita, San Bernardino, Brent-
numbers in the northern San Fernando Valley      wood, Altadena, Glendora, Ontario, Pomona
and the Malibu coast (Zuma) to Santa Monica/     and Loma Linda. Peterson () reported
West Los Angeles (Peterson , Small ,     local breeding in and around Los Angeles and
Garrett , Kaufman , Sibley ).        in the western San Gabriel Valley, and that the
This population, which is not mentioned by       birds were also frequently seen elsewhere.
the AOU (), was estimated by Garrett         According to Small (), only A. oratrix has
() to number nearly  individuals.



Yellow-headed Parrot
Amazona oratrix
Natural Range: SW and S Mexico (including
  Tres Marias Is.) and Belize.


Yellow-crowned Parrot
Amazona ochrocephala
Natural Range: E Mexico to Colombia and
  Bolivia east to N and W Brazil and the
  Guianas.
Naturalised Range: North America: USA;
  West Indies.                                               Yellow-crowned Parrot
   Naturalised Birds of the World

been confirmed as breeding in California,            It is uncommon in metropolitan San Juan in
where at one time the range of these parrots        small numbers and is unrecorded elsewhere
extended from central Los Angeles and Holly-        on Puerto Rico. The species is moderately
wood west to Beverly Hills and Santa Monica,        widespread in central Martinique where
and from the foothills of the Santa Monica          breeding occurred in ’ (Raffaele et
Mountains south through Culver City. In             al. : –). The AOU () records
recent years the population has considerably        probable breeding in the San Juan area,
declined, especially in the Beverly Hills, West-    Mayaguez, Salinas and Río Piedras.
wood, Brentwood and Mar Vista areas;
Garrett () routinely saw flocks of ten to
 Yellow-headed parrots in west Los Angeles
in the s, but only up to  in the s.
The birds have, however, been recorded in                   CUCULIDAE
Pasadena, Monrovia, and near Arcadia, as well          (CUCKOOS AND ALLIES)
as in Orange (since the s) and San Diego
Counties (Small , Gallagher ).
Recent breeding was recorded by Gallagher           Smooth-billed Ani
() in Garden Grove, Orange County.              Crotophaga ani
Garrett () estimated the total southern
Californian population at less than .             Natural Range: C and S Florida, USA, the
                                                      West Indies (from the Bahamas to Trinidad
W I                                           and Tobago), and from Mexico through
Raffaele et al. (: ) recorded A. oratrix as     Colombia and Ecuador to Venezuela and
‘Introduced to Puerto Rico probably in the            N Argentina.
early s, it is rare but known to breed. The     Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Galápagos
species occurs very locally in small numbers          Is.
along the north coast’, where the AOU ()
says it may be established.                         G I
                                                    Rosenberg et al. () and Sandler (),
                                                    from whom much of the following is derived,
                                                    have summarised the history and status of the
Orange-winged Parrot                                Smooth-billed Ani in the Galápagos Islands.
Amazona amazonica                                      The species was first recorded in the archi-
                                                    pelago in the early s by Harris (),
Natural Range: N and E Colombia S to N Bo-          who believed the birds were Groove-billed
  livia and E through most of N S America.          Anis C. sulcirostris. Although the birds’ origin
Naturalised Range: North America: ?USA;             cannot be proved, it seems almost certain they
  West Indies.                                      were imported from Ecuador in the mistaken
                                                    belief that they would prey on ticks (Acarina)
U S                                       and other parasites of cattle (Duffy ).
Populations in Dade County (James ) in          Kramer (: ), however, believed the
southern Florida are likely to be escaped           birds were ‘independent immigrants’ from the
birds or their descendants (Robertson &             South American mainland, although Harris
Woolfenden ). Sibley () lists this          () doubted the birds’ ability to make the
species as frequently encountered in Florida.       ,km sea crossing.
                                                       After the initial s sightings the species
W I                                         was not recorded again until , when it
‘Introduced to Puerto Rico probably in the          was seen regularly in the farm zone (uplands)
late s and to Martinique more recently,         on Santa Cruz. During the El Niño of
this species probably breeds on both islands.       –, when the highest recorded rainfall in
                                                                     Tytonidae (Barn Owls)     

the Galápagos triggered an exceptionally           expand, and breeding will probably take place
successful landbird breeding season, the Ani       on all islands with a humid vegetation zone
population greatly increased, and by  the      where insects are plentiful. Crotophaga spp.
birds were common on Santa Cruz with an            are known to prey at times on nestlings and
estimated population of  in the farm zone       other small vertebrates, and this, combined
(Bellesteros ). During the – El          with their aggressive nature, makes them a
Niño, Anis were also reported from Daphne,         potential threat to native birds. They could
Genovesa, Santiago and southern Isabela,           also compete for food with Galápagos Mock-
though by the late s they had not been         ingbirds Nesomimus parvulus and Dark-billed
observed again on the first two islands. Since      Cuckoos Coccyzus melacoryphus.
, Anis have been recorded on Floreana,            Further threats posed by Smooth-billed
Pinzón, Santa Fé and San Cristóbal, and in         Anis are the dispersal of alien plants, such as
 on Fernandina. On Santa Cruz, Rosen-          Guava Psidium guajava, to islands with a
burg et al. () estimated the population in     moist vegetation zone, and the transmission
 in the farm zone at , with a %          of parasites and diseases such as malaria.
confidence interval of , to , individ-      Nevertheless, D. Wiedenfeld (pers. comm.
uals; outside the farm zone they estimated         ) said that ‘… there is no large-scale erad-
– Anis occurred in the c. ,ha high-       ication effort under way nor being developed’.
land portion of the Galápagos National Park.
On southern Isabela the population was also
estimated to number between  and  birds.
   Since the garúa (cool and misty) season
of  the population of Smooth-billed              TYTONIDAE (BARN OWLS)
Anis, especially on Santa Cruz, has declined
dramatically, probably due to the unusually        Barn Owl
cold weather and/or drought; on Santa Cruz         Tyto alba
the population in  was estimated to
number around , representing a decrease         Natural Range: Virtually cosmopolitan: does
since  of over %.                              not occur in Canada, Greenland, Iceland,
   According to Castro & Phillips (),            northern Scandinavia, much of the
Anis then occurred in the farm zone on Is-           northern Palaearctic, much of north-
abela, Santa Cruz and Floreana, with a colony        central Africa, Japan, Philippines, parts of
of around a dozen on Santiago, but had been          Indonesia, and New Zealand.
eradicated from Santa Fé and Pinzón. Swash         Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Seychelles
& Still () recorded them as fairly               Is. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
common in the highlands of Isabela, Santa
Cruz, Floreana and Santiago. F. Cruz (pers.        S I
comm. ) said they ‘… are numerous and          On New Year’s Eve ,  Barn Owls of the
well established in all the inhabited islands as   race affinis (Mauritania and Sudan to South
well as Santiago, Pinzón, Marchena and Pinta.      Africa) were imported from South Africa and
There are plans to eradicate them from             released at Union Vale on Mahé, and in 
Fernandina and Genovesa’. D. Weidenfeld            two further consignments of six birds each
(pers. comm. ) wrote that the Smooth-          were liberated at Le Niol. The purpose of the
billed Ani ‘… is currently found on all the        introduction was to control introduced Black
major islands and most of the minor ones, as       Rats Rattus rattus (see Lever ). By 
long as they have some vegetation. They are        Barn Owls had spread to North, Silhouette
quite common, though not abundant’.                and Praslin, and by  to Aride; they
                                                   now occur on Mahé, Praslin, Curieuse, Aride,
Impact: As deforestation increases in the          Silhouette, North and probably other granitic
Galápagos so will the Anis’ range doubtless        islands (Skerrett et al. ).
   Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                  H I
                                                  Between  and  a total of  Barn Owls
                                                  from California and Texas (T. a. pratincola)
                                                  were released at Kukuihaele on Hawaii, at
                                                  Hauula on Oahu, in western Molokai and on
                                                  Kauai (Tomich ), to control Black Rats
                                                  Rattus rattus in sugarcane plantations (see
                                                  Lever ). Today, Barn Owls are established
                                                  on all the main islands from Kauai eastwards
                                                  (Scott et al. , Pratt et al. , Stone et al.
                                                  , Pratt , AOU ).

                                                  Impact: Of  Barn Owl pellets examined by
                                                  Tomich (), only nine contained traces of
                                                  Black Rats. As in the Seychelles, the potential
                                                  exists for T. alba in the Hawaiian Islands
                                                  to have a negative impact on the islands’
                                                  avifauna, including the local endemic race
                                                  of the Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
                                                  sandwichensis (Lever , ).

                  Barn Owl

Impact: Barn Owls have proved singularly
ineffective in controlling Black Rats in the               STRIGIDAE (OWLS)
Seychelles, preferring instead to prey on
more easily captured native birds. On Mahé,       Great Horned Owl
Praslin, La Digue and Silhouette, they            Bubo virginianus
contributed to the near eradication of the
local form of the White Tern Gygis alba           Natural Range: from C Alaska, USA, S
candida. Diamond & Feare () recorded            through Central America to C Peru, W
that on Cousin and Aride (and perhaps               Bolivia and W Argentina.
elsewhere) they take White Terns, Lesser          Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Marquesas
Noddies Anous tenuirostris, Audubon’s Shear-        Is.
waters Puffinus lherminieri and Bridled Terns
Sterna anaethetus, and doubtless other species.   M I
Fisher et al. () also implicated Barn Owls    In  Mgr Le Cadre acquired eight Great
in the decline, through aggressive competition    Horned Owls from San Francisco (presum-
for nesting and roosting sites, of the            ably B. v. saturatus or B. v. pacificus) to
endemic Seychelles Kestrel Falco araea and        ‘combattre l’invasion des rats’ (see Lever )
Seychelles Scops Owl Otus insularis, classified    on the island of Hiva Oa, where they became
respectively as Vulnerable and Critically         fairly abundant both on the coast and inland
Endangered by the World Conservation              up to ,m above sea level (Holyoak &
Union. As Feare () points out, however,       Thibault ).
the decline of several other endemic species
that had been attributed to Barn Owls             Impact: On Hiva Oa, Great Horned Owls
actually occurred before the alien’s arrival.     have been reported to kill domestic poultry.
Skerrett et al. () say that Barn Owls are     They have probably also been at least partially
accused of predation on endemic tenrecs           responsible for the decline of the local
(Tenrecidae).                                     race of the endemic White-capped Fruit
                                                                          Strigidae (Owls) 

                                                Meade-Waldo, who between  and 
                                                released a total of  birds in Kent. The Little
                                                Owls in Britain today, however, are mainly
                                                descended from a large number imported
                                                from The Netherlands (A. n. vidalii) between
                                                 and  by Lord Lilford. Little
                                                Owls liberated in Hertfordshire (c. ) and
                                                Yorkshire (c.  and ) failed to establish,
                                                but others set free in Sussex (–), Essex
                                                ( and ), and in Hampshire and
                                                Yorkshire met with some success (Witherby &
                                                Ticehurst ).
                                                   Although by the early twentieth century
                                                Little Owls were only breeding regularly in
                                                Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, Rutland
                                                and Kent, thereafter they spread more rapidly,
                                                and by the s were found in every county
                                                of England and Wales south of the River
                                                Humber, apart from Cornwall and Caernar-
                                                vonshire. These two counties were colonised
                                                in the following decade, as were Yorkshire,
                                                Durham and Northumberland. Westmore-
                                                land and Cumberland (Cumbria) were
                                                reached in the s and early s. Little
                                                Owls have been recorded in Scotland (but not
                                                north of Midlothian) since , but first
                                                bred, near Eldron in Berwickshire, only in
                                                 (Glue , ). A few individuals have
             Great Horned Owl                   been reported from Ireland but none yet from
                                                the Isle of Man.
Dove Ptilinopus d. dupetithouarsii (Holyoak        While the species was still spreading north
& Thibault ).                               in the s it suffered an apparent decline
                                                in some southern and western counties,
                                                probably due to some exceptionally harsh
                                                winters. Between  and  it also
Little Owl                                      noticeably declined in southeastern England,
Athene noctua                                   possibly due to contamination of its prey by
                                                toxic pesticides, and it has been slow to
Natural Range: Much of the Palaearctic region   recover (pers. obs.).
  N to around oN in Denmark and oN             Fitter (: ) attributes the success of
  in Manchuria, S to about oN in W Africa     the Little Owl in Britain to the fact that in
  and oN in Ethiopia and Somalia.              the s there was ‘… a vacancy for a small
Naturalised Range: Europe: British Isles.       diurnal, mainly insect-eating bird of prey’.
  Australasia: New Zealand.                        Although Linn () follows Fisher ()
                                                in claiming that the Little Owl is recorded in
B I                                   Late Ice Age deposits in Britain, Harrison
Unsuccessful attempts to introduce Little       () says that ‘A Pleistocene record from
Owls to Britain from continental Europe         Chudleigh in Devon, often cited, is in fact
were made in  or  and in –.       based on a Sparrowhawk [Accipiter nisus]
Limited success was achieved by E. G. B.        bone, but it [the Little Owl] appears to have
   Naturalised Birds of the World

been present in the Mendips in the early           Owls from Germany (presumably vidalii)
interglacial about , years ago. There is     were imported to New Zealand by the Otago
no further evidence except for the odd             Acclimatisation Society (see Lever ) by
vagrant, more frequent in the early nineteenth     whom they were released in various localities
century’. (I am grateful to W. R. P. Bourne        in South Island, including Canterbury.
for drawing my attention to the above                 By about –, Little Owls were said to
references).                                       be established in several districts in South
                                                   Island, largely in central Otago. Thomson
Impact: In the s the Little Owl was widely     (: ) said they had become ‘firmly
accused, even by such respected biologists as      established in the south portion of South
C. B. Ticehurst, T. A. Coward, and J. Ritchie,     Island … they are now quite common around
of predation on the chicks of domestic poul-       Dunedin’. By the mid-s, Oliver ()
try and game-birds. Hibbert-Ware (–),        found Little Owls to be abundant from
however, showed that the bulk of the species’      central Canterbury south to Foveaux Strait,
diet consists of largely injurious insects, with   and said they had spread into North
lesser numbers of other invertebrates,             Canterbury and to Stewart Island. Heather &
mammals (including such introduced pests as        Robertson () reported them to be
House Mice Mus musculus, Brown Rats Rattus         widespread on farmland and in towns in
norvegicus and young Rabbits Oryctolagus           Nelson, Marlborough, Canterbury, Otago
cuniculus (see Lever ) and small birds.        and Southland. A few occur in Westland and
Game-bird and poultry chicks are very rarely       Fiordland, but there are no recent records
taken. Indeed, of the  or so alien vertebrates   from North or Stewart Islands.
naturalised in Britain, the Little Owl is the
only one that is actively beneficial to man.        Impact: Little Owls were introduced to New
                                                   Zealand to prey on the various species of alien
N Z                                        birds that had been introduced to control
Between  and  a total of  Little        insect pests but which had, instead, proved a
                                                   nuisance in crop-growing districts of Otago
                                                   (see Lever ). Although Thomson (:
                                                   ) reported that as early as  ‘several fruit
                                                   growers in Central Otago reported [Little
                                                   Owls] as having proved already a great boon
                                                   to their orchards’, the relief seems to have
                                                   been short-lived, and small birds remain a
                                                   pest of crops in Otago and Canterbury.
                                                      Although Oliver () claimed that Little
                                                   Owls may have contributed to the decline of
                                                   such endemics as New Zealand Fantails
                                                   Rhipidura fuliginosa, New Zealand Bellbirds
                                                   Anthornis melanura, New Zealand Tomtits
                                                   Petroica macrocephala and Grey Warblers
                                                   Gerygone igata, Marples () had previously
                                                   shown that, as in Britain, insects are the main
                                                   constituent of the Little Owl’s diet, and that
                                                   small birds comprise only some eight per cent
                                                   of their total food intake. Nevertheless,
                                                   Williamson and Fitter (: ) considered
                                                   that ‘The contribution of Little Owls to the
                                                   useful destruction of insects is as doubtful as
                  Little Owl                       their alleged useful effects in abating the small
                                                                            Apodidae (Swifts)   

bird nuisance’. According to Druett (),         on the floor. In  the colony was believed
there is evidence that Little Owls have thrived     to number  individuals, with at least 
at the expense of the native Morepork Ninox         breeding pairs.
novaeseelandiae through competition for food.          Since , most sightings have been made
                                                    within a km radius of the cave, suggesting
                                                    that the colony is restricted to a single
                                                    breeding site, and an apparent absence of
                                                    other suitable nesting places may limit any
       APODIDAE (SWIFTS)                            significant expansion of the population, al-
                                                    though rumours exist of other small colonies
Marianas Swiftlet                                   in remote parts of the Ko’olau Mountains.
Aerodramus bartschi                                    Because of its small size, low winter
                                                    nocturnal temperatures and dampness, the
Natural Range: S Mariana Is. (Guam, Rota,           cave in the North Halawa Valley is probably a
  Aguiguan, Tinian, Saipan).                        marginal nesting site; on the other hand, there
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian           appears to be an absence of human intrusion
  Is.                                               and of cockroaches, which damage and
                                                    destroy nests in the Marianas.
H I                                       Marianas Swiftlets were introduced to
Wiles & Woodside (), from whom much             Hawaii for aesthetic reasons and, it is said, to
of the following account is derived, have           control insect pests (Woodside ). In its
traced the history of A. bartschi in Hawaii.        native range, where the population is believed
   In May  around  Marianas Swiftlets        to number only between , and ,
from Guam were released in the Niu Valley in        individuals, the species is threatened by the
southeastern Oahu, where contrary to reports        introduced Brown Tree Snake Boiga irregularis
of a lack of sightings after the release (Bowles
b, Donaghho , Berger ), the
birds were seen in the vicinity of the valley for
several months. In January , a second
shipment of about  birds from Guam was
liberated at the Waimea Falls in the Waimea
Valley in northwestern Oahu. Both of these
consignments were taken from a cave on
Guam known as Firebreak .
   No further observations of Swiftlets on
Oahu were made until , when Donaghho
() found around  birds foraging in
the North Halawa Valley, from where, and in
adjacent localities, all subsequent sightings
have been recorded.
   Shallenberger & Vaughn () discovered
the birds’ nesting cave, situated at an altitude
of m above sea level and some km from
Niu Valley and km from Waimea Falls. The
site is a small man-made tunnel, probably
excavated before the Second World War as a
potential source of irrigation; it is m in
length, .–.m wide, and .–.m high. The
cave is wet throughout the year, with water
dripping from the ceiling and lying in pools                      Marianas Swiftlet
   Naturalised Birds of the World

(see Lever ) and cockroaches, so the           mainland where they had become common.
population on Oahu is of conservation              By the early s, Laughing Kookaburras
significance.                                       were said to be established in North Auckland
   Note that the nomenclature of this species      from Whangarei to Waitakerei Ranges, and
is confused: it was formerly classified as a race   remained so on Kawau Island (Oliver ).
of the Uniform (or Island or Vanikoro) Swift-      Wodzicki () described them as locally
let A. vanikorensis. Recent taxonomic research,    rare, while Kinsky () found them on
however, has split it into three allopatric        Kawau Island and between Auckland and
species, though additional investigations may      Whangerei. Falla et al. () reported a small
result in further revision. Since it is not        but apparently stable population between
endemic solely to Guam but to the other            Cape Rodney and the Whangaparaoa
southern Mariana Islands, the vernacular           Peninsula along the west coast of Hauraki
name of the Marianas Swiftlet (Dickinson           Gulf. Kookaburras now occur in open
) seems more appropriate than the Guam         country and on forest ecotones from near
Swiftlet (AOU , Wiles & Woodside               Whangarei south to the northern Waitakere
). Earlier references (including Lever         Range, especially at Glenbervie, Whangateau,
) refer to it as the Edible-nest Swiftlet.     Dome Valley, Warkworth, Kaukapakapa,
                                                   Puhoi, Wenderholm and Waiwera. The
                                                   national population probably does not exceed
                                                    birds (Heather & Robertson ).
            ALCEDINIDAE
           (KINGFISHERS)
                                                           TYRANNIDAE
Laughing Kookaburra
Dacelo novaeguineae                                   (TYRANT-FLYCATCHERS)
Natural Range: E Australia from the Cape York      Great Kiskadee
  Peninsula to SC South Australia, SW West-        Pitangus sulphuratus
  ern Australia and Tasmania. (The discrete
  sub-population in Western Australia is           Natural Range: From S Texas, USA, to
  derived from the translocation of several          Paraguay, Bolivia and N Argentina.
  hundred birds from Victoria before           Naturalised Range: Atlantic Ocean: Bermuda.
  and between  and : Serventy &
  Whittell, –).                              B
Naturalised Range: Australasia: New Zealand.       In , a West Indian lizard, Graham’s Anole
                                                   Anolis grahami (see Lever ), was intro-
N Z                                        duced to Bermuda from Jamaica ‘to control
Between  and  several attempts were        the Mediterranean fruit fly’. In about , a
made to introduce this species to New              scale insect, Carulaspis minima, was acciden-
Zealand, including to Nelson, Otago, and           tally imported in a shipment of nursery
Wellington. However, only one, made by Sir         plants; within three years it had killed almost
George Grey (then Governor of New                  half of the islands’ endemic Bermuda Cedars
Zealand) to Kawau Island in Hauraki Gulf,          Juniperus bermudiana, and by  some %
Auckland, in the early s, was successful.      had been destroyed. In an attempt to save the
Baker () gives the date of introduction as     remaining trees, predatory ladybirds Cocci-
. In  Thomson () was told that a       nella spp. (Coleoptera) and Hymenoptera
few occurred on the coast of Kawau Island          were imported to prey on the scale insects and
near Auckland, and according to Oliver ()      on aphids. By then, however, A. grahami was
by the late s some had crossed to the          so abundant that it prevented the introduced
                                                                Meliphagidae (Honeyeaters) 

insects from becoming established. It was          s showed that in Bermuda lizards
aided in this by two other alien lizards be-       comprise less than % of the Kiskadee’s food,
lieved to have been introduced around ,        which consists principally of berries, vegetable
the Panther Anole A. bimaculatus leachii from      matter, fish and the eggs and nestlings of
Antigua and the Barbados Anole A. extremus         native birds. A further survey carried out a
(see Lever ), and two species of ant           decade later by D. E. Samuel (, pers.
(Hymenoptera) which were themselves eaten          comm. ), revealed that of  Kiskadee
by lizards.                                        stomachs analysed not one contained any
   In , on the recommendation of F. J.         trace of lizards. Nevertheless, according to
Simmonds of the Commonwealth Bureau of             Raine (), Kiskadees in Bermuda prey on
Biological Control, and in spite of protests       the endemic Rock Lizard Eumeces longirostros.
from Bermuda’s conservationists, some           Although loss of habitat for urban develop-
Great Kiskadees from Trinidad (P. s. trinitatis)   ment was doubtless a contributory factor, it
were released in Bermuda to try to control the     seems likely that the decline of such terrestrial
lizards. Within a decade the Kiskadees had         birds as the endemic White-eyed Vireo Vireo
colonised suitable habitats throughout the         griseus bermudianus and Eastern Bluebird
islands and had become Bermuda’s third or          Sialia sialis bermudensis (and the introduced
fourth most abundant bird (D. B. Wingate           Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis) that
, pers. comm. , Crowell & Crowell          occurred at this time, can be attributed at least
, pers. comm. ).                           in part to competition for food and predation
                                                   of their eggs and nestlings by Great Kiskadees
Impact: The introduction of the Great              (D. B. Wingate pers. comm. , , ).
Kiskadee to Bermuda is a classic example of        Samuel () observed Great Kiskadees using
the folly of introducing a species as a            nest-boxes intended for Eastern Bluebirds as
biological controlling agent without having        look-out perches, thus preventing the latter
previously researched the likely consequences.     from occupying them.
   The fact that P. sulphuratus is an adaptable,      Great Kiskadees in Bermuda are also
generalised and opportunistic feeder with a        regarded as a pest of soft fruit crops. In
catholic diet was apparently either overlooked     addition, they are alleged to prey on the larvae
or ignored. A survey conducted in the early        of Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (see Lever
                                                   ), which were introduced to control the
                                                   eponymous insects.




                                                             MELIPHAGIDAE
                                                             (HONEYEATERS)
                                                   Noisy Miner
                                                   Manorina melanocephala
                                                   Natural Range: NE Queensland, EC to SE
                                                     Australia. Also Tasmania.
                                                   Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Solomon Is.

                                                   S I
                                                   The Noisy Miner is said by French () and
                                                   Galbraith & Galbraith () to have been
                Great Kiskadee                     successfully introduced to the Olu Malau
 Naturalised Birds of the World

(Three Sisters) group in the southeastern          birds have continued to spread since then and
Solomon Islands.                                   now occur in open pastures, patches of forest
                                                   and suburban areas throughout North Island
                                                   and on some offshore islands. On South
                                                   Island they occur in the east from Blenheim to
                                                   Southland, and on the west coast around
           CRACTICIDAE                             Hokitika and the Grey and Inagua Valleys.
         (BUTCHERBIRDS)                            Inland, they are scarce but increasing in
                                                   Marlborough, Nelson, Buller and South West-
Australian Magpie                                  land. Both subspecies readily interbreed but
Gymnorhina tibicen                                 hypoleuca predominates except in Hawke’s
                                                   Bay and North Canterbury, where up to %
Natural Range: SC New Guinea, Australia,           are tibicen (Heather & Robertson ).
  King and Flinders Is., and E Tasmania.
Naturalised Range: Australasia: New Zealand.       Impact: Australian Magpies were introduced
  Pacific Ocean: Fiji Is; ?Solomon Is.              to New Zealand to prey on noxious insects.
                                                   They also feed on introduced House Mice
N Z                                        Mus musculus (see Lever ), but in addition
Two forms of the Australian Magpie have            prey on the eggs and nestlings of small birds as
been introduced to New Zealand, the                well as on lizards and honey-producing bees.
Black-backed Magpie G. t. tibicen (coastal
southeastern Australia) and the White-backed       F I
Magpie G. t. hypoleuca of eastern Tasmania         According to Watling (: ):
and Flinders Island. Table  lists these intro-
ductions, made between about  and .           On Taveuni, the Australian Magpie is a
   Thomson () reported Australian Mag-            common bird which was first introduced
pies to be fairly common in many parts of             in the s to control the Coconut Stick
North Island from Wellington to north of              Insect (Graeffea crouani), which can on
Whangarei, and four years later he found              occasions be a serious pest of coconut
them to be also common north of Timaru in             palms [Cocos nucifera]. There have been at
north Canterbury on South Island. By              least two, and probably more, separate
there were three separate sub-populations;            introductions from Australia. … some of
from the Bay of Islands to south Auckland;            these birds went to plantations on islands
the southern North Island; and eastern South          other than Taveuni, certainly to Vanua
Island from Kaikoura to near Dunedin. The             Levu and probably also to Viti Levu, but
                                                      only on Taveuni are they established,
                                                      although they are frequently seen on the
                                                      southern coast of Vanua Levu.

                                                      Turbet () says that Australian Magpies
                                                   were then also established on the Lau Islands
                                                   southeast of Taveuni.
                                                      On Taveuni the birds are confined to
                                                   lowland plantations, mainly in the northwest,
                                                   where Pratt et al. () say they are fairly
                                                   common and that wanderers are occasionally
                                                   seen on Vanua Levu. Both the nominate
                                                   subspecies and G. t. hypoleuca have been
                                                   introduced to Fiji, where the population is
              Australian Magpie                    now largely composite.
                                                                     Dicruridae (Drongos)     

  Introductions of Australian Magpies Gymnorhina tibicen to New Zealand, –.

Date       Subspecies        Numbers        Introduced by         Released           Source
?      ?                 ?              Sir George Grey        Kawau I.,         ?
                                                                   Hauraki Gulf
       G. t. tibicen                   Canterbury Acclimat- Canterbury          Victoria
                                            isation Society (A.S.)
–    ?                  (or )    Otago A. S.            Inch Clutha       ?
                                                                    & Dunedin
      G. t. tibicen                    Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Victoria
      G. t. tibicen                   Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Victoria
      ?                               Auckland A. S.         Auckland          ?
      G. t. tibicen                    Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Victoria
s     G. t. hypoleuca                 Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Tasmania
      G. t. hypoleuca    Large number   E Dowling              Glenmark          Tasmania
      ?                                Auckland A. S.         Auckland          ?
      G. t. hypoleuca                 Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Tasmania
      G. t. hypoleuca    ?              Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Tasmania
      ?                              Wellington A. S.       Wellington        ?
      G. t. hypoleuca                  Canterbury A. S.       Canterbury        Tasmania

Sources : Thomson ; Oliver .


S I                                  widespread and abundant on both islands
Cain & Galbraith (, ) record the         (Ralph & Sakai ), mostly in the lowlands
introduction of G. t. tibicen before  to     (Pratt et al. ).
Guadalcanal, where some were seen until at
least around : whether any survive today     Impact: A decline in the population of the
is uncertain.                                    Rota Bridled White-eye Zosterops rotensis,
                                                 classified as Critically Endangered by the
                                                 World Conservation Union, first became
                                                 apparent in the s when Black Drongos
                                                 had become abundant. The current range of
  DICRURIDAE (DRONGOS)                           Drongos on Rota shows a negative correlation
                                                 with that of the White-eye, which now occurs
Black Drongo                                     primarily in extensive stands of native Sabena
Dicrurus macrocercus                             forest (Craig & Taisacan ). Enbring et al.
                                                 () found Drongos to be abundant in the
Natural Range: SE Iran, E Afghanistan,           lowlands, where White-eyes are rare, but
  Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Burma to           uncommon in forest areas. White-eyes seem
  China, migrating in winter to SE Asia. Also    particularly susceptible to predation by
  Java, Bali and Taiwan.                         Drongos because they are very small flocking
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Marianas Is.    birds that forage in the exposed microhabit of
                                                 the woodland canopy. It is noticeable that all
M I                                 native species too large for Drongo predation
In , the Taiwanese race (harterti) was       are widespread and common on Rota (Craig
introduced by the Japanese to Rota Island in     & Taisacan ). Fancy & Snetsinger (),
the southern Marianas, from where by the         however, considered it highly unlikely that
early s it had spread, apparently without    the largely insectivorous Black Drongo could
human assistance, to Guam, over km            have been responsible for a widespread
to the south (Baker ). It soon became        decline of the Bridled White-eye, and
 Naturalised Birds of the World

believed that the Drongo predation theory        (see Haemig ) or as descended from
does not explain why White-eyes do not occur     storm-borne waifs (Lever ), Haemig
in several blocks of apparently pristine         (), from whom the following account
limestone forest at higher elevations where      is derived, argues persuasively for a
Drongos are absent, nor why Micronesian          pre-Columbian introduction by man.
Honeyeaters Myzomela rubrata and Rufous             First made known to science as recently as
Fantails Rhipidura rufifrons have not experi-     , the Tufted Jay was found by Moore
enced similar declines. Fancy & Snetsinger       () to resemble the White-tailed Jay of
() concede, however, that in view of         South America closely. The two species are
the very low White-eye population on Rota,       very similar in appearance, the few differences
even the seemingly low rate of predation by      being attributable to the Tufted Jay’s
Drongos could have a significant impact on        lengthy geographic isolation and its gradual
the population of the endemic species.           morphological adaptation – thus conforming
   Although Baker () found Rufous            to Bergmann’s and Gloger’s ecogeographic
Fantails to be common on Rota, Enbring et        rules (these state respectively that there is a
al. () reported them to be less abundant     tendency for the body size of endothermic
on Rota than on Saipan, Tinian, and Aquijan,     animals to increase as the mean temperature
where Drongos do not occur. Fantails are,        of their surroundings decreases; and that there
however, less prone to avian predation than      is a tendency for the pigmentation of en-
White-eyes because they are territorial (and     dotherms to darken as the mean temperature
thus more dispersed) and forage in the forest    and humidity of their surroundings increase).
understorey.                                     These conditions typify the tendency for one
                                                 species to become divided into two when it
                                                 has become separated into two discrete popu-
                                                 lations whose members no longer interbreed.
           CORVIDAE
        (CROWS AND JAYS)
Tufted Jay
Cyanocorax dickeyi
Natural Range: The natural range of the
  White-tailed Jay C. mystacalis, the possible
  ancestor of the Tufted Jay, is between
  Guayaquil and Trujillo in coastal SW
  Ecuador and NW Peru.
Naturalised Range: North America: Mexico.

M
The Tufted Jay occupies a very small range of
barely , sq km in the barrancos (ravines)
of the Sierra Madre Occidental in central and
northeastern Nayarit, southeastern Sinaloa
and southwestern Durango in western Mex-
ico. Some ,km north of its possible
ancestor, the White-tailed Jay C. mystacalis,
this is one of the most remarkable avian
disjunctions in the western hemisphere.
For long regarded as a relict population                           Tufted Jay
                                                                   Corvidae (Crows and Jays)      

   If the relict population and storm-borne         northwestern South America should have
waif theories are discounted, Haemig ()         brought with them not only artefacts and a
argues convincingly for an introduction             knowledge of metallurgy, but also White-
by man. The Tufted Jay’s restricted and             tailed Jays, whose vivid plumage and engaging
disjunctive distribution; the fact that in          habits would have enabled them to fill a dual
western Mexico it does not occur below              role as both a source of feathers and as pets? As
,m, whereas the White-tailed Jay is a bird      Haemig (: ) concludes, the Tufted Jay is
of the tropical lowlands; the species’ poor         probably ‘… simply part of a general pattern
reproductive success, which hinders dispersal;      of South American artefacts left in western
and its apparent maladaptation to its               Mexico by ancient man’.
montane barranca environment, are all
strongly suggestive of a man-induced origin.
   If, however, the Tufted Jay represents a
pre-Columbian introduction, why is it found         House Crow
in remote and mountainous western Mexico            Corvus splendens
rather than in the centre and south of the
country where the principal imperial cities         Natural Range: Pakistan, India, Nepal,
were situated? Haemig () answers this             Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldive Is,
apparent conundrum by pointing out that a             Burma, S Yunnan and Thailand. Peters
large number and a wide variety of artefacts          () suggested that the form C. s. insolens
that covered a timespan of many centuries             (Burma, southern Yunnan, and Thailand)
have been discovered in various parts of west-        may have been introduced by man to
ern Mexico; these are stylistically dissimilar to     Thailand, Lekagul & Cronin () and
any of those found in the rest of Mesoamerica,        Dickinson () treat the species as resi-
but bear a striking resemblance to objects of         dent there.
the same kind from coastal Ecuador and Peru         Naturalised Range: Europe: The Netherlands.
(home of the White-tailed Jay). Some appear           Asia: Bahrain; China (Hong Kong); Israel;
not to occur in the intervening countries of          Jordan; ?Kuwait; Malaysia; Oman; Qatar;
South and Central America, while those                Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Socotra I; UAE;?
that are found there come principally from            Yemen (Aden). Africa: Djibouti; Egypt;
western Mexico and northwestern South                 Ethiopia; Kenya; Mozambique; Tanzania
America. The fact that articles showing many          (including Zanzibar); Somalia; South
distinctive styles have been discovered has led       Africa; Sudan. Indian Ocean: Andaman Is;
anthropologists to believe that some form of          ?Lakshadweep Is; Mascarene Is; ?Seychelles
cultural contact existed between the two              Is.
areas, perhaps for millennia before the arrival
of the Spanish conquistadores; much of such         Ryall (, , ), from whom much of
intercourse was probably through ship-borne         the following accounts is derived, has sum-
trade, but at least some may well have been as      marised the history of the spread of the House
a result of small-scale emigration from South       Crow. See also Lever ().
America. Such emigration is further suggested
by the burgeoning in western Mexico around          T N
  of a flourishing metallurgical industry       A small population of House Crows in the
that produced wares stylistically similar to        docks in Hoek van Holland in  had
those of Ecuador and Peru.                          increased, from both successful breeding by
   As Haemig () points out, a thriving          the founder pair and outside recruitment, to a
trade in the colourful feathers of several          total of eight by  (Ryall , ). They
species is known to have existed in pre-            have since appeared in Park Ockenburg in
Columbian times, and what more natural than         The Hague, and are believed to be slowly
that immigrants to western Mexico from              spreading elsewhere (Langley ). This
 Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                  Elat, but they appear to be established and
                                                  increasing in Aqaba (A. A. Braunlich in Ryall
                                                  ). Although there are a number of reports
                                                  from Sinai, only that of a pair at Nabq in 
                                                  has been confirmed (Goodman & Meininger
                                                  ). Today, the House Crow is a common
                                                  breeding bird in Elat, and is frequently seen in
                                                  the Arava to the north (Mendelssohn and
                                                  Yom-Tov ).

                                                  K
                 House Crow                       Although first reported as present in  and
                                                  as breeding in –, Pilcher () does
population is of particular interest as it        not consider that House Crows are permanent
shows that C. splendens can survive temperate     residents in Kuwait, where their occurrence
winters and subsequently breed successfully       may be due to natural immigration. Accord-
(Ryall ).                                     ing to Gregory (), they have recently
                                                  bred annually at Shuwaikh.
W A
Between about  and  House Crows           O
became established in all the principal           Meinertzhagen () referred to House
Arabian Peninsula ports, but remained             Crows resembling C. s. zugmayeri (Pakistan
absent inland, even in populated areas with       and northwestern India) as occasional natural
a plentiful supply of water and refuse            visitors to Muscat, where he noted (Mein-
tips (M. C. Jennings in Ryall ).              ertzhagen ) that they were confined to the
Jennings () records breeding in Kuwait,       coastal strip. They later spread a few kilometres
Saudi Arabia (Dharan and Jeddah), Bahrain         inland, especially where there was extensive
(Manama), the United Arab Emirates (Abu           construction work (Walker ). Gallagher
Dhabi and Dubai), Oman (Muscat and                & Woodcock (), who regarded the birds
Salalah) and Aden (see also below).               as either zugmayeri or intergrades with the
                                                  nominate race (India: apart from the north-
B                                           west, Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan), said
Although first recorded in , House Crows       that according to local people they had been
were only noted intermittently in the s       imported to control ticks on livestock.
(Nightingale & Hill ), but since  they    Occasional sightings on the island of Al Masi-
have become residents in villages of north        rah, km further south, may be a result of
Bahrain where breeding has been periodically      winter dispersal. House Crows, however, still
reported (Ryall ). Hirschfeld & King ()   do not occur in southern Oman (Ryall ),
and Ryall () say the population is fairly     although they are now found along the coast
stable but small, and that one or two pairs may   between Muscat and Sohar and in some places
breed in the Mina Salman area of Manama.          are spreading inland (Ryall ).

I; J                                    Q
Krabbe () records that in Israel the first     House Crows were first recorded in and to
pair of House Crows was seen in  in Elat      the north of Doha (Ras Laffan, Al Khar), at
at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba, where they      various coastal localities and on some offshore
bred in the following year. From Elat, they       islands, in  (Ryall ).
have been seen flying across the Gulf to Aqaba
in Jordan, where they have also bred. Paz         S A
() considered them as only sporadic in        House Crows were first reported in Jeddah in
                                                                Corvidae (Crows and Jays)     

 (Jennings a), where they are now        programme was initiated (M. C. Jennings in
common breeding residents. They were first        Ryall ). In , House Crows were more
observed in the Eastern Province in  and     common at Lahej, km inland, than they
were recorded as breeding three years later      were in Aden (M. C. Jennings in Ryall ):
(Ryall ). A flock of  was noted in the      a few were also noted ten kilometres north of
port of Yanbu, km north of Jeddah, in         Lahej, where they formed the most inland
 (Baldwin & Meadows ). In  a         colony of the species in Arabia. Elsewhere
flock of  House Crows was seen over Ras         in Yemen, House Crows have occurred at
Tanura (F. E. Warr in Ryall ). A small       Shagra, Mukulla and Ghaydah (respectively
number occurred in Haqil in the Gulf             km, km and km east of Aden);
of Aqaba in  (M. C. Jennings in Ryall        since  in North Yemen where a decade
). The species has yet to be seen more       later there were two discrete colonies; and also
than a few kilometres from the sea.              in  at Hodeidd and km further south
                                                 at Al Khawka on the coast (M. C. Jennings in
S I                                   Ryall ).
A pair of House Crows that arrived on
Socotra in  or  had increased to  by   Impact: In Aden, House Crows harass such
, but the population has since been          valuable natural scavengers as Black Kites
reduced (Ryall ).                            Milvus migrans and Egyptian Vultures
                                                 Neophron percnopterus. They also pose a health
U A E                             and hygiene hazard (Jennings ).
Jennings (b) found House Crows to be
abundant in the late s/early s in        C (H K)
coastal villages with palm plantations along     Single House Crows were reported in
the east coast. By early , however, the      Kowloon Tong and Mai Po in  and 
population had greatly declined, probably        respectively. They may have been released
because this area had developed from a simple    by aviculturists (Chalmers ), although
fishing community into a modern residential       the coastal location of these sites makes a
one with a concomitant improvement               ship-assisted arrival more likely, perhaps from
in hygiene (M. C. Jennings in Ryall ).       Malaysia (Ryall ). A further two House
In , House Crows were recorded on            Crows were seen in Kowloon Tong in ,
Das Island, at Abu Dhabi airport and             where the species is now believed to be breed-
Hatta, Huwailat, a short distance inland         ing and where flocks of – are regularly
(Ryall ). House Crows have occurred in       seen (Ryall ).
Dubai since at least , where they are now
locally common (Richardson ); a recent       M
importation from Sri Lanka (C. s. protegatus)    Ward () reported a breeding population of
is referred to by Richardson ().             House Crows in Klang, Selangor, as long ago
                                                 as . In ,  birds were imported from
Y (A)                                     Ceylon (Sri Lanka) (C. s. protegatus) to prey
House Crows were seen in Aden in  and        on caterpillars that were damaging crops
 by Barnes (), who said they had been    (Willey et al. ). The species’ progressive
introduced in the s by an officer of the       dispersal through Selangor and ultimate
Bombay Infantry. Locally it is believed they     establishment in Kuala Lumpur is docu-
were imported by Parsee immigrants from          mented by Medway & Wells (). House
India to scavenge on their dead (Ash b).     Crows have continued to expand their range,
By the s they were established as            especially in western coastal Malaysia, and
common breeding residents in both Aden and       now extend from Jeram south to Malacca and
in Shaykh Uthman, where by the s the         inland as far as Kulim (Ryall ), km from
population was so large that a poisoning         Pinang. There is also a disjunct population at
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Johor Bahara in the south near Singapore. By      () and Bijlsma & Meininger () out-
 the Klang population numbered around         lined the expansion of range of House Crows
, (Ryall ) and that at Kuala Lumpur      of the nominate subspecies (India, Nepal,
up to , (Lever ). The House Crow          Bangladesh and Bhutan) in the region, where
population in Malaysia continues to increase      they estimated the  population at between
and spread along the west coast and inland         and . By , there were breeding
(D. R. Wells in Ryall ). Recent records       colonies in several towns along the coast of
elsewhere include Kota Kinabalu, Sabah,           the Red Sea from Ismailiya km south to
since  (Ryall ).                          Quseir (Goodman & Meininger ).

S                                         E
Gibson-Hill () reported a small colony of     According to A. Mahamued (in Ryall )
House Crows in trees in the dockland area in      House Crows were introduced to Ethiopia
, where  years later a roost of between     (presumably as scavengers) during the British
 and  birds had become established          occupation after the Second World War.
(Ward ). Medway & Wells ()                Urban & Brown () believed that they may
believed the birds had probably arrived in        then have been present in Mitsiwa (Massawa),
Singapore on ships. In  the population        where they were abundant by the mid-s.
was estimated by C. J. Hails (in Ryall ) at   They arrived in Assab, where they are now
,–,, the lower than expected total        numerous, more recently (R. T. Wilson in
being attributed to efficient refuse disposal on    Ryall ).
the island. Hails believed that most of the
birds were flying in from roosts in adjacent       K
Johor Bahara, Malaysia, where ample refuse        Since their arrival on the coast at Mombasa in
had enabled a considerable population              (Britton ), probably on a vessel from
to develop. By  the population had            the long-established population on Zanzibar,
increased to at least , (Ryall ).        House Crows of the nominate subspecies
                                                  (India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan) have
D                                          multiplied to pest proportions (Ryall & Reid
In , Clarke () saw several House          ). In , D. G. Kimanga (in Ryall )
Crows in Djibouti Town, which he assumed          estimated the population in Mombasa at over
had spread there from Aden, some km to         one million. Ryall (a) described their
the northeast. Twenty years later, Ash ()     progressive expansion of range around
found them to be very common, and by          Mombasa, and the formation in  of
the population numbered several thousand          a separate population at Malindi, km
and was increasing. Welch & Welch ()          further north on the coast.
observed about  in the small town of Obock         Since the early s, singletons have been
on the opposite coast of the Golfe de             reported from Nairobi, km northwest of
Tadjoura. There are now smaller colonies          Mombasa; these are considered by Ryall
in Tadjoura and Loyada (Archer ).             () to result from deliberate releases or
                                                  escapes.
E
The House Crow has occurred at Port Tewfik,        M
Suez, since about , ‘… where I observed it    In , J. C. Sinclair (in Ryall ) discov-
first in  and was told it had been estab-      ered a small breeding colony of House Crows
lished for many years’ (Goodwin : ).        on Inhaca Island in Algoa Bay, which the local
Ryall () says it was originally misidenti-    inhabitants said had been established since
fied as the Eurasian Jackdaw C. monedula, and      the s (Bijlsma & Meininger ). A
incorrectly states it was identified by D.         decade later W. L. N. Tickell (in Ryall )
Goodwin from photographs. Meininger et al.        counted around  on the island. House
                                                                  Corvidae (Crows and Jays)    

Crows have been present in Maputo also since        the House Crow is partially governed by
. The population on Inhaca numbered             temperature, the cooler winters in the Cape
around  in  (Ryall ).                    Town region may have restricted its popula-
                                                    tion growth (D. G. Allan in Berruti ).
S                                                House Crows in South Africa have been
In  four House Crows C. s. protegatus           more frequently recorded in informal settle-
arrived at Cape Guardafui on a vessel from          ments, industrial sites and harbours than
Colombo, Sri Lanka (Davis ), though             in natural habitats. Any increase in the
they apparently failed to become established.       area occupied by informal settlements and
The species was, however, later noted in the        urbanisation will thus favour population
fishing village of Zeila in northern Somalia         increases in House Crows in South Africa,
(Chazée ) and in  several dozen             provided there is a concomitant increase in
Crows were seen in Berbera on the north coast       temperature. In the northern part of the
(Fry & Keith ), to both of which they           species’ range, where winter temperatures are
may have spread from Aden or Djibouti               normally higher, the expansion of informal
(Ryall ).                                       settlements and urbanisation should ensure
                                                    population and range expansion in areas with
S A                                        a high annual rainfall (Richardson et al.
House Crows may have occurred in Durban             ).
since – (Newmann ). Two flew in
to Durban from the sea, presumably from a           S
passing vessel, in  (Oatley , Sinclair      House Crows have occurred in Port Sudan
). In  the species was recorded             since well before , when a breeding colony
at Camperdown, some km inland from                of some  birds (Meinertzhagen ) was
Durban (Maclean ), and in  nesting          reported by Kinnear () on a bridge near
was observed by Cyrus & Robson (). In           the harbour. The species is now numerous in
spite of attempted eradication, the species         Port Sudan (Clarke , Ryall ).
spread rapidly, and is now well-established in
the Indian suburbs near Reunion airport             T ( Z)
where a roost of over  individuals               The introduction of House Crows of the
assembles each evening (P. A. Clancey in Ryall      nominate subspecies (India, Nepal, Bangla-
). House Crows also occur in northern           desh and Bhutan) in the s by a Dr
Durban, and W. L. N. Tickell (in Ryall )        Charlesworth and the British diplomat Sir
estimated the total Durban population in            Gerald Portal, to clean up the refuse of
 at –, birds.                            Zanzibar Town (Vaughan ), resulted in
   In , House Crows appeared in East            the formation of the earliest African popula-
London, km south of Durban (Cyrus &              tion of the species, which has acted as a
Robson ; Maclean ), presumably as a         reservoir for introductions to the mainland of
result of a separate introduction, and in the       both Kenya and Tanzania. Pakenham ()
docks at Cape Town in  (Bijlsma &               outlined the House Crow’s expansion of range
Meininger ) or  (Maclean ).             to other towns and villages on Zanzibar.
They have since spread northwards from Dur-         According to Ryall (), a recent control
ban to Richards Bay (Allan & Davies ).          campaign in Zanzibar Town met with
   It is believed that House Crows made use of      considerable, albeit temporary, success.
the increase in marine traffic down the east             In , R. Fuggles-Couchman (in Ryall
African coast during the closure of the Suez        ) saw a few House Crows, presumably
Canal between  and  to reach                from Zanzibar, on a small island near Dar-
Durban (Brooke et al. ) and in the mid-         es-Salaam; K M Howell (in Ryall ) first
s East London and Cape Town (Berruti            reported them in that town in , where
). If, as is currently believed, the range of   they subsequently multiplied and spread.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

By , N E Baker (in Ryall ) said they       in the House Crow’s natural range. Even if the
numbered between , and , and             species is not a native of the Lakshadweeps, a
had dispersed around km to the north and         short natural extension of range north from
west. The species’ then distribution in Dar-es-    the Maldives cannot be ruled out.
Salaam is described by Manyanza (). A
separate population that has been established      M I
for many years in the coastal town of              In about  a number of House Crows be-
Tanya, some km to the north, doubtless          came established on the island of Mauritius,
originates from another introduction from          having apparently travelled on ships from
Zanzibar (Ryall ).                             India (Meinertzhagen , Guérin –) :
                                                   they were therefore presumably of the nomi-
Impact: In Tanzania (and Kenya), House             nate form. A population became established
Crows destroy the nests, eggs, and young both      centred on the Roche Bois abattoir (Rountree
of native birds such as the Collared               et al. ) and the Port Louis meat market
Palm Thrush Cichladusa arquata, mouse-             (Guérin –), from where the birds
birds (Coliidae), Golden Palm Weavers              spread before  southwest to Case Noyale
Ploceus bojeri, Camaroptera spp. and Rufous        (C. M. Courtois in Cheke ). Although
Chatterers Turdoides rubiginosa, and also of       the population in Port Louis was controlled to
domestic poultry. They have also been              minimise the theft of food from the bazaar
accused of damaging farm crops and soft            (Guérin –), a flock of around 
fruits. In compensation, they consume locusts      persisted at Roche Bois until wiped out by a
and termites. In some localities House Crows       cyclone in  (C. M. Courtois in Cheke
seem to be displacing native Pied Crows C.         ; in  according to Ryall ). In 
albus as urban scavengers. On Zanzibar, the        two birds flew ashore in Port Louis off a vessel
recent decline in the House Crow population        from Sri Lanka, and the population in the
has been accompanied by a recovery in the          Port Louis/Roche Bois area slowly recovered
numbers of native species that had suffered         to around  (Staub ). House Crows
from their predation (Alexander ).             have also been observed at Cannoniers Point,
                                                   near Grand Baie in  (Newton ), and
A I                                    at Mahébourg (Staub ) and in Beau
House Crows were unsuccessfully liberated at       Bassin (Cheke ). Diamond () and
Port Blair on South Andaman around  to         Feare & Mungroo () described the
act as scavengers in the penal settlement          species’ spread to other settlements, and the
(Beaven ). In the mid-s, Pittie ()     latter estimated the total population at
saw six to ten C. s. proteagus from Sri Lanka or   between  and  individuals. Hawkins
C. s. insolens from Burma, southern Yunnan         & Safford (in prep.) refer to House Crows on
and southwestern Thailand in the grounds of        Mauritius, especially in the Port Louis docks,
Bay Island Hotel in Port Blair.                    the Terre Rouge estuary, in the Pample-
                                                   mousses Botanic Gardens and in the Port
L (L) I                    Louis/Curepipe conurbation, and even occa-
Although Ryall () says that House Crows        sionally over the forests of the southwest (R. J.
are not native to the Lakshadweeps, their          Safford pers. comm. ). See also Simber-
origin in the islands is uncertain. Ali & Ripley   loff , Jones  and Moulton et al. .
(–) assigned them to the nominate
subspecies (India, Nepal, Bangladesh and           Impact: According to Feare & Mungroo
Bhutan), but Goodwin () identified              (), predation by House Crows on the
them as being of the Maldive Islands race          nests of reintroduced Pink Pigeons Nesoenas
maledivicus and implied that they are native       mayeri and Mauritius Kestrels Falco punctatus
in the Lakshadweeps. Dickinson (),             on Mauritius (classified respectively as
however, does not include the Lakshadweeps         Critically Endangered and Endangered by
                                                                  Corvidae (Crows and Jays)      

the World Conservation Union) could pose a         and North and South America (where it has
threat to the rehabilitation programmes for        occurred but is as yet not established).
both species; native passerines, however, are         Ryall (a) has summarised the status of
not generally at risk because they are mainly      C. splendens as a pest species. As a versatile
confined to high native forest.                     commensal of man it feeds largely on stolen
                                                   food, crops, the young of domestic fowl,
S I                                 small native passerines and invertebrates. It
A single House Crow of the nominate race           also destroys domestic refuse bags, damages
arrived in Mahé in  on a vessel from           electricity cables, disorients television aerials,
Bombay but no breeding was recorded until          causes bird-strikes on aircraft, deposits excre-
five more birds arrived in . Although the       ment, spreads diseases, creates excessive noise,
population remained centred on Mahé, iso-          destroys fruit, wheat, and maize crops and
lated individuals have also been seen on Bird,     drying fish, and allegedly preys on neonatal
Aride, Praslin, Moyenne, Cousin, Silhouette        calves, kids, and lambs (Lever ). It even
and Ile aux Vaches Marines (Skerrett et al.        on occasion attacks humans. In most of the
). After reaching a peak on Mahé of            places in which House Crows have become
about  birds in , centred around Anse        naturalised there has been a marked decline in
Etoile, the population seems to have been          the native avifauna. Although House Crows
eradicated by  (Ryall ), the               are useful and efficient scavengers, the poverty
subsequent appearance of birds being attrib-       and overcrowding in many African settle-
uted by Skerrett et al. () to new arrivals.    ments provide an ideal breeding site for the
                                                   birds, thus exacerbating an already existing
Impact: House Crows have been observed             problem, and their spread in Africa is being
destroying a nest of the endemic Seychelles        expedited by the proliferation of new human
Sunbird Cinnyris dussumieri, indicating the        settlements throughout the continent.
potential risk to native species should they
become established (Skerrett et al. ).

Summary: As Ryall () says, House Crows         Rook
are spreading naturally throughout most of         Corvus frugilegus
their naturalised range where, as commensals
of man, they thrive in areas of poverty and        Natural Range: Europe, W and C Asia east to
squalor. In parts of Africa, such as Kenya,          Tien Shan and N Altai, wintering in N
where the annual increase in the human               Africa and SW Asia. Also Mongolia and C
population has been amongst the highest in           and E China to S Yakutia, the Russian Far
the world, the range of the House Crow is            East and Korea, wintering in E Asia.
expanding commensurately in both coastal           Naturalised Range: Australasia: New Zealand.
and inland settlements. It will almost certainly
eventually reach Madagascar, either on             N Z
ships from India or Sri Lanka or by natural        Table  lists introductions of Rooks to New
dispersal from Tanzania or Mozambique. This        Zealand between  and . In the 
natural expansion of range is continuing           years after the first successful introductions in
through islands of southeast Asia (where it        the s Rooks expanded their range very
will doubtless spread naturally or by ship from    slowly in New Zealand (Thomson ).
Klang in Malaysia km across the Straits of      Although sub-populations became established
Malacca to the more densely settled parts of       near Fielding in the s (Thomson )
Sumatra) towards Australia (where it has           and near Pirinoa, southern Wairarapa, in the
already occurred but is not yet established),      s (Oliver ), the spread continued to
eastern Asia, Europe (where it has occurred in     be very slow until the sub-population in
Gibraltar and has bred in The Netherlands),        Hawke’s Bay became so numerous that it had
      Naturalised Birds of the World

to be controlled in the s and s             sprouting oats and wheat and other cereal
(Heather & Robertson ). Displaced birds         crops (especially maize), pumpkins, potatoes,
then began to disperse more widely, and in          peas, beans, stock feed and occasionally
the s colonies became established near          leaves of clover and grasses. They were said
Miranda, Firth of Thames; Tolga Bay, Gis-           sometimes to attack new-born lambs and
borne; and Waitotara, Taranaki. In the s        even (presumably sickly) adult sheep. In
colonies were established in southern Hawke’s       compensation, Rooks prey on a variety of
Bay and at Aokautere, Manawatu; and in the          injurious invertebrates, including, in the
s in southern Waikato. In the first           Hawke’s Bay region, the grass grub Costelytra
years after their introduction to Canterbury,       zealandica (the larvae of a scarabaeid beetle
Rooks spread very little apart from the forma-      that eats the roots and leaves of a number of
tion of a small colony near Middlemarch in          pasture plants), flies, caterpillars (especially
North Otago (Heather & Robertson ).             porina) and wasps.
   Today, Rooks are locally common in                  The effectiveness of Rooks in controlling
hill country and arable land in Hawke’s             injurious invertebrates is, however, open to
Bay, around Banks Peninsula, and near               question. For example, McLennan & Mac-
Christchurch. In  the total population          Millan () found that in their study area in
numbered a little under , birds, of            Hawke’s Bay although Rooks ate %–% of
which around , were in Hawke’s Bay             the larvae of C. zealandica this predation was
and , in Canterbury. In the next  years       neither heavy enough to prevent further loss
pest-control programmes reduced the species’        in pasture productivity nor to inhibit future
population but increased its range in New           generations of grass grubs from multiplying
Zealand, where occasional vagrants have             to pest proportions. Furthermore, by their
occurred in Northland and Wellington and            probing of the turf in search of grubs Rooks
on Stewart and the Chatham Islands (Heather         themselves cause damage to pastures.
& Robertson ).                                     McLennan & MacMillan () also
                                                    addressed the question of what role Rooks
Impact: As early as  (Thomson ),            might play in the control of other invertebrate
Rooks in New Zealand were being accused in          pests, such as Black Field Crickets Teleo-
the Hawke’s Bay area of eating walnuts,             gryllus commodus, White-fringed Weevils
                                                    Graphognathus leucoloma and army-worms
  Introductions of Rooks Corvus              (Noctuidae) which occasionally damage
frugilegus into New Zealand, –.             pastures and crops. They found that when the
                                                    Rook population in the Hawke’s Bay area was
Date           Number     Introduced by             reduced from around , to , reports of
                     Nelson Acclimatisation    insect damage to crops and pastures did not
                          Society (A.S.)            increase, and concluded (p. ) that ‘the
c.          ?         Canterbury A. S. (by      controversy over whether Rooks are on
                          Watts Russell)            balance beneficial or harmful to agriculture
                     Auckland A. S.            has persisted for some  years, but cannot
                    Auckland A. S.            be resolved until the significance of their
            or      Christchurch A. S.        predation on insect pests is assessed’.
–                 Christchurch A. S.
–        ?          Hawke’s Bay A. S., near
                          Mangateretere,
                    Hawke’s Bay A.S.          American Crow
           ?          Christchurch A. S.
                                                    Corvus brachyrhynchos
Sources: Thomson , , Oliver . All
importations came from England, and apart from      Natural Range: North America, from W, C
the first two all appear to have been successful.      and E Canada, S to S Florida.
                                                                         Alaudidae (Larks) 

Naturalised Range: Atlantic Ocean: Bermuda.      Common Magpie
                                                 Pica pica
B
According to Phillips (: ), ‘… the         Natural Range: Much of the Palaearctic and
common crow of the Eastern States was              parts of the northern Oriental regions.
introduced about  to Bermuda, where for      Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan.
a time it became abundant. Later it was nearly
exterminated but has continued to exist in       J
small numbers ever since’. D. B. Wingate         The form P. p. sericea (Amurland, Korea,
(pers. comm. ), however, antedates this      China, Taiwan, Indochina and Burma) was
introduction by  years. ‘Although Bermuda      reputedly brought back to northern Kyushu
had a native crow when the islands were first     (southern coastal areas of the Fukuoka and
settled’, he wrote, ‘this was apparently         Saga Prefectures) by the Great Taicoon or
exterminated. The present crow population        Sei-i-taishogun, Hideyoshi, on returning from
originated from a pet pair of crows introduced   his successful invasion of Korea in 
from Halifax, Nova Scotia [the nominate          (Kaburaki ). It is still confined to north-
form] by Lady Paget … in ’. In  the      western Kyushu where it is locally common in
population was estimated to be about .        Kumamoto, Fukuoka, Saga and Nagasaki
Today it is a common and widely-distributed      (Kaburaki , Brazil , Eguchi & Kubo
species (Raine ).                            , Eguchi & Amano , OSJ ).
                                                 Individuals recorded from southern and
Impact: Because of the damage American           eastern Kyushu, Honshu and Hokkaido are
Crows cause to agricultural and horticultural    probably vagrants from Korea (Brazil ).
crops they are unprotected in Bermuda
(Wingate ). Some individuals have learnt     Impact: Occasional telecommunications
how to remove the chicks of White-tailed         disruption due to construction by Magpies of
Tropicbirds Phaeton lepturus by hovering         their bulky nests on telephone poles is
before their cliff-face nests (Raine ).       reported in Kyushu, and some damage has also
                                                 been recorded to agricultural crops. Predation
                                                 of eggs and chicks of native species also occurs.

Eurasian Jackdaw
Corvus monedula
Natural Range: Europe through N and C Asia              ALAUDIDAE (LARKS)
  to Kashmir, NW Xinjiang, W Mongolia,
  and SC Siberia.                                Eurasian Skylark
Naturalised Range: Africa: Tunisia; Algeria.     Alauda arvensis
T; A                                 Natural Range: Much of the Palaearctic region
According to Payn (), the ancient colony       south of the taiga in western Siberia, from
of Eurasian Jackdaws in the city of Tunis in       where in winter birds migrate south to
Tunisia, and the small number km away           S Europe, N Africa; SW, E and SE Asia,
in Constantine in eastern Algeria, are both        China and Japan.
probably descended from escaped cage-            Naturalised Range: North America: Canada;
birds. Dickinson (), who appears to treat      USA. Australasia: Australia; New Zealand.
these populations as native, says the race         Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
established in Tunisia and eastern Algeria is
C. s. cirtensis.                                 C
                                                 In  or   pairs of Skylarks (or 
   Naturalised Birds of the World

birds according to Cooke & Knappen ) of      the population had increased fivefold.
the nominate subspecies (Europe apart from       However, the population suffered a decline
the south) were imported from England and        later in the decade, when much of the birds’
liberated on southern Vancouver Island,          habitat was lost to urban development (Blake
British Columbia. They were followed by a        ). Today, a few hundred survive only in
further  birds in ; others may have been   grasslands around the University of Victoria
unsuccessfully released at about the same time   campus, on the Rithet Estate, near the airport,
on the lower mainland at the mouth of the        along the eastern side of the McHugh Valley,
Fraser River. In  or , G. W. Wallace     near Duncan, and in a few other places on the
planted some more on the Saanich Peninsula       Saanich Peninsula (Johnston & Garrett ,
of southern Vancouver Island, and in         AOU , Sibley ).
Mrs E. A. Morton is said to have freed five at
Oak Bay.                                         U S
   Until about  Skylarks on Vancouver        Although there have been numerous attempts
Island seem to have done no more than main-      to naturalise Eurasian Skylarks in the
tain their numbers, but thereafter they began    United States (listed in Lever ), the only
to increase until they became quite numerous     established population is derived from natural
(Phillips , Scheffer ). By  they      dispersal from the introduced population on
were, according to Cooke & Knappen (:        Vancouver Island in British Columbia,
–), ‘as abundant as any of the other       Canada.
small birds in the occupied area … [but] are        In August  Skylarks were first recorded
not yet numerous enough to spread to adjoin-     on San Juan Island, Washington State (Bruce
ing sections’. In the following year, when the   ), some km east of Vancouver Island
population was said to number  birds, a       across the Haro Strait, where breeding by
colony was discovered at Sidney, km north      some of the dozen pairs present was reported
of Victoria. Twenty years later, when their      in May . Although it was thought likely
numbers were about the same, Skylarks had        that Skylarks would spread to other islands in
colonised suitable habitats around Victoria      the archipelago and even to the Washington
and on the Saanich Peninsula (Scheffer ).     mainland, this does not yet seem to have
   By , when Skylarks had become estab-      occurred (AOU ).
lished over an , ha area of low snowfall,
                                                 A
                                                 Table  lists introductions of Eurasian
                                                 Skylarks to Australia between  and .
                                                    As early as  the Victoria Acclimatisa-
                                                 tion Society (see Lever ) reported that ‘the
                                                 Skylark may now be considered thoroughly
                                                 established’, and Ryan () said the birds
                                                 were well established around Melbourne,
                                                 where they were slowly increasing and spread-
                                                 ing. Tarr () reported that Skylarks were
                                                 fairly widespread in Victoria.
                                                    In South Australia, Skylarks were said to
                                                 be well-established by the late s on the
                                                 Adelaide Plains, and at the same time were
                                                 common along the coast of New South Wales
                                                 and westward to some inland areas (McGill
                                                 ). In  some were reported on Lord
                                                 Howe Island off the New South Wales coast
               Eurasian Skylark                  (McKean & Hindwood ).
                                                                                Alaudidae (Larks) 

   In , the Tasmania Acclimatisa-                     It lives mainly in well-cultivated lands
tion Society (see Lever ) claimed that                and long-established pastures. It has
Skylarks were established in several localities,          success fully invaded the coastal heaths of
including Invermay, East and West Tamar,                  New South Wales. Throughout its range it
Ormley near Avoca, Cataract Cliffs, Risdon,                lives side by side with [Horsfield’s Bush-
and Glenorchy near Hobart. By the late s              lark Mirafra javanica] and the [Australian
the species was settled in many agricultural              Pipit Anthus australis]. All three birds have
districts, especially in southern Tasmania and            superficially similar habitat needs, but it
on King and Flinders Islands in Bass Strait               is not known if the Skylark provides com-
                                                          petition for either of the native species.
(Blakers et al. ).
   Frith (: ) reported that the Skylark
was:                                                    Pizzey () reported Skylarks to be
   now widespread in south-east South                common in Tasmania, in southeastern South
    Australia, Tasmania, most of Victoria,           Australia and around Adelaide, on Kangaroo
   and the southern New South Wales coast            Island, and throughout most of Victoria, but
   and tablelands. It avoids the drier inland.       less common on the Riverina and east coast


  Introductions of Eurasian Skylarks Alauda arvensis to Australia, –.

Date                   Numbers            Introduced by              Released
 or            ?                  Robert Morrice             Barrabool Hills, Victoria
                   ?                  ?                          New South Wales
                   ?                  Bird dealer                ?
                                          named Brown
                   ?                  Bird dealer named          Melbourne, Victoria
                                          Neymaler
                   ?                  ‘Mr Rushall’               Melbourne, Victoria
–                ,              Royal Zoological           Various localities in Victoria
                                          & Acclimatisation
                                          Society of Victoria
                   ?                  South Australia            ?
                                          Acclimatisation
                                          Society (A.S.)
 or            ?                  ?                          Tasmania
, –,     +                ?                          Near Sydney, New South Wales,
                                                                                  Blue Mountains,
Maneroo,
                                                                     Ryde, etc.
                   ?                  Queensland A. S.           Unsuccessful
                                    South Australia A. S.      Adelaide; Enfield
c.                  pairs/ pairs   South Australia A. S.      Dry creek near Adelaide/Enfield
                   /             South Australia A. S.      Near Adelaide/Kapunda
–                ?                  ?                          Tasmania
After              ?                  South Australia A. S.      Various localities on many occa-
sions
                                    Mr Talbot of Malahide      Various localities
                                          (Ireland)
Before             ?                  Western Australia          Unsuccessful
                                          Acclimatisation
                                          Committee

Source : Lever . All importations are believed to have been of the European nominate subspecies.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

tablelands of New South Wales. Today they         Chatham Islands, and occur as vagrants
are especially common in northern Tasmania        on the Kermadecs, Snares, Auckland and
and on King Island and the Furneaux Group         Campbell Islands (Heather & Robertson
in Bass Strait (Barrett et al. ).             ). There is some flocking and local
   Although largely migratory in the North-       movement in autumn, but as in Australia
ern Hemisphere, Skylarks in Australia appear      there is no pattern of migration (apart from a
to be sedentary, nomadic or only partially        small northerly one from Farewell Spit),
migratory, which may have contributed to          which may help to explain the species’
their successful naturalisation but inhibited     naturalisation in New Zealand.
their further dispersal.
                                                  Impact: Although at first sight the Skylark
N Z                                       would seem to be an unlikely species to cause
Between  and  at least  Skylarks of    problems, as early as  T. S. Palmer wrote
the European nominate subspecies (probably        of Skylarks that although in their natural
many more) were released in New Zealand by        range they were almost universally regarded as
the Nelson, Otago, Canterbury, Auckland           beneficial, in New Zealand they had become
and Wellington Acclimatisation Societies          an agricultural pest. This is confirmed by
(Thomson ), including  on Stewart           Thomson (: –) who wrote that
Island in  and some on the Chatham            ‘next to the [House] sparrow [Passer domesti-
Islands by L W Hood in the late nineteenth        cus] the Skylark is considered by farmers to be
century (Oliver ), and also doubtless by      the most destructive of the small birds which
nostalgic settlers.                               have been introduced to New Zealand. They
   As early as the s, Thomson (: )     are particularly destructive in spring, when
was able to say that ‘The introduction of this    they pull wheat and other grains out of the
bird was general throughout New Zealand …         ground just as they are springing. They also
in every part they increased rapidly and spread   uproot seedling cabbage, turnip and other
throughout the whole country, but they            farm crops’. The depredations were confirmed
confine themselves to cultivated districts, and    by Oliver ().
are not found in the bush or open mountain
country’. Forty years later, Wodzicki (:      H I
) reported Skylarks in New Zealand to be       Skylarks of the nominate subspecies (Europe
‘widely distributed and common, North,            apart from the south) were first imported to
South, and Stewart Islands and Raoul [Ker-        the Hawaiian Islands from England in ,
madecs], Chatham and Auckland Islands: the        when ten were released at Leilhua on Oahu.
last three island groups were apparently colo-    Here they were joined in  by others sent
nised naturally – the Aucklands in ’. Falla   from New Zealand by the Hon A. S. Cleg-
et al. () found Skylarks to be established    horn: in the latter year, some were also set
on the main islands in all types of open          free on Kauai by Frances Sinclair. Later
habitat up to ,m elevation, and on the        importations of New Zealand Skylarks were
Chatham, Auckland and Kermadec Islands;           liberated at Moiliili on Oahu, from where
the species’ status on Campbell Island is         some were subsequently transferred to Kauai,
uncertain. Baker () recorded breeding         Maui (), Hawaii (), and Molokai and
on the Chatham and Auckland Islands, but          Lanai (). The introductions to Oahu and
presence only on the Kermadec and Campbell        Maui were said by Henshaw () to have
Islands. Today, Skylarks are very common in       been successful, and Bryan () found them
sand dunes, farmland, tussock grassland and       to be common on grasslands on Molokai.
other open habitats from North Cape to            Although Munro () states that the
Stewart Island, from sea level to subalpine       form A. a. japonica (Sakhalin, Kuril and
herbfields at ,m. They also occur on some      Ryukyu Islands and Japan) was unsuccessfully
offshore islands; they are common on the           introduced in , the AOU () indicates
                                                                    Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)    

that this form, as well as the nominate one, is   Stone () implicated them in the dispersal
established in the Hawaiian Islands.              of introduced grasses, herbs and shrubs.
   According to Fisher (), Skylarks were
released on Niihau before  by Francis [sic]
Sinclair, who later released some of his birds
on Kauai. By , Skylarks were apparently       PYCNONOTIDAE (BULBULS)
fairly common on Lehua Island (to which
they had presumably flown from Niihau),            Red-whiskered Bulbul
and in  Fisher () found the species       Pycnonotus jocosus
to be scarce but widespread on the latter
island.                                           Natural Range: India, the Andaman Is.,
   By the mid-s, Skylarks were said to          Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma, Assam, Yun-
occur on Hawaii, Oahu and Lanai, and Peter-         nan, S China, N Vietnam, S Indochina,
son () reported them to be widely distrib-      and Thailand S to SC Malay Peninsula.
uted on Niihau, Maui and Hawaii, local on         Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Spain. Asia: ?Java;
Oahu, Molokai and Lanai, and scarce on              ?Sumatra; ?UAE. North America: USA.
Kauai. A decade later, Berger () recorded       Australasia: Australia. Indian Ocean:
Skylarks as common on Hawaii, Maui and              Comoros Is; Madagascar; Mascarene Is;
Lanai, slightly less so on Oahu, and rare or        Nicobar Is; Seychelles Is. Pacific Ocean:
absent on Kauai, where they are believed to         Hawaiian Is.
have died out around . The Hawaiian
Audubon Society () claimed that Skylarks      S
were established on all the main islands, but     According to Langley (), the Red-
were most common on the slopes of Mauna           whiskered Bulbul may be in the process of
Kea and Mauna Loa on Hawaii and on those          becoming established in Spain.
of Haleakala on Maui. Zeillemaker & Scott
() recorded Skylarks as local and uncom-      J; S
mon on Oahu and Lanai, as uncommon on             Medway & Wells () and Long () say
Molokai, as common on Maui and Hawaii,            that Red-whiskered Bulbuls may have been
and as accidental visitors to Kauai. It is        introduced to Java and Sumatra, where the
noticeable how, between the mid-s and         species is a popular cage-bird, but they supply
mid-s, the status (and even presence) of      no supporting data.
Skylarks on the various islands apparently
varied from decade to decade.                     U A E
   More recently, Pratt et al. (: ) say    Jennings () lists breeding by this species
that Skylarks were ‘… abundant on Hawaii,         in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Maui, and Lanai. Less common on Molokai,
Niihau, Lehua, and Oahu. … Straggler from         U S
Siberia to NW Hawaiian Is. (Kure, Midway)’.       The escape into the wild of the Red-
Pratt () curiously omits the Skylark from     whiskered Bulbul in Florida resulted, as Owre
his list of introduced and established birds in   () points out, in the naturalisation of
Hawaii, where the AOU () states that          a new family of passerines in the Western
they occur on the main islands eastward from      Hemisphere.
Niihau. It is said that the Skylarks’ expansion      In , between five and ten pairs that had
of range in the Hawaiian Islands has been         been imported from Calcutta (where the form
adversely affected by the growth of pineapple      is P. j. emeria) escaped from a bird farm in
and sugar-cane plantations.                       Kendall, Dade County, where they bred suc-
                                                  cessfully in the wild in the following year and
Impact: Caum () reported damage caused        from where by the autumn they had ventured
by Skylarks to lettuce seedlings on Kauai, and    as far afield as Princeton, km southwest of
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Miami. In  a flock of  was counted             () say there have been no population
in Kendall, and by the following year the           estimates since the s. The species’ survival
population had increased to between  and          in Dade County, Florida, centred on Miami
. Fisk (: ), who suggests the form in       and Coral Gables, is also confirmed by the
Florida may be P. j. pyrrhotis (northern India      AOU () and Sibley ().
and Nepal) claims that the population had              In about  some Red-whiskered Bulbuls
increased to ‘perhaps  roosting in a flock’.      became established in the Los Angeles County
   During their first decade in the wild there       Arboretum (Arcadia), and in Huntington
was an annual increment in the population of        Gardens and San Morino, California, where
some –% to a little under  birds by          they are popular cage-birds (Hardy ). Ini-
–, when some . sq km of Kendall             tially the population increased considerably
had been colonised. By  the population          and spread in the Pasadena/San Gabriel Valley
had doubled to around , and was continu-         (Small ), and in spite of subsequent
ing to increase and spread slowly in a              attempts to eradicate them, a small number
southerly direction. The reluctance of the          continue to survive (Johnston & Garrett
species to expand its range more rapidly has        , Small , Islam & Williams ).
been attributed to the birds’ attachment to
communal roosts. Although the claim by Car-         Impact: Red-whiskered Bulbuls feed princi-
leton & Owre () that ‘no obvious ecolog-        pally on small drupaceous fruits, berries and
ical factors exist that will prevent colonisation   syconia of over two dozen exotic species, for
of the entire tropical zone of south-eastern        which they compete with several native birds.
Florida’ may prove incorrect, the suggestion        To a lesser extent they also feed on the exotic
by James (: ) that ‘It now seems more        Brazilian Holly or Pepper Schinus terebinthi-
likely that the family Pycnonotidae will be         folius which has been widely disseminated by
extirpated in the Western Hemisphere’ may           birds in southeastern Florida, on  alien Ficus
be somewhat premature. Although P. W.               spp., on seven alien Lantana spp., and on up
Smith (in James ) claimed the population        to  species of exotic jasmines (Oleaceae) –
was continuing to decline, Islam & Williams         all of which they help to spread, to the disad-
                                                    vantage of native species (Carleton & Owre
                                                    ). Although in much of its natural range
                                                    P. jocosus is regarded as an agricultural and
                                                    horticultural pest, Carleton & Owre ()
                                                    found no evidence of damage to citrus and
                                                    other commercial fruit crops in Florida. In
                                                    California, on the other hand, the birds
                                                    became a threat to local citrus crops (Islam &
                                                    Williams ).

                                                    A
                                                    Red-whiskered Bulbuls imported to New
                                                    South Wales in  from China (where
                                                    the nominate form occurs) apparently
                                                    disappeared. Others introduced around the
                                                    turn of the century fared better, and a number
                                                    became established near Sydney. Some were
                                                    reported at Homebush in  and at Double
                                                    Bay in . They were breeding at Hunters’
                                                    Hill in  and at Wahroonga two years later,
                                                    and by about  were apparently common
             Red-whiskered Bulbul                   in the Sydney suburbs, where by  flocks of
                                                                      Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)   

up to  were established. By  Red-            prey on vine moth larvae and other injurious
whiskered Bulbuls had spread up to km            invertebrates.
from Sydney, and a decade later were said to
be common within km of Sydney except in          C I
the south (McGill ). According to Frith         Louette () and R. J. Safford (pers. comm.
(: ) they were ‘… very abundant in           ) say that Red-whiskered Bulbuls from
city and suburban gardens and [have]                Mauritius have been introduced to Mayotte,
colonised some nearby semi-rural districts’.        most southerly of the Comoros Islands.
Frith () believed it was unlikely that P. jo-
cosus would be able to spread very far north of     M
Sydney through the dry sandstone gullies and        Bertrand () records the presence of
Eucalyptus forests where there is little fruit.     P. jocosus on Juan de Nova off the west coast
   Red-whiskered Bulbuls were first recorded         of Madagascar.
in Victoria at Ashfield in – and at
Geelong and in gardens in Melbourne in              M I
, where a decade or so later they were said     In  a consignment of Red-whiskered
to be fairly well established.                      Bulbuls of the form P. j. emeria (India,
   Between  and  there were sporadic        Bangladesh, Burma and Thailand) arrived in
records of Red-whiskered Bulbuls in northern        Port Louis, Mauritius, where in the following
Adelaide and Westbourne Park, South                 year their aviary was destroyed by a cyclone
Australia (Paton ), where Long () said      and all the birds were killed (Carié ,
they had become common.                             Guérin –). A second shipment of
   Pizzey () described the national             between one and six pairs, imported like the
distribution of P. jocosus as follows: common       previous one by Gabriel Reynaud, arrived in
and widespread in New South Wales around            or shortly after  (Moulton et al. ()
Sydney, extending into the Lower Hunter             incorrectly give the date as ). These birds
Valley, and also occurring (doubtless as a          subsequently escaped from captivity and by
result of a separate introduction) at Coffs           were distributed throughout Mauritius
Harbour km north of Sydney; in Victoria,         (Carié , Meinertzhagen ). Carié ()
a smaller colony occurred in and around             found the species to be already the most
South Yarra; in South Australia the species was     abundant bird on the island – a status con-
found at various places near Adelaide. Blakers      firmed by Cheke (). Hawkins & Safford
et al. (: ) described the Red-whiskered      (in prep.) found P. jocosus to occur throughout
Bulbul as ‘now present on the coast from Lake       Mauritius and also on offlying islets.
MacQuarie to the Shoalhaven River, and west            In  Red-whiskered Bulbuls were
to the Blue Mountains’ in New South Wales.          imported to St Philippe in southern Réunion,
Barrett et al. () indicate the species’         apparently by someone returning from Mau-
survival in New South Wales.                        ritius (Staub a, , Barau , Barre &
   It is noteworthy that whereas in Florida the     Barau ). In  they were recorded at Ste
Red-whiskered Bulbul is an almost exclusively       Marie in the northeast, to which they had
urban and suburban species, in New South            probably been taken by human agency.
Wales it has ventured into rural areas, thickets    Between  and  the birds rapidly
and heavily timbered gullies.                       colonised the east coast of Réunion, and by
                                                     they occurred in many parts of the
Impact: As early as the s Red-whiskered         island, including the central plateau at an
Bulbuls were being accused of damaging peas,        altitude of ,m, and in the west where they
figs and strawberries in New South Wales             inhabited gardens and areas of scrub. By 
(MacPherson ), and Frith () said that       they had dispersed from the western scrub-
in Sydney they were regarded as a pest in           land and had colonised numerous forests: the
gardens and orchards. In compensation, they         first of which was the Salazie crater. By 
   Naturalised Birds of the World

they were observed in small numbers in other        threat to the survival of the endemic sub-
craters such as Cilaos and Mafate, and were         species of the Olivaceous Bulbul Hypsipetes
established throughout the island up to             borbonicus olivaceus (classified as Vulnerable
,m elevation (Besnard et al. , Barré        by the World Conservation Union), and Jones
et al. , Mandon-Dalger et al. ,             () considered that competition with the
Clergeau & Mandon-Dalger ). They are            two aliens was preventing H. b. olivaceus and
said by Hawkins & Safford (in prep.) to be           the Mauritius Cuckoo-shrike Coracina typica
increasing their range rapidly.                     (also Vulnerable) from spreading outside
   Mandon-Dalger et al. () found that the       native forest. On Réunion, Barré & Barau
warm and rainy eastern slopes were colonised        () believed that Bulbuls (and Mynas) were
first, and remain the most densely populated         competitors and predators of H. b. borbonicus.
region. They noted a negative correlation
between the numbers of birds and the                N I
altitude. On Réunion, unlike other alien            Red-whiskered Bulbuls (P. j. whistleri) have
birds, P. jocosus enters native forest and is not   been introduced from Port Blair in the
confined to anthropic localities. Clergeau &         Andaman Islands to the Nicobars, where they
Mandon-Dalger () calculated the average         are said to be common on Trinkat and
rate of dispersal at around .km a year            Camorta Islands, and possibly also on
between  and  and about .km a            Nancowry, but they are not believed not to
year in the decade from , and concluded         occur elsewhere (Abdulali , ).
that the rate of spread of the species in the
Mascarene Islands was much faster than in           S I
other places to which it has been introduced.       In  Prys-Jones et al. () saw at least six
                                                               ˆ
                                                    Red-whiskered Bulbuls on Assumption Island
Impact: As early as , Richard Meinertz-         in the Seychelles, the origin of which was
hagen was recording orchard damage caused           Mauritius (R. J. Safford pers. comm. ).
by Red-whiskered Bulbuls on Mauritius.              In , Roberts () counted about 
Jones () refers to competition on Mauri-        pairs in one locality, and estimated the total
tius for geckos (Gekkonidae) between                could be double that figure, widely spread in a
P. jocosus and the Mauritius Kestrel Falco          variety of habitats throughout the island. By
punctatus (classified as Endangered by the            the total had risen to between , and
World Conservation Union) and for the flow-          , individuals (Skerrett et al. ).
ers of Nuxia verticillata between P. jocosus and
the Pink Pigeon Nesoenas mayeri (classified as       Impact: The small atoll of Aldabra, which was
Critically Endangered). On Réunion, Barré &         added to the World Heritage List in , lies
Barau () believed that Red-whiskered            only km from Assumption Island. Pry s-   ˆ
Bulbuls may eat the eggs and nestlings of           Jones et al. () and Roberts () have
small native passerines. Cheke () consid-       drawn attention to the threat that would be
ered that although nest-predation by P. jocosus     posed to the unique and near pristine fauna
caused heavy losses to endemic Mascarene            and flora of Aldabra were Red-whiskered
White-eyes Zosterops borbonicus mauritianus         Bulbuls ever to gain access to the atoll. The
and Mauritius Olive White-eyes Z. chloro-           former authors reviewed the potential
nothus, the former remains common and the           threats to the Aldabra avifauna from
latter is far from rare within its dwindling for-   disease, hybridisation, competition and nest-
est habitat; this may be because native passer-     predation by P. jocosus.
ines are largely restricted to upland forest
(Feare & Mungroo ). Temple ()               H I
states that on Mauritius competition for food       In  two Red-whiskered Bulbuls were seen
with the Red-whiskered Bulbul (and Com-             on the Lower Makiki Heights on Oahu,
mon Myna Acridotheres tristis) was a major          where several were observed in the following
                                                                     Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)   

year and two dozen were reported in .           Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Spain. Asia:
Pratt et al. (), Pratt (), and Shehata et     UAE; ?Kuwait; ?Qatar; ?Saudi Arabia.
al. () give the date incorrectly as ; the     Australasia: ?New Zealand. Pacific Ocean:
AOU () says the introduction took place           Fiji Is; Hawaiian Is; ?Marshall Is; New
in . Islam & Williams () correctly            Caledonia; Samoa; Society Is; Tonga Is.
give the date as ). The birds later spread to
Pacific Heights, Kaimuki and the Punchbowl           S
areas and along the length of Manoa Valley          First recorded in Spain in . One or two
(Berger ).                                      pairs have nested in Torremolinos, Málaga,
   The subsequent expansion of the numbers          since  (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral
and range of the Red-whiskered Bulbul on            ).
Oahu has not been as dramatic as that of the
Red-vented Bulbul (Berger a, Van Riper          U A E
et al. ). Zeillemaker & Scott ()            Jennings (b) says that the Red-vented
recorded Red-whiskered Bulbuls as local and         Bulbul is breeding in small numbers in the
uncommon in residential districts and               United Arab Emirates, where it has hybridised
community parklands on Oahu, where by               with the native White-spectacled Bulbul
 they occurred from Hawaii Kai to Pearl         P. xanthopygos in Abu Dhabi and Dubai; its
City Heights. Pratt et al. () recorded them     establishment is confirmed by Richardson
as well established in the Honolulu area, and       () and Jennings ().
said that they could be expected anywhere on
the island within a few years. P. jocosus was       Kuwait; Qatar; Saudi Arabia
first recorded on the windward side of the           Islam & Williams () and Jennings ()
Ko’olau Mountains in about , and it has         refer to the presence of a small population in
                             ¯
bred successfully in the Kane’ohe– Kailua area.     Kuwait (Manama), where breeding was
The Honolulu Christmas Bird Count for           confirmed in . Jennings () also
recorded only two birds; by  the total had      mentions breeding in Qatar (Doha) and
risen to  (Islam & Williams ).               Saudi Arabia (Jeddah).

Impact: Red-whiskered Bulbuls on Oahu               N Z
showed a prevalence of .% Plasmodium             According to Turbott (), Red-vented
malarial infection during the period of study       Bulbuls of the race bengalensis (northeastern
by Shehata et al. (), which is consistent       India, S Assam, and Bangladesh) were
with their potential to act as a potent source      released in Auckland in , and within two
of pathogens among Oahu’s indigenous                years the population in such suburbs as
avifauna. It is known that on other islands the     Takapuna, Mount Eden and Remuera, and in
Hawaii Amakihi Hemignathus virens is a              Stanley Bay, numbered some  birds. By 
suitable host for Plasmodium strains occurring      these potential pests had apparently been
in the archipelago, and that its survival rate      eradicated, but since  Heather & Robert-
when infected is low; thus the endemic              son () record the presence of small num-
Oahu Amakihi H. flavus may well be at risk           bers in North Shore and Mount Eden; these
(Shehata et al. ).                              may be survivors of the original introduction
                                                    or represent a new importation.

                                                    F I
Red-vented Bulbul                                   The arrival of Red-vented Bulbuls in Fiji
Pycnonotus cafer                                    around  can, according to Watling
                                                    (b, ), be linked to that of Indian
Natural Range: Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka,          labourers who might well have brought the
  Assam, Bangladesh, Burma, W Yunnan.               birds with them because they have a special
 Naturalised Birds of the World

place in Indian literature, folklore and poetry,   ) said that ‘This abundant species now
and as fighting birds. Most of the Indian           occurs from Hanauma Bay and Koko Crater
immigrants came from Uttar Pradesh, with           to Waipahu and Wahiawa on the leeward side
large numbers from Bengal and Bihar, where         of Oahu and from Waimanaloa to Laie on the
P. c. bengalensis (the form established in Fiji)   windward side. It will not take many years
occurs.                                            before the species is found throughout the
   By the s, Red-vented Bulbuls were           island’. Since then, the population and distri-
common only on Viti Levu and on some               bution of Red-vented Bulbuls have exploded
small off-lying islands such as Beqa; on the        dramatically (much more so than those of the
former they are abundant in both agricultural      Red-whiskered Bulbul), and they now occur
and residential districts, are frequently seen     in almost all parts of Oahu (Islam & Williams
in clearings and patches of immature               ). Nine birds were counted in the
secondary seral associations (floodplains,          Honolulu Bird Count in ; by  the
riverine habitats and landslips) in forests, and   total had risen to ,. Islam & Williams
occasionally in mature woodlands. Lesser           () list first records for other islands as
numbers have occurred on Ovalau, Wakaya            follows: Hawaii (Kona, ; Hilo, );
and Taveuni, which may have derived from           western Molokai (); Kauai (near Anahola,
natural dispersal or deliberate translocations     ; near ’Ele’ele, ); Maui (Pukalani–
(Watling ).                                    Makawao area, ); and Kahoolawe ().
                                                   Since bulbuls are largely sedentary and most
Impact: Watling () found that in the           sightings on other islands have been close to
Sigatoka Valley (the most important horti-         the coast, these birds may have travelled on
cultural region of Fiji) agricultural crops        board inter-island boats or be the result of
comprise less than % of the birds’ diet.          separate releases (Williams b).
Minor damage was done to tomatoes,
aubergines, brassicas, cowpeas, pigeon peas        Impact: See under P. jocosus. P. cafer
and longbeans, but none of commercial              examined by Shehata et al. () in the Lyon
significance. Although bulbuls are aggressive       Arboretum in Honolulu, Hawaii, in –
birds, Watling () observed only a limited      were found to have a prevalence of %
amount of attacks on native species. The only      Plasmodium malarial infection.
indigenous bird with which P. cafer competes
for food appears to be the White-throated          M I
Pigeon Columba vitiensis (for an expanded          Red-vented Bulbuls first arrived in the
account see Lever : –).                  Marshall Islands on Majuro in , where
                                                   they became established principally in the
H I                                   agricultural region of Laura. The birds
In  a flock of at least half-a-dozen            are believed to have either been introduced
Red-vented Bulbuls was sighted at Waipahu          deliberately or to have arrived as ship-borne
on Oahu (Donaghho ); these birds               stowaways (Van der Velde ).
may have escaped while in transit at the
Honolulu airport, but were more probably           Impact: This is the first record of the species
deliberately (and illegally) released in the       in Micronesia, and Van der Velde ()
previous year with Red-whiskered Bulbuls           expressed her concern for colonisation of
(Berger a, Williams b). By  they       other islands in the Marshalls and elsewhere
had been recorded near Fort Shafter,               (e.g. Pohnpei and Kosrae) in the region.
in Kailua, and at Waimanalo, from where            Competition for food could have a negative
they later spread to Manoa Valley and the          impact on Majuro’s only native land bird, the
Moanulua Gardens.                                  local race of the Micronesian Imperial Pigeon
   Zeillemaker & Scott () recorded their       Ducula oceanica ratakensis, and predation
status as still uncommon, but Berger (:        could seriously affect the endemic Arno Skink
                                                                        Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)    

Emoia arnoensis. The notoriously invasive             Ninafo’ou. In the s, some of their
Lantana Lantana camara has so far been fairly         descendants were transferred by Prince Tungi
quiescent in the Marshall Islands but could           to control insect pests on Tongatapu, from
well be spread by Bulbuls.                            where they dispersed to ’Eua, a distance of
                                                      some km. Dhondt (a) recorded them as
N C                                         abundant on Tongatapu, and in  Watling
Heather & Robertson () and Islam &                (b) found them to be widely distributed
Williams () record the establishment of           but less common than on Fiji. Pratt et al.
Red-vented Bulbuls in New Caledonia, but              () recorded Red-vented Bulbuls only on
provide no further details.                           Nukualofa and ’Eua.

S
In  some Red-vented Bulbuls from Fiji
(P. c. bengalensis), destined for New Caledo-         Sooty-headed Bulbul
nia, were diverted to Western Samoa, where            Pycnonotus aurigaster
they were landed and later released at Apia on
Upolu. By at least , when some were               Natural Range: Burma, Indochina, Java, Bali,
observed at Pago Pago (but probably by the              Thailand, China and Vietnam.
late s), they had made the -km sea              Naturalised Range: Asia: Singapore; Sulawesi;
crossing (or had been deliberately transferred)         Sumatra.
to Tutuila in American Samoa, where
they were reported to be abundant by .            S
They did not appear on Savai’i – only km            In about  Sooty-headed Bulbuls, the
from Upolu – until . The species became           descendants of cage-birds imported from Java,
common in residential and agricultural (but           became established in the suburbs of Singa-
not in natural) habitats on Upolu and Tutuila,        pore where, although C. J. Hails (pers. comm.
but less so on Savai’i (Pratt et al. ). Gill et   ) said they were dying out (or had done
al. () found P. cafer on Savai’i only in the      so), Dickinson () indicates their survival.
southeast and northwest, and Gill ()
recorded the species throughout Upolu.                S
                                                      Stresemann () recorded the introduction
S I                                       from Java of P. a. aurigaster to Sulawesi,
Red-vented Bulbuls were first recorded on              where it became established on the southern
Tahiti, in the residential district of Patutoa,       peninsula, and where Dickinson ()
Papeete, in  (Bruner ), where their           confirms its survival.
establishment was confirmed by Pratt et al.
(). Their means of arrival on Tahiti is           S
apparently unrecorded.                                Before the mid-s, Sooty-headed Bulbuls
                                                      of the nominate subspecies (Java and Bali)
Impact: Aggressive behaviour by introduced            were successfully introduced from the former
Red-vented Bulbuls on Tahiti has contributed          island to Medan on the northeast coast of
to the decline of the endemic race of the             Sumatra (Kuroda –), where Dickinson
Tahitian Monarch Pomarea n. nigra, classified          () confirms their survival.
as Critically Endangered by the World Conser-
vation Union (Blanvillain et al. ).

T I                                         Yellow-vented Bulbul
In  or  a pair of Red-vented Bulbuls          Pycnonotus goiavier
(probably, as in Fiji, bengalensis) was released
or escaped from captivity on the island of            Natural Range: The Malay Peninsula and
   Naturalised Birds of the World

  associated islands, Borneo, Indochina,          south. In the Koolau Range the species is
  Thailand and the Philippine Is.                 found from Waialae Iki Ridge to Waimea
Naturalised Range: Asia: Sulawesi.                Valley and Pupukea, as well as on the wind-
                                                  ward side of the Pali as far north as Kahuku
S                                          (Elepaio : ). The birds are common at the
In May , small groups of Yellow-vented        Makiki nursery in Honolulu and in
Bulbuls were observed by Escott & Holmes          Moanahua Valley’. Bush Warblers were heard
() at Ujung Pandang in southern               on Molokai and Lanai in  (Pyle ,
Sulawesi, where they became established. The      Conant ) and on Maui in 
form present in Sulawesi is P. g. analis (the     (Carothers & Hansen ). Since the mid-
Malay Peninsula eastwards to Lombok). Nat-        s the population on Molokai has
ural immigration can probably be discounted       increased dramatically (Scott et al. ).
because of the lengthy sea crossing involved.        Pratt et al. (), who erroneously say
                                                  Japanese Bush Warblers were first introduced
                                                  to Oahu in the s, record the species as
                                                  abundant on Oahu and as having recently
                                                  spread to Molokai, Lanai, Maui and perhaps
        SYLVIIDAE                                 Kauai, a distribution confirmed by Pratt
  (OLD WORLD WARBLERS)                            () and the AOU ().


Japanese Bush Warbler
Cettia diphone
Natural Range: China, Korea, the S Russian
  Far East, Sakhalin, Kuril, Ryukyu,
  Borodino and Bonin Is., and C and S
  Japan. Winters south to S China and SE
  Asian mainland.
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.

H I
Japanese Bush Warblers were first introduced
to control insect pests on Oahu in  (Caum
). Between the following year and 
a further  were liberated, some in the
Nu’u-anu Valley. Although the birds were
apparently doing well in , it was a further
decade before the first nest was found (Berger
). By  Japanese Bush Warblers were
expanding their range on Oahu, and occurred
in moist areas in the Koolau Range and
especially in the upper Pa Lehua sections of
the Waianae Mountains (Berger ).
   Zeillemaker & Scott () recorded C.
diphone as uncommon, in exotic forests and
scrub and mixed indigenous forests. Accord-
ing to Berger (: ), the Japanese Bush
Warbler occurred ‘in the Waianae Range from
Peacock Flats in the north to Pa Lehua in the                Japanese Bush Warbler
                                                    Timaliidae (Babblers and Parrotbills)   

        TIMALIIDAE                              following a major fire in the Chinese quarter
  (BABBLERS AND PARROT-                         of Honolulu in . More of the nominate
                                                subspecies (China, Laos and Vietnam) were
          BILLS)                                brought in from China and released on Maui
                                                in  and on Molokai and Hawaii in
Melodious Laughing Thrush                       , and in  birds from Oahu were
Garrulax canorus                                translocated to Kauai. Caum () found
                                                them to be then well established on Oahu.
Natural Range: China, Laos, Vietnam,               According to Munro (), the Melodious
  Hainan and Taiwan.                            Laughing Thrush soon became widely
Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan. Pacific Ocean:   distributed and abundant, and managed to
  Hawaiian Is.                                  penetrate deeper into the native forests than
                                                any other alien species: it was common on
J                                           Kauai, local on Oahu and Hawaii, and scarce
Eguchi & Amano () list the Melodious        on Molokai and Maui. Richardson & Bowles
Laughing Thrush among those introduced          () found it to be common on Kauai,
species that have established long-term         where it occurred from sea level up to ,m
self-sustaining populations in Japan, where     in montane forest, in moist forested valleys
the OSJ () describes it as a resident       and in barren and arid canyons on the south
breeding species in parts of central            Na Pali coast. It was equally at home in exotic
Honshu (Fukushima, Tokyo, Kanagawa and          and in native woodland with a high annual
Yamanashi) and Kyushu (Fukuoka, Saga and        rainfall in the Alakai Swamp region where, in
Oita).                                          Kokee, it was especially common. Ord ()
                                                recorded it as also abundant on Hawaii, Maui
H I                                and Oahu, from m up to the tree limit.
In the late nineteenth century the Melodious       Scott et al. () found the Melodious
Laughing Thrush was imported as a cage-bird     Laughing Thrush to be well-established in
by Chinese immigrants to Oahu, where            considerable numbers in various parts of
according to Caum () a number escaped       Hawaii from sea level to ,m; to be fairly
                                                common in low- to mid-elevation (up to
                                                ,m) mesic and hydric forests, and in xeric
                                                areas along gulches and near water on east
                                                Maui, but absent from high-altitude wet
                                                forests; on Kauai, the species occurred in low
                                                densities that decreased in the higher and
                                                moister areas of the south Alakai. Scott et al.
                                                () failed to find the species on either
                                                Molokai and Lanai. On all islands where it
                                                occurs, the Melodious Laughing Thrush is
                                                most common below ,m.
                                                   Pratt et al. () and the AOU () list
                                                G. canorus as common on Kauai, Maui and
                                                Hawaii, and uncommon and local to rare on
                                                Oahu and Molokai.

                                                Impact: Stone () lists the Melodious
                                                Laughing Thrush as one of those alien species
                                                implicated in the dispersal of exotic grasses,
                                                herbs and shrubs in the Hawaiian Islands.
         Melodious Laughing Thrish
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Greater Necklaced Laughing                          Collins ) and  (Bremer ) suggest
Thrush                                              that the species may persist in small numbers’.
Garrulax pectoralis
Natural Range: Nepal, Assam, Burma, Thai-
  land, Laos, SE China and Hainan I.                Masked Laughing Thrush
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.       Garrulax perspicillatus
H I                                    Natural Range: C and E China to N and C
In , Greater Necklaced Laughing                   Vietnam.
Thrushes were imported by Dora Isenberg to          Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan.
Kauai (Caum ), and around  others
(probably from Kauai) are believed to have          J
been released on Oahu (Bryan ). By          The Masked Laughing Thrush is one of the
they were apparently sparsely distributed on        introduced species listed by Eguchi & Amano
the former island in the Wailu Homesteads           () as having established long-term and
region (Richardson & Bowles ). Pratt et         self-sustaining populations in Japan. The OSJ
al. () listed G. pectoralis as ‘Uncommon        () lists it as a regular breeding species
and local, apparently nomadic, along stream         in broadleaved and mixed forests and low
valleys in the lowlands [of Kauai]. Most often      altitude bamboo in central Honshu (Tokyo,
seen along Huleia Stream’. Pratt () and         Kanagawa).
the AOU () confirm the species’ survival
on Kauai.

                                                    Red-billed Leiothrix
                                                    Leiothrix lutea
Grey-sided Laughing Thrush
Garrulax caerulatus                                 Natural Range: The Himalayas eastward
                                                      through Assam, Burma and Vietnam to SE
Natural Range: Nepal, Assam, Burma and W              China.
  Yunnan.                                           Naturalised Range: Europe: France; ?Spain;
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.         ?Germany. Asia: Japan. Indian Ocean:
                                                      Mascarene Is. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
H I
Caum () said that in  five unidentified       F
Garrulax sp. were released on Oahu, but it          According to Langley (), between 
was not until  that the species was identi-     and  pairs of the Red-billed Leiothrix are
fied as G. caerulatus (Taylor & Collins ).       established in France, mainly in the Pyrénées-
   Pratt et al. (: ) say of the Grey-sided   Atlantique, with a smaller colony near Paris.
Laughing Thrush that it was ‘Introduced to
Oahu sometime before . Apparently               S
established in N. Koolau Mts. (Poamoho              Langley () says that L. lutea is becoming
Trail) but rarely seen’. The AOU (: ),       established in Spain. It has occurred and bred
having in the  edition expressed reserva-       near Barcelona since  (J. Clavell in Martí
tions about the specific identification by            & del Moral ).
Taylor & Collins, says that the species ‘… was
frequently reported in the northern Koolau          G
Mountains along the Poamoho Trail during            Pannach () and Grimm & Doerr ()
the s and s; well-substantiated             record the occurrence in the wild of L. lutea
reports in the same locality in  (Taylor &      in Grosskantine and in Rheinland-Pfalz
                                                         Timaliidae (Babblers and Parrotbills)   

respectively, but the species’ status today, if it   species nested in close proximity no direct
survives, is unrecorded.                             interaction was observed between them.
                                                     However, there is likely to be some indirect
J                                                competition; a high density of nests could
Since the s, many naturalised populations        attract predators, and the breeding success of
of the Red-billed Leiothrix (probably of the         the Bush Warblers may be low as a result of
nominate subspecies) introduced from China           interference competition with the Leiothrix.
have become established in central and                  Amano & Eguchi (b) also studied the
southwestern Japan (Yamashina Institute for          foraging niches of L. lutea and such sympatric
Ornithology , Tojo , Eguchi &                natives as C. diphone, the Long-tailed Tit
Amano ). The expansion of the species’           Aegithalos caudatus, the Great Tit Parus major,
range and the increase in the population have        Coal Tit P. ater, Varied Tit P. varius and Wil-
been greatest above ,m in Kyushu                 low Tit P. montanus with a similar altitudinal
(Eguchi & Amano ). Between  and              distribution (Eguchi & Masuda ). The
 only a single individual was seen in the        Leiothrix was found to forage in the lower
Massif Tsukuba, where in – it was              vegetational layer with bamboo, intermediate
common and recorded frequently (Tojo                 in height between the foraging levels of
). It is found mainly in Tsuga and Abies         C. diphone and the various Parus spp. Foraging
deciduous broadleaved forests with a dense           height, the extent of foraging on deciduous
understorey of dwarf bamboo, and favours             trees and foraging techniques were quite
low layers of forest vegetation (Eguchi &            distinct between L. lutea and the native
Masuda ), in central Honshu (Ibaraki,            species, and the invasion by the Leiothrix
Tokyo, Yamanashi, Shizuoka, Wakayama,                caused no apparent niche shift. Aerial insects
Osaka and Hyogo) and Kyushu (Fukuoka,                tended to be more abundant about one metre
Kumamoto, Oita and Miyazaki).                        above the bamboo canopy, where they were
                                                     vulnerable to the Leiothrix’s foraging
Impact: Amano & Eguchi (a) studied the           technique of jumping. Parus spp. and C.
nest-site selection and characteristics in           diphone seldom forage by jumping, and thus
Kyushu of the Red-billed Leiothrix and               exploit different food resources to those
the sympatric native Japanese Bush                   used by L. lutea, which may have invaded
Warbler Cettia diphone. Both species nest            a vacant ecological niche – the lower layer of
exclusively in bamboo. L. lutea constructs           deciduous broadleaved forest – in Kyushu.
well-concealed pendulous nests in the
bamboo canopy, whereas C. diphone builds             M I
nests on bamboo stalks in places of high stalk       The Red-billed Leiothrix was first seen in
density in dense vegetation. This segregation        moist lowland forests on the east coast of
of nesting microhabitats enables both species        Réunion (La Plaine des Lianes, Grand Etang,
to breed sympatrically. Even when the two            and at Cilaos, and perhaps also La Plaine des
                                                     Fougères and at La Montagne) in . This
                                                     fairly wide distribution suggests that the
                                                     introduction is not very recent (perhaps in
                                                     the s), or that there were several different
                                                     releases in various localities. There are no
                                                     recent references to this species on Réunion,
                                                     although because it is very secretive it could
                                                     have been overlooked (Le Corre ). See
                                                     also Tassin & Rivière .

                                                     H I
              Red-billed Leiothrix                   Although Caum () claimed that the
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Red-billed Leiothrix was first introduced            ,m. They hypothesised that the long-term
to the Hawaiian Islands (Kauai) by Dora Isen-       survival of lowland populations is made
berg in , Fisher & Baldwin () indicate      problematical by high temperatures. This
that as early as   of the nominate race       could explain the absence or infrequency of
(central and eastern China) were imported as        birds at lower elevations, and may also
cage-birds from southeastern China, followed        account for the near-disappearance of the
by others from the same source in ,         species on Oahu and Kauai.
and , some of which are believed to have
escaped and to have become established in the       Impact: Stone & Loope () say that S.
wild before . (According to Ali & Ripley        Conant (in Mueller-Dombois et al. )
(–) the race introduced to Hawaii was         points out that the Red-billed Leiothrix does
calipyga of the Himalayas, Assam, Manipur,          not seem to compete for food with the
Burma and southeastern Xizang). In –          endemic Hawaiian Thrush Myadestes obscurus
more were imported from the Far East by W.          because the former feeds principally less than
H. McInerny who released them on Oahu,              seven metres from the ground, whereas the
and at the same time others were set free on        latter forages in the forest canopy.
Molokai, Maui, Hawaii and Kauai.                       According to Lewin (), L. lutea is one
   Caum () recorded L. lutea to be present      of the alien species in the Hawaiian Islands
in considerable numbers on Kauai and to be          implicated in the spread of the exotic Banana
apparently breeding on Molokai, Maui and            Poka Passiflora mollissima; it also causes some
Hawaii. Berger () described the species as      local damage to several soft fruit and vegetable
widely distributed on all the main islands, but     crops (Keffer et al. ).
to be less common on Kauai. Zeillemaker &              The Red-billed Leiothrix in the Hawaiian
Scott () said the Red-billed Leiothrix          Islands appears (like several other
occurred in exotic and native forest and            naturalised species) to have acquired some
scrub on Hawaii (where it was widespread            immunogenetic protection or behavioural or
and abundant); on Oahu (numerous in                 physiological non-immunogenetic defences
the Koolau and Waianae Mountains); on               against bird pox and malaria or their vectors,
Maui (common in damp forests on Haleakala           and thus appears to be relatively unaffected by
and in the west); on Molokai (uncommon in           avian diseases; Shehata et al. () found that
mountain valleys); on Lanai (uncommon);             L. lutea had one of the lowest rates (.%) of
and possibly on Kauai.                              malarial infection among alien birds in their
   Scott et al. () found L. lutea to be well    study area on Hawaii. Thus, the reasons for
distributed above ,m on the windward            the large historical population fluctuations in
side of Hawaii; widespread and common in            the archipelago remain unexplained (Ralph et
well-watered areas of eastern Maui, where           al. ).
since  it had greatly increased in range
and numbers on northwest Haleakala; on
Molokai L. lutea occurred mainly above
,m. Pratt et al. (: ) said the species
was ‘Introduced (s) to the Hawaiian                       ZOSTEROPIDAE
Islands. Abundant on most islands by s                     (WHITE-EYES)
but has been declining since. Now rare on
Kauai, Oahu; still common on Molokai,               Japanese White-eye
Maui, Hawaii’. This status is confirmed by the       Zosterops japonicus
AOU ().
   Scott et al. () drew attention to the fact   Natural Range: From S Sakhalin I., S through
that whereas in the Hawaiian Islands the              Japan and many of its satellite islands to
lower elevational limit of L. lutea is around         China, N Vietnam and Hainan I.
,m, in Burma it occurs mainly above             Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
                                                                   Zosteropidae (White-eyes)   

H I                                    Amahikis Hemignathus spp., and Hawaii
According to Keffer et al. (), local avicul-     Creeper Oreomystis mana (Mountainspring &
tural dealers released Japanese White-eyes in       Scott ), and with other introduced species
the Hawaiian Islands in . A year later and      in lowland localities (Moulton & Pimm ),
in subsequent years others (of the nominate         for the blossom nectar of Ohi’a Metrosideros
subspecies from Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku             polymorpha. Z. japonicus has been implicated
and Tsushima) were freed on Oahu where              in the dispersal of the introduced Banana
they became established (Caum ). In         Poka Passiflora mollissima (Lewin ).
at least  were liberated on Hawaii, and oth-        The Japanese White-eye is known to be a
ers were released on Maui, Molokai, Lanai           host of both the endoparasite Plasmodium
and perhaps Kauai, and by at least the late         vaughani, which causes avian malaria, and
s they had colonised all the main islands.      also of bird pox, which is spread by the
   According to Berger (: –) Z.           introduced tropical mosquito Culex pipiens
japonicus was                                       quinquefasciatus, against which native species
                                                    have no resistance. This lack of inbuilt immu-
   now certainly the most abundant land             nity, together with interspecific competition
   bird in the Hawaiian Islands. It occurs on       for food or nesting sites, has contributed to
   all the main islands and is found from sea       the serious decline or even extermination
   level to tree line on Maui and Hawaii. It        of some endemic Hawaiian honeycreepers
   occurs in very dry areas … and very wet          (Drepanididae) and of some other native
   areas ( or more inches [cm] of rain        species in Volcanoes National Park. Neverthe-
   a year).                                         less, in their study area in the Lyon Arbore-
                                                    tum in Honolulu on Hawaii, Shehata et al.
   Scott et al. () found Z. japonicus from      () found only a .% malarial infection
sea level to ,m on Hawaii and up to             prevalence among Japanese White-eyes.
,m on Maui. Densities of over  birds            Limited local damage to some soft fruit
per sq km occurred below ,m on Hawaii           crops by Z. japonicus has been recorded. How-
and Kauai, and at all elevations on Molokai         ever, the species also kills injurious insects.
and Lanai; densities were lowest on Maui.
Distributional patterns on Hawaii, Maui,
Molokai and Kauai suggest the invasion of
montane forests by lowland populations.             Silver-eye
   Pratt et al. () confirm the species’ status   Zosterops lateralis
as probably the most abundant bird in the
archipelago, and add that it has even been          Natural Range: Australia, from the Cape York
reported far out to sea and on Johnston Atoll,        Peninsula S and W to S Western Australia.
southwest of Hawaii. The AOU (: )              Also Tasmania and numerous islands in the
says that Z. japonicus is ‘now widespread and         W Pacific east of Australia as far as the Fiji
common on the main islands from Kauai                 Is. (A natural colonist of New Zealand in
eastwards’.                                           , and of some of its off-lying Islands).
                                                    Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Society Is;
Impact: Stone & Loope (; quoting S.               Tubuai Is.
Conant in Mueller-Dombois et al. ) said
that the introduced Japanese White-eye              S I
normally feeds in the lower canopy where it         Silver-eyes of the nominate subspecies
does not compete with the endemic Hawaiian          (Tasmania, Flinders and Norfolk Is. and New
Thrush Myadestes obscurus which uses the full       Zealand) were first introduced (from New
canopy range; the former may, however, be a         Zealand) to the Society Islands in about 
significant competitor with native birds, such       by E. Guild (), who released some on
as the Elepaio Chasiempis sandwichensis,            Tahiti. They are now widely distributed and
   Naturalised Birds of the World

abundant there and have spread to other           (Horsburgh Island), where until at least the
islands in the archipelago as follows:            late s it was restricted but abundant (Gib-
Moorea (; very common); Huahine (;        son-Hill a). It is believed, like the Island
uncertain); Raiatea (; widespread); Tahaa     Thrush Turdus poliocephalus, to have since
(; widely distributed); Bora Bora (;      spread to some other islands in the group. In
uncommon); Maupiti (; only at Paumea).         it remained abundant on Pulo Luar only,
They may also have colonised Mehetia              in remnants of the original forest vegetation
and Tupai. In  they were unsuccessfully       along the lagoon shore (Stokes et al. )
released on Tetiaroa (Holyoak & Thibault
). Pratt et al. (), who erroneously say
the introduction took place in , record
the species’ presence on Tahiti, Moorea,
Raiatea and Bora Bora.                             MIMIDAE (MOCKINGBIRDS
                                                      AND THRASHERS)
T I
According to Pratt et al. (), Silver-eyes     Northern Mockingbird
were introduced to the Tubuai archipelago         Mimus polyglottos
more recently than to the Society Islands, and
are now common to abundant on Raivavae,           Natural Range: S Canada and N USA to
Tubuai and Rurutu.                                  Mexico. Also Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto
                                                    Rico and Jamaica.
                                                  Naturalised Range: North America: West
                                                    Indies. Atlantic Ocean: ?Bermuda. Pacific
Christmas Island White-eye                          Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
Zosterops natalis
                                                  W I
Natural Range: Christmas I. (Indian Ocean).       ‘A common resident throughout the
Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Cocos            Bahamas. …. Introduced to New Providence
  (Keeling) Is.                                   at about the turn of the th century, it now
                                                  outnumbers the native Bahama Mockingbird
C (K) I                           [M. gundlachii]. An introduced population
The Christmas Island White-eye was intro-         on Barbados is now extirpated’ (Raffaele et al.
duced between  and  to Pulo Luar          : –).

                                                  B
                                                  Northern Mockingbirds introduced to
                                                  Bermuda in  died out shortly after .
                                                  Nevertheless, the AOU (: ) claims the
                                                  species is ‘introduced and established … in
                                                  Bermuda’, where it now occurs only as a rare
                                                  and occasional vagrant (Wingate , Raine
                                                  ).

                                                  H I
                                                  According to Caum (), Northern Mock-
                                                  ingbirds were released in Honolulu on Oahu
                                                  in , ‘ostensibly as game birds [sic]’. Berger
                                                  () said that more were freed on Oahu in
                                                  –, and on Maui in the latter year. The
            Northern Mockingbird                  birds first reached Hawaii through natural
                                                                       Sturnidae (Starlings)   

dispersal in , and by the late s they       islands in the West Indies and off the coast
were established on Maui (where they had            of S America.
first appeared in ), and occurred locally on   Naturalised Range: South America: Panama.
Oahu, Molokai (since ), and Lanai, and
occasionally on Hawaii (Munro ).              P
   In , Hawaii was recolonised, this time     Ridgeley () indicates they were first
from Maui, and shortly afterwards Mocking-        reported in Panama in , where de
birds appear to have spread to all the larger     Schauensee () said that they were intro-
islands and some of the smaller ones to the       duced. Tropical Mockingbirds are now said to
northwest such as Nohoa, Tern in the French       be common throughout the former Canal
Frigate Shoals (c. ) and Necker (c. )     Zone, and have spread east to Tocumen and
(Berger ).                                    Portobelo and west as far as La Chorrera and
   Zeillemaker & Scott () found M.            Boca del Rio in Colón and Panamá Provinces.
polyglottos to be common on Maui, uncom-
mon on Kauai (where it may have arrived as
early as ), Oahu, Molokai, Lanai and
Hawaii, and as occurring only as a vagrant in
the northwestern islands.                            STURNIDAE (STARLINGS)
   Pratt et al. (: ), who erroneously
date the first introduction to , recorded      Hill Myna
Mockingbirds as ‘… on the six largest             Gracula religiosa
[islands]. Fairly common and widespread on
Kauai, uncommon and local elsewhere.              Natural Range: India, Sri Lanka, Burma,
Vagrant to … Midway, French Frigate Shoals,         Thailand, Indochina to S Yunnan and
Necker, Nihoa’. This distribution is con-           Hainan. Also the Andaman and Nicobar Is,
firmed by Pratt () and the AOU ().           the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo,
   Scott et al. () (who incorrectly say M.      Java, islands off W Sumatra, Palawan, and
polyglottos was first released on Oahu in        from Sumbawa to Alor (Lesser Sunda Is.).
and was first reported on Hawaii in ),         Naturalised Range: North America: USA;
found that the species occurred in a wide           West Indies. Indian Ocean: ?Christmas Is.
spectrum of vegetation and elevations, favour-      Pacific Ocean: ?Hawaiian Is.
ing xeric habitats on Hawaii and Maui. Pratt
() said the birds had yet to penetrate into   U S
native forests.                                   In , escaped Hill Mynas, introduced as
                                                  cage-birds because of their skill at mimicry,
Impact: Northern Mockingbirds are among           became established in a narrow coastal strip of
those introduced species accused of helping       southeastern Florida from Homestead to at
the Banana Poka Passiflora mollissima to           least as far north as Boynton Beach – a
spread in the Hawaiian Islands (Warshauer et      distance of around km – and breeding was
al. ).                                        confirmed in numerous places in Palm Beach,
                                                  Broward and Dade Counties (Owre ,
                                                  Blake ).
                                                     Since then the species’ status in Florida has
Tropical Mockingbird                              been debatable. O. T. Owre (pers. comm.
Mimus gilvus                                      , ) wrote that since his  paper
                                                  ‘Some species are noticeably more abundant,
Natural Range: From S Mexico to Guatemala,        e.g. the Hill Myna [which] remains a
  Honduras and El Salvador, and from              common breeding bird throughout urban
  Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, French             areas of southeastern Florida’, where Troops &
  Guiana and Surinam to Brazil. Also some         Dilley (: ) said that ‘Hill Mynas nest
   Naturalised Birds of the World

                                                 Island in about , from where they
                                                 disappeared within a decade (Chasen ).
                                                 Nevertheless, the AOU () claims they are
                                                 still established on the island.

                                                 H I
                                                 In –, eight Hill Mynas escaped from a
                                                 pet shop in Honolulu on Oahu and settled in
                                                 the Upper Manoa Valley, from where they
                                                 later spread to Tantalus, Makiki Valley and
                                                 Kahana Valley, on the northwest coast, where
                                                 they became established and bred. Pratt et al.
                                                 (), who said that a small colony survived
                                                 in the Lyon Arboretum in Honolulu, and the
                                                 AOU (), do not consider the species to be
                                                 established.



                                                 Crested Myna
                                                 Acridotheres cristatellus
                                                 Natural Range: S and E China, Indochina,
                                                   Hainan and Taiwan.
                  Hill Myna                      Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Austria. Asia:
                                                   Japan; ?Malaysia; Philippine Is; UAE.
throughout the suburban area. Found …              North America: Canada; USA.
from Homestead to Palm Beach County.
Quite numerous near Matheson Hammock,            A
Fairchild Gardens, University of Miami, and      In  a small colony of Crested Mynas
South Bayshore Drive’. Nevertheless, James       of uncertain origin was found living in
() included the Hill Myna in his list of     gardens, parks, orchards and pastures on the
introduced species that did not have well-       Graz-Liebenau housing estate in the outer
established breeding populations in Florida, a   suburbs of Graz in southeastern Austria. By
view with which the AOU () concurred.         the population had risen to , including
Sibley () said that the small numbers in     one to three successful breeding pairs (Kresse
Florida (and California) may be augmented        & Kepka , Sackl ).
by frequent escapes.
                                                 J
W I                                      Since at least  Crested Mynas have been
Introduced to Puerto Rico probably in the        recorded on Honshu (Tokyo, Kanagawa-ken
late s, Hill Mynas of the nominate form      and Hyogo-ken), Kyushu (Kagoshima-ken
are uncommon and very local residents on the     and Izumi), and the Senkaku Islands
north and east coasts (Raffaele et al. ),    (Iriomote-jima and Yonaguni-jima). A small
from where they are casual vagrants to the       breeding colony occurs around Tokyo, and
islands of Mona and Vieques (AOU ).          birds are regularly seen in the Oi-koen–
                                                 Haneda area. The population, which is largely
C I                                 descended from released or escaped pets, is
Hill Mynas of the nominate Malaysian             augmented by natural vagrants from Taiwan
subspecies were introduced to Christmas          (Brazil , ). The OSJ () lists the
                                                                       Sturnidae (Starlings)   

nominate subspecies from China as a               A. cristatellus had become the dominant
breeding resident in cultivated fields and         terrestrial species in the city of Vancouver, and
wooded residential areas in central Honshu        had expanded its range over an area of some
(Tokyo, Kanagawa, Osaka, Hyogo).                  , sq km including North Vancouver,
                                                  across the Burrard Inlet, on Sea and Lulu
M                                          Islands in the Fraser River delta, in New
Since at least  escaped or released Crested   Westminster and in Coquitlam in the east and
Mynas (A. c. brevipennis from Hainan and          Ladner in the south.
Indochina) have been common and breeding             By , when the Vancouver population
residents in and around Georgetown on             had risen to between , and ,, the
Penang Island (Gibson-Hill b). Since          direction of dispersal was mainly to the
 a few have been observed along the           southeast. Two years later the city population
Kelang River south of Kuala Lumpur where,         had increased dramatically to around ,,
however, D. R. Wells (pers. comm. ) was       and wanderers had dispersed km south to
uncertain of the birds’ status.                   Bellingham in Washington, where they later
                                                  became established at Lake Washington,
P I                                at Juanita Bay, and near Seattle (Phillips
Between  and  Crested Mynas of the        ). By  the birds had spread km
Chinese nominate subspecies were imported         inland from Vancouver as far as Chilliwack.
to the Philippines to control locusts on the         By the mid-s the population had
island of Luzon. By – the birds had still   considerably declined, and Crested Mynas
not spread far outside the capital, Manila        were mainly restricted to Vancouver, New
(Whitehead ), and by  had only            Westminster and to Lulu Island, with smaller
managed to colonise a few townships away          numbers on Sea Island, Victoria, Nanaimo,
from Manila (Wood ). Du Pont ()           Union Bay, Alert Bay and Courtenay
said the species had spread south to Negros.      on Vancouver Island. By  the total
The AOU () confirms the Crested Myna’s         population was estimated at between ,
survival on Luzon.                                and ,, representing a sharp decrease since
                                                  the mid-s. By the mid-s the birds
U A E                              were largely confined to Greater Vancouver
Although Richardson () does not include       (MacKay & Hughes ), which remains
this species in his list of introduced birds in   their stronghold today (AOU ), where
the United Arab Emirates, Sackl () says       Sibley () says the small population
that a breeding population probably exists        continues to decline. The birds in British
there.                                            Columbia are of the nominate subspecies
                                                  from China.
C; U S
‘Little appears to be known’, wrote Phillips      Impact: Although Phillips () recorded
(: ), ‘as to how the [Crested Myna]         some damage by Crested Mynas to soft fruits
arrived in Vancouver [British Columbia]; the      such as cherries, blackberries and apples, in
introduction dates from about  and may        the early years after their establishment in
or may not have been accidental. It is            Vancouver, serious depredations were not
supposed that birds escaped from some ship        subsequently reported. The species’ failure to
touching at this port …‘. The species’            become a significant pest has been attributed
presence was first confirmed in Vancouver in        to competition for nesting sites with the
 by Brooks & Swarth (). Soon after        introduced European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
 a small number crossed the Strait of         and a less than optimum climate and habitat
Georgia to Vancouver Island, while occasional     that restricts Mynas to a single brood annually
individuals were recorded in Washington           (Laycock ).
and Oregon in the United States. By ,
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Jungle Myna                                         is not mentioned by Raffaele et al. () so it
Acridotheres fuscus                                 has presumably died out.

Natural Range: Pakistan, India, Assam, Burma        A I
  and the Malay Peninsula.                          Beavan () records that Jungle Mynas (of
                                                    the nominate subspecies from Pakistan to
                                                    Burma) were imported from the latter country
White-vented Myna                                   to Port Blair on South Andaman by Colonel
Acridotheres javanicus                              R. C. Tytler soon after the establishment of a
                                                    penal settlement there in . From there
Natural Range: Java.                                they spread to Ross Island. Their present
Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan; Malay Penin-        status in the Andamans is unknown.
  sula; Singapore; ?Sumatra;. North America:
  ?West Indies. Indian Ocean: ?Andaman Is.          F I
  Pacific Ocean: Fiji Is; Western Samoa.             According to Pernetta & Watling (),
                                                    Jungle Mynas were introduced to Viti Levu in
Early records of introductions of these two         Fiji from India (Lyon-Field () said possi-
species are very confused; for a full account see   bly from Burma) in about  to control
Lever : –.                                Orthoptera (crickets, grasshoppers and
                                                    locusts) in sugar-cane plantations. Numerous,
J                                               but only partially successful, attempts were
The OSJ (: ) lists ‘Acridotheres fuscus      made to transfer large numbers from Viti Levu
javanicus … resident on Java’ as a breeding         to Vanua Levu and other neighbouring islands
species in cultivated fields and parks in            (Lyon-Field ). Although Blackburn ()
central Honshu. Presumably the species is the       said that Jungle Mynas were common only on
White-vented Mynah.                                 Viti Levu and Nukulau, Pernetta & Watling
                                                    () found them to be abundant in suitable
S; M P                          habitats on all the main islands except Taveuni.
White-vented Mynas have occurred in Singa-          Watling (: ) said that the Jungle Myna
pore since before  (Chasen ). They          in Fiji ‘is found only on Viti Levu and its
are now widespread and very common there            offshore islands and on Vanua Levu –
and have spread south to Tandjungpinang Is-         although on the latter island it is very rare. …
land and in  north to Johor Baharu on the       Jungle Mynahs were introduced to Viti Levu
mainland. D. R. Wells (pers. comm. ) says       in about , but not until  did they
that since then the population has rapidly in-      become established on Vanua Levu, where
creased north of the causeway and has spread        they have not flourished. It was purportedly
km up the coast from Johor Baharu.               introduced to control army-worms [noctuid
                                                    larvae], which can be a pest to many crops’.
S                                             Pratt et al. () say the species remains
Ripley () says that ‘Orange-billed Jungle       common in Fiji, where the birds favour
Mynas (A. javanicus)’ have been introduced to       man-modified habitats such as gardens, parks
Sumatra; the species present is in fact the         and pastures in urban and suburban districts,
White-vented Myna, and it is probably a             and lightly wooded areas, though they also
natural immigrant from Java.                        frequently venture into denser forests.

W I                                         Impact: Watling () recorded attacks by
According to the AOU (), White-vented           Jungle Mynas on the plumules (emergent
Mynahs have been introduced to the Bayamón          shoots) of commercially valuable ground-nut
region of Puerto Rico, where their present          (Peanut Arachis hypogaea) crops. Competition
status is uncertain (Raffaele ). The species     from A. fuscus in Fiji has caused a change in
                                                                      Sturnidae (Starlings)   

habitat of the endemic race of the Polynesian     occurred. In the mid-s a small population
Starling Aplonis tabuensis vitiensis, which now   became established on St John’s Island, km
occurs only in forested localities (Pernetta &    south of Singapore, where breeding has been
Watling ).                                    assumed. These birds are believed to have been
                                                  released by smugglers in an attempt to evade
W S                                     the authorities (C. J. Hails pers. comm. ).
Jungle Mynas were first recorded in Western        According to Seng () the species has been
Samoa on ’Upolu in  (Green ),             recorded from Queenstown, St John’s and
although both he and Dhondt (b), who          Kusu Islands, but is now markedly declining.
saw them only around Apia where he reported
them to be breeding, apparently misidentified
them as Common Mynas A. tristis (Gill et al.
). Watling (a) recorded a few small       Pale-bellied Myna
flocks of A. fuscus in and near Apia, as did       Acridotheres cinereus
Child (). Reed () found considerable
numbers of Jungle Mynas on ’Upolu, where          Natural Range: Endemic to S Sulawesi.
they were no longer confined to Apia, and in       Naturalised Range: Asia: Sarawak.
 Muse & Muse () observed hundreds
of birds roosting in Apia and said they were      S
spreading over much of northern ’Upolu.           Between  and  Pale-bellied Mynas
Pratt et al. () stated that Jungle Mynas      appeared at Kuching in southwestern Sara-
were increasing around Apia. Gill et al. ()   wak, west of Borneo, where the population is
found them over much of ’Upolu with a few         rapidly increasing; the birds probably arrived
also in southeastern Savai’i, where they were     in Kuching by ship (Gregory-Smith ).
first recorded by Beichle (). How, why,
and from where A. fuscus was introduced to
Western Samoa is apparently unrecorded (Gill
).                                            Bank Myna
                                                  Acridotheres gingianus
Recent Expansion: Rinke () said that Jun-
gle Mynas had recently colonised Niuafo’ou        Natural Range: Pakistan, India, Nepal and
in the Tonga archipelago, apparently without        Bangladesh.
human assistance and probably from Fiji, and      Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan; ?Kuwait;
expressed concern that they might compete           ?Oman; ?Saudi Arabia; ?UAE.
for nest-holes with the Blue-crowned Lorikeet
Vini australis. Pratt et al. () make no       J
mention of the species in Tonga.                  The OSJ () lists the Bank Myna as
                                                  a breeding resident in cultivated fields and
                                                  residential areas around Tokyo on Honshu.

Black-winged Myna                                 United Arab Emirates; Kuwait;
Acridotheres melanopterus                         Saudi Arabia; Oman
                                                  Richardson () records the establishment
Natural Range: Java, Bali, and ?Lombok            of small localised populations of Bank Mynas
Naturalised Range: Asia: ?Singapore.              in the UAE; about  were reported in Abu
                                                  Dhabi in – with smaller numbers in
A: S                                   Dubai in –; in  the species was
Since about  escaped Black-winged             noted at al Ain, and in  several flocks
Mynas have from time to time been observed        of  or more were counted at Digdaga,
in Singapore, where successful breeding has       near Ras al Khaimah, providing evidence of
   Naturalised Birds of the World

further extensions of range (Richardson ).    origin for these birds, Mauersberger &
Jennings () confirms continued breeding        Möckel () argue that they are more likely
in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and also lists            to be derived from escaped cage-birds.
breeding in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and at
Muscat in Oman.                                   S
                                                  One pair was established on Mallorca in the
                                                  Balearic Islands between at least  and
                                                  , and reared four young successfully in
Common Myna                                        (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral ).
Acridotheres tristis
                                                  B
Natural Range: From S C Kazakhstan,               First recorded in , Common Mynas are
  Turkmenistan and E Iran through main-           now well-established in urban areas of
  land S Asia to W Malaya and Indochina.          Bahrain, where breeding has also occurred at
  Also Sri Lanka.                                 Badan Farm in  and at Meerouge Farm in
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Italy; Russia;        , and in spring presumed breeding pairs
  ?Spain. Asia: Bahrain; Brunei; China (Hong      are regularly observed at Busaytin and Arad
  Kong); Japan; Kuwait; Oman; Sarawak;            on Muharraq Island, at Manama, around
  Saudi Arabia; Sumatra; UAE. Africa:             Bahrain Fort, and at Janabiyah and Hamalah.
  Botswana; South Africa. North America:          In winter, flocks assemble mainly at Badan
  USA. Australasia: Australia; New Zealand.       Farm but also at Busaytin, where birds that
  Atlantic Ocean: Ascension I.; Canary Is; St     have been feeding in fields around Dair and
  Helena I.; Indian Ocean: Agaléga Is; An-        Ghalali villages, Muharraq, congregate in
  daman Is; Comoros Is; Chagos Archipel-          roosts (Hirschfeld & King ).
  ago; Lakshadweep Is; Madagascar; Maldive
  Is; Mascarene Is; ?Nicobar Is; Seychelles Is.   B; S; S
  Pacific Ocean: Fiji Is; French Polynesia         Hawkins & Safford (in prep.) quote Feare &
  (Cook, Tubai, Society, Tuamotu, Marque-         Craig () as saying that Common Mynas
  sas Is.); Hawaiian Is;? ?New Caledonia;?        have been introduced to Brunei and Sumatra,
  Solomon Is; ?Vanuatu; Western Samoa Is.         while Gregory-Smith () says that between
                                                   and  they arrived in Sarawak.
All naturalised populations of the Common
Myna are believed to be of the nominate           C (H K)
subspecies A. t. tristis, which includes          Common Mynas were first reported in Hong
A. t. tristoides (Dickinson ). It occurs      Kong in , when a small breeding popula-
throughout the range apart from Sri Lanka.        tion, believed to be derived from escaped
                                                  cage-birds, became established on the Mong
I                                             Tseng Peninsula (Webster ).
Biondi et al. () and Baccetti et al. ()
indicate that the Common Myna has bred            J
successfully at Castelfusano in coastal           Eguchi & Amano () list A. tristis among
Romano, where its present state is uncertain.     those alien species that have established
                                                  long-term self-sustaining populations in
R                                            Japan, where the OSJ () describes the
A self-sustaining population of Com-              nominate subspecies as a breeding resident in
mon Mynas is established around Sochi and         cultivated fields and residential areas in
Gagra on the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus      central Honshu (Chiba, Kanagawa).
in southern Russia (Cramp et al. –;
Gillings ). Although D. R. Wells (pers.       K; O
comm. to Gillings ) suggested a natural       Common Mynas are listed as also breeding in
                                                                       Sturnidae (Starlings)   

Kuwait and at Muscat in Oman by Jennings          B
(), who says they are one of the most         Common Mynas were first introduced in
widespread and successful exotics in Arabia.      Botswana in the grounds of the Grand Palm
                                                  Hotel in the capital, Gabaronne, in .
S A                                      Since the initial sightings there have been
Felemban () said that in the last decade      many more in the same area, from where the
the resident population of Common Mynas           birds seem to be spreading and are rapidly
had increased steadily around Jeddah, where       increasing in numbers (Tyler ).
six pairs were apparently well established
on the campus of the King Abdul-Aziz              Impact: Tyler () expressed concern that
University.                                       Common Mynas will have a negative impact
                                                  on such native hole-nesting species as barbets
U A E                              (Ramphastidae: Lybiinae).
First recorded in  in Dubai and Abu
Dhabi, where captive birds were deliberately      S A
released (F. E. Warr pers. comm. to Richard-      Common Mynas imported from Mauritius,
son ), Common Mynas now flourish in            to which they are believed to have been intro-
and around urban areas and are spreading          duced in  to control injurious insects,
annually to fresh localities (Richardson ).   were first introduced to South Africa, at Dur-
According to Gallagher & Woodcock (),         ban, by Leon St Guillaume in . A second
the species was said to be then established at    introduction, probably from India, occurred
Al Ain. Up to , birds assemble at dusk        around  (Kent ) or in  (Van
to roost at sites in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.         Nierop ). By the s they had colonised
Common Mynas are said to be benefiting             most of KwaZulu-Natal (Craig ) and had
from the increase in grassland and agricultural   spread to Johannesburg, Bramley (around
plots (Richardson ).                          ), Germiston, Pretoria and the Witwater-
                                                  srand in the Transval; to the Orange Free State
Impact: According to Richardson (), A.        (Calder ); and to Cape Province, where
tristis may be displacing native Laughing         they first appeared at Kimberley in . The
Doves Streptopelia senegalensis in some urban     species is now naturalised throughout Natal
localities.                                       and the Witwatersrand and in parts of the
                                                  Transvaal Highveld, and has spread down the
                                                  coast through Cape Province (Maclean ,
                                                  Richardson et al. ).
                                                     If Brooke et al. () are correct in sug-
                                                  gesting that Mynas may not be pre-adapted to
                                                  cooler regions, they may well have reached
                                                  their southern distributional limits in the
                                                  South African interior; any increase in tem-
                                                  perature, however, could alter the southern
                                                  limits of the species’ distribution southwards
                                                  and into the arid and semi-arid South African
                                                  interior (Richardson et al. ). Warmer
                                                  temperatures and mild winters have allowed
                                                  Mynas to spread along the coast from Durban
                                                  to Port Elizabeth and Cape Town (Craig
                                                  ), though Richardson et al. ()
                                                  believed that breeding populations were not
                                                  yet established. The species’ apparent inability
               Common Myna                        to colonise parts of KwaZulu-Natal and the
   Naturalised Birds of the World

moist savanna of the north (Craig ) could      A
be due to unsuitable patterns of human             Between  and  over  Common
land-use (Richardson et al. ). Since           Mynas were released at various places in
Mynas occur principally in areas with an           Victoria (Ryan ). In New South Wales,
average annual rainfall of over mm they         Mynas are believed to have been introduced
may be restricted to wetter localities (Richard-   to Sydney at around the same time as
son et al. ). Although largely commensals      in Victoria. In or about  Mynas from
of man and frequently nesting on buildings         Melbourne, Victoria, were taken to northern
and other man-made structures, Mynas are           Queensland to control locusts and beetles
adaptable in the choice of nest-sites and also     (Lepidoderma (Dermolepida) albohirtum and
breed in tree-holes (Richardson et al. ).      Lepidiota frenchi) in sugar-cane plantations.
                                                   They were released at Townsville and on the
Impact: ‘The ecological effect of mynahs is         Herbert and Johnstone Rivers, from where
mainly to chase other bird species away. They      they soon succeeded in colonising other local
are very aggressive when breeding and will not     townships but failed to control the insects,
tolerate smaller birds in their territory, apart   thus leading to the introduction in  of the
from being omnivorous and usurping the             Cane Toad Bufo marinus (Lever ). In 
niches of others’ (J. Vincent pers. comm. ).   more were freed at Cairns and Toowoomba in
   In some localities Common Mynas have            the Darling Downs, and around  the
been accused of causing damage to soft-fruit       Hon A. J. Thynne released others around
crops. In warm weather their nests can             Biddeston (Tarr ).
become infested with mallophagan bird lice            Common Mynas were liberated, appar-
(Kent ) and Sarcoptes itchmites that can       ently without success, near Hobart, Tasmania,
cause severe dermatitis in humans (Liversidge      in the early s, but after  they are be-
).                                             lieved to have arrived naturally from Victoria.
                                                   Mynas were not recorded in South Australia,
U S                                      around Adelaide, until  (Condon ).
The Common Myna was first recorded in                  In New South Wales, Common Mynas had
Miami, Florida, in , and by the middle of      reached Ryde by about  and were
the decade it was said by Troops & Dilley          common in the suburbs of Sydney by ,
() to be rapidly increasing in numbers         but did not start to spread outside the city
and to have spread from downtown Miami to          until the late s or early s. A decade
Palm Beach, the Everglades and the Gulf            later they were established and common south
Coast. By the late s breeding had been re-     of Sydney Harbour, and were recorded north
ported in Cocoa Beach and Broward County           of the Parramatta (Tarr ). They were
(Stevenson & Anderson ). It has been           observed in the Thirroul area in , were
increasing in numbers around shopping cen-         breeding at Woolongong in the following
tres and malls in southern Florida since the       year, and by  were well established at Lane
early s (Robertson & Woolfenden ),         Cove and North Ryde. By the middle of
and Stevenson & Anderson recorded breeding         the following decade Mynas were firmly
in five counties. James () considered it        entrenched along the km of coast between
was soon likely to be well-established in          Sydney and Woolongong, and had been seen
Florida. Stevenson & Anderson (), the          inland at Marulan and Marrangaroo and
AOU () and Sibley () say the popu-         north at Tweed Heads. Hone () reported
lation is still increasing and expanding.          Mynas to be widely distributed in urban
                                                   habitats in eastern New South Wales, with
Impact: According to Troops & Dilley (),       separate populations based on Sydney, Can-
Common Mynas in southern Florida are               berra (where some had been introduced in the
known to compete successfully for nest-sites       late s), Newcastle and in the northeast.
with native Purple Martins Progne subis subis.        In the past century, Sydney and its human
                                                                       Sturnidae (Starlings)   

population have expanded greatly, thus            and crevices in buildings can make them a
providing the commensal Myna with a               nuisance locally.
corresponding increase in suitable habitat. An       Because of the disturbed habitat they
important factor in the species’ dispersal has    frequent, Mynas in Australia do not often
been the growth in road and rail transport        come into conflict with native species which
that has provided ‘corridors’ to new localities   tend to prefer undisturbed habitats, but
(Hone ).                                      compete for food and nesting-sites with
   In Victoria, Mynas had colonised Mel-          introduced European Starlings Sturnus
bourne and some of the larger nearby towns        vulgaris, House Sparrows Passer domesticus
by around , but away from these localities    and Feral Pigeons Columba livia, which
spread only slowly. In Queensland, the birds      similarly favour urban habitats as commensals
were recorded in the Atherton shire in ,      of man and may have contributed to the
were established and common in sugar-cane         Myna’s relatively slow rate of dispersal. Where
plantations and at Cairns by the mid-s        Mynas do live alongside native species (on the
(when some were seen for the first time in the     border between urban and rural areas) such
southeast) and in Townsville by the early s   as rosellas Platycercus spp., lorikeets
(Lavery & Hopkins ).                          (Loriinae) and Laughing Kookaburras Dacelo
   Frith () described Mynas as firmly          novaeguineae (which are not only larger than
established in urban areas of southeastern        Mynas but also equally aggressive), the Mynas
Victoria, in Sydney, New South Wales and in       kill the natives’ nestlings and evict the adults
northern Queensland from Cairns to Towns-         from their nests (Phillips ).
ville. By the following decade, Common
Mynas were well-established in coastal north-     N Z
ern Queensland from the Mossman–Atherton          Between  and  well over  Common
tablelands south to MacKay, and in the south-     Mynas were released in Canterbury and
east from the Darling Downs to Brisbane; in       Otago on South Island and in Wellington and
coastal northeastern New South Wales, in the      Hawke’s Bay on North Island, but only those
Newcastle/Sydney/Illawarra area inland to at      on the latter met with lasting success. By 
least the Blue Mountains Plateau; and since       they were said to be abundant around Napier
the late s in the Australian Capital          in Hawke’s Bay, when they began also to
Territory, where  were released in the Can-    increase on Tutira. In  they were reported
berra suburb of Forrest in – (Phillips      to be fairly plentiful in Tuparoa. Although
). Mynas also became well-established in      not common around Wellington they
Victoria, where they dispersed from Mel-          had spread up the coast to Wanganui and
bourne eastwards to Orbost, west to Geelong       New Plymouth, throughout Taranaki and
and Ballarat, through central Victoria, and to    eastwards to Wairarapa (Thomson ).
the Murray Valley between Cobden and Swan            Probably in part due to competition with
Hill (Pizzey , Blakers et al. ). In the   the also introduced European Starling Sturnus
early s, Mynas colonised the large coun-      vulgaris, Common Mynas seem initially to
try town of Blairnsdale in East Gippsland,        have spread only slowly in New Zealand. By
Victoria (Phillips ). In Tasmania, Mynas      the s they occurred in two discrete
were recorded near Launceston in , and a      sub-populations – one in the east from
small colony may persist in South Australia in    Waipukurau to East Cape and the other in the
northern Adelaide. The map in Barrett et al.      west from Wanganui to the Waikato. From
() shows little overall change in the         about  they spread more rapidly and
species’ range, but an absence from Tasmania.     colonised the Volcanic Plateau and Auckland
                                                  by about , when they were still confined
Impact: In Queensland, damage by Mynas to         to only five towns in the Wairarapa; they were
some soft-fruit crops such as figs has been        abundant in Hawke’s Bay, and uncommon in
reported, and their habit of nesting in holes     the Manawatu south of Wanganui. Common
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Mynas reached Tauranga and the Rotorua             Impact: On Ascension Island Common
around , the Bay of Islands about          Mynas prey on the eggs and nestlings of Sooty
and Kaitaia in  (Heather & Robertson           Terns Sterna fuscata (Stonehouse ).
). Wodzicki () described them as
widespread and abundant in the northern half       C I
of North Island to Doubtless Bay. Kinsky           In spite of attempts at eradication, Common
() found Mynas to be well-established          Myna have bred successfully on Tenerife since
north of about oS. South of Wanganui and          (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral ).
Waipukurau Mynas were, and still are, local
and rare, and in South Island they appeared        S H I
only as occasional vagrants. Falla et al. ()   Common Mynas are believed to have been
said that Mynas were established over much         first imported to St Helena in  to control
of North Island, especially in the north, and      cattle ticks (Gosse ). Brooke et al. ()
were increasing on Volcanic Plateau. Heather       and Lockwood et al. () incorrectly say the
& Robertson () recorded Mynas as locally       first introduction took place in , and that
abundant in farmland, orchards and suburban        no introductions after  were successful.
gardens in northern North Island, but said         Although the descendants of these birds
that the species’ southerly limit is shifting      survived until at least the s (Baker ),
slowly northwards; they also reported              the present population seems to be descended
that Mynas had succeeded in colonising             from only five birds released at the Briars by
some offshore islands such as Poor Knights,         Phoebe M. Moss in  (Gosse ). The
Waiheke, Kawau and Great Barrier. They             species quickly became established and, with a
seldom venture far into forests, but can be        population of several thousand, is now the
common on the forest ecotone.                      most abundant and widely distributed land
                                                   bird on St Helena (Rowlands et al. ). It
Impact: Common Mynas in New Zealand                has also occurred on some offlying islands. See
prey on the eggs and nestlings of introduced       also McCulloch .
Feral Pigeons Columba livia, native Silver
Gulls Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus and         Impact: Common Mynas compete for food
Kelp Gulls Larus d. dominicanus, and also          with, and also prey on, the eggs and young of
on those of small native and introduced            the endemic St Helena Plover Charadrius
passerines, with some of which (e.g. House         sanctaehelenae (Rowlands et al. ),
Sparrows Passer domesticus, European Star-         (classified as Endangered by the World
lings Sturnus vulgaris and Blackbirds Turdus       Conservation Union) and other small birds,
merula) they also compete for food and             and are implicated in the spread of such alien
nesting-sites (Oliver , Wodzicki ).        vegetation as Lantana camara and Juniperus
Mynas have been accused of damaging fruit          bermudiana (Cronk ). They also cause a
crops such as apricots, apples, pears, strawber-   considerable amount of damage in orchards
ries and gooseberries. In compensation, they       (Haydock ). See also Lockwood et al.
destroy numerous injurious pests, including        ().
sheep and cattle ticks.
                                                   A I
A I                                   Sometime before  – possibly by Auguste
Common Mynas were imported to control              Le Duc between  and  – Common
insects on Ascension in about , where          Mynas from Mauritius were imported to
Stonehouse () records the presence of a        control insects and scorpions in the Agalégas
population in the late s of some            (Guého & Staub ). Although the
individuals. Rowlands et al. () say the        population suffered a sharp decline in ,
species remains ubiquitous on the island. See      probably as a result of a severe cyclone in the
also McCulloch .                               previous year, Cheke & Lawley () found
                                                                       Sturnidae (Starlings)    

Mynas still to be abundant on both Agaléga        Common Mynas probably occur in the
Islands in –.                               Lakshadweep and Maldive archipelagos as a
                                                  result of human agency, where on some
A I; N                          islands they are abundant. Their alien status is
I                                           confirmed by Feare & Craig ().
According to Beaven (), Common Mynas
were introduced as scavengers to Port Blair on    M
South Andaman by Colonel R. C. Tytler             On at least two occasions Common Mynas
shortly after the establishment of a convict      have been imported to control grasshoppers
settlement on the island in . Palmer ()   (Acrididae) and other insects on Madagascar
indicates that the introduction took place be-    – first in the late eighteenth century and
fore . Wood () says they were released    again in  on the east coast at Tamatave
around  on Ross Island, where according       (Toamasina) by the then French Consul,
to Hume () they had greatly increased. By     Alfred Grandidier. Milon et al. () quoted
the turn of the century they had flown to          Grandidier as saying that by  Mynas were
South Andaman, where they became one of           abundant around Tamatave.
the commonest terrestrial species (Abdulali          By , Mynas were well established and
). They were said by Butler () to be      plentiful between Tamatave and Brickville,
common on Nancowry and Camorta Islands            and had been recorded as far north as
in the neighbouring Nicobars, but were not        Maroantsetra and Fénérive. By  they
found there by Abdulali ().                   had spread inland towards Tananarive
                                                  (Antananarivo) (Milon et al. ) as far as
C A                                Rogez and Mouneyres, and four years
Common Mynas that had escaped or been             later had colonised Vatomandry, Mananjary,
released from captivity were established in       Manakara and Vohipeno on the coast south of
considerable numbers on Egmont Atoll in           Tamatave, as well as much of the intervening
, from where by  they had spread to       country. By the early s Mynas were estab-
Diego Garcia. In  or  a shipment of a     lished and common in the south at Farafan-
dozen birds from Agaléga was released on          gana on the east coast and inland towards
Diego Garcia, where a decade later A. tristis     Ihosy. In – several pairs were released at
was one of the commonest land-birds on the        Ambanja in the extreme northwest, and more
island, and flocks of – were frequently        recently some were transferred to the nearby
reported (Loustau-Lalanne , Bourne ,      island of Nossi Bé (Rand , Van Someren
Hutson ).                                     ) and Ile Sainte Marie off the south
                                                  coast of Madagascar (Goodman ). On the
C I                                   Madagascar mainland, Common Mynahs are
Common Mynas are believed to have been            widespread in and around human habitation
first introduced to the island of Anjouan          on the central plateau, and are increasing their
before ; Benson () found the species      range in the northwest, north, east and south,
to be established and common on Grande            from sea level to ,m (Morris & Hawkins
Comore, Mohéli, Mayotte and Anjouan.              , Hawkins & Safford in prep.).
Louette () reported Mynas to occur
throughout all four islands except above          Impact: Maillard () said that Mynas were
–m on Mont Karthala on Grande               found to be eating few of the insects they had
Comore (though they existed at ,m on La       been imported to control, but had themselves
Grille) and above ,m on Anjouan.              become a pest in the orchards they had been in-
                                                  troduced to protect. Nevertheless, the species’
L (L)                           spread on Madagascar has been helped by
I; M I                          translocations, ostensibly for insect control, and
Ali & Ripley (–) believed that              by the further release or escape of cage-birds.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

M I                                   causing damage to the crops they were
Cheke (), from whom much of the                 imported to protect.
following account is derived, has traced the           On Mauritius, Common Mynas are said to
introduction of the Common Myna to the              compete for nesting-sites with the Mauritius
Mascarenes. (For further details and full list of   Parakeet Psittacula echo, classified as Critically
references see Cheke ).                         Endangered by the World Conservation
   The earliest introduction of A. tristis to       Union. Temple () believed that com-
Réunion took place between  and ,           petition for food with Common Mynas (and
but the birds were subsequently eradicated          Red-whiskered Bulbuls Pycnonotus jocosus)
because they were believed to eat sown grain.       was a major threat to the survival on
The governor, who had arranged the original         Mauritius of the endemic subspecies of the
importation to Réunion, obtained replace-           Olivaceous Bulbul Hypsipetes borbonicus oli-
ments from Tranquebar in Madras which               vaceus (classified as Vulnerable by the World
were apparently introduced to both Réunion          Conservation Union), and Jones ()
and Mauritius in . This more or less            considered that competition with the two
coincides with a statement made in  that        aliens was preventing H. b. olivaceus and the
the birds had greatly increased on Mauritius        Mauritius Cuckoo-shrike Coracina typica
since their arrival some eight to nine years        (also classified as Vulnerable) from spreading
earlier (i.e. around –), and Bernardin        outside native forest; Mynas eat large insects
de St Pierre () reported Mynas to be            and geckos (Gekkonidae) that are the main
abundant in Mauritius by –. Cheke             foods of C. typica (Cheke , Jones ).
() believed that the  introduction was      On Réunion, Barré and Barau () consid-
the first made to Mauritius.                         ered that Mynas (and Bulbuls) were competi-
   The exact date of the introduction of            tors with, and predators of, H. b. borbonicus.
Common Mynas to Rodrigues is apparently
unrecorded, but according to Slater ()          S I
they had been present on the island for several     Common Mynas were probably first
years before , following a number of            introduced to Mahé from Mauritius shortly
failed introductions.                               after  by the governor, Count Mahé de la
   A. tristis has remained abundant on              Bourdonnais, to control insect pests and/or as
Mauritius, Réunion and Rodrigues since its          pets soon after the islands were first colonised.
introduction (Staub , Cheke , Sim-          Newton () found Mynas to be the most
berloff , Brooke et al. , Moulton et al.     abundant bird on Mahé, and they remain
, Showler , R. J. Safford pers. comm.        today the commonest species there and in the
, Hawkins & Safford in prep.). It also           lowlands and lower hills on all the main
occurs on the larger islets (Bell et al. ).     granitic islands except Aride (Hawkins &
                                                    Safford in prep.) and on Bird and Dennis
Impact: The introduction of Common Mynas            Islands (Skerrett et al. ).
to the Mascarenes was one of the earliest
recorded attempts at the biological control         Impact: Newton () believed that compe-
of an insect pest. Since , when Red             tition for nesting-sites between Mynas and the
Locusts Nomadacris septemfasciata had been          endemic Seychelles Magpie Robin Copsychus
(presumably accidentally) introduced from           sechellarum (now classified as Critically En-
Madagascar, the islands’ crops had suffered          dangered by the World Conservation Union)
heavy depredation. The disappearance of             was responsible for the decline of the native
locusts around  has been attributed to          species, a belief also held by Gillings (). It
predation by Mynas, but manual destruction          has, however, been suggested that predation
of the pests by slaves may have made a              by the skink Mabuya wrightii may be a
substantial contribution (Cheke ). Mynas        contributory factor in the Magpie Robin’s
in the Mascarenes have also been accused of         decline. Some predation of the eggs and
                                                                         Sturnidae (Starlings)   

nestlings of White Terns Gygis alba has also        be enough to hinder their progress. They live
been recorded. Numbers of Mynas on Frégate          near human settlements, in coconut groves, in
have been considerably reduced to protect the       plantations, and on the ecotone of secondary
Magpie Robin (Skerrett et al. ).                forests. They prefer open habitats and are less
                                                    often found in dense woodland, and seldom
F I                                        ascend above –m.
Although Wood & Wetmore () suggest
that Common Mynas may have been intro-              Impact: Introduced to control injurious
duced to Fiji as early as , most authorities    insects in plantations, Mynas also remove
consider they were probably first imported           biting parasites, especially ticks, from the
(with the Jungle Myna A. fuscus) from India         backs of cattle, but also cause damage to
between  and  to control Orthoptera         cultivated fruits (Holyoak ).
in sugar-cane plantations. Their dispersal to          Through their aggressive nature, competi-
other islands was probably assisted by the East     tion for food and nesting sites, and the
Indian human population, who on their inter-        dissemination of avian malaria, Common
island travels carried pet Mynas with them in       Mynas have contributed to the decline of a
cages from which some inevitably escaped or         variety of native bird species, especially such
were released. Thus by the s, A. tristis was    hole-nesters as lories (Vini spp.) and kingfish-
abundant on several of the inhabited islands,       ers (Halcyon spp.). By robbing their nests,
and although many died on Viti Levu during          Mynas may have been at least partially
a severe hurricane in , within  years they    responsible for the extinction on Hiva Oa of
had recovered to its former numbers. Pernetta       the Red-moustached Fruit Dove Ptilinopus
& Watling () found Common Mynas to              mercierii tristrami, and of the decline of the
be established as commensals of man in              Long-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus caffer
disturbed habitats on the main islands and on       mendanae in the Marquesas, A. c. caffer on
some of those close offshore, as well as on Vat-     Tahiti, and the possible extinction of A. c.
ulele and Lakeba. Pratt et al. () referred to   longirostris on Moorea (Holyoak & Thibault
them only on Viti Levu and Taveuni.                 ). Through their aggressive behaviour
                                                    Common Mynas have had a negative impact
Impact: In controlling Orthoptera, Mynas            on the Tahitian Monarch Pomarea nigra. Both
proved not very effective (Stoner ), prefer-     A. c. caffer and P. nigra on Tahiti are classified
ring instead to eat the emergent stems of           respectively as Vulnerable and Critically En-
commercially valuable ground nuts (peanuts          dangered by the World Conservation Union.
Arachis hypogaea), and sometimes to prey on
the eggs and young of terns Sterna spp. and         H I
noddies Anous spp. On the other hand, the           According to Caum (: ), the Common
disappearance of some native birds from             Myna was ‘introduced from India in  by
man-modified habitats, which has been                Dr William Hillebrand to combat the plague
attributed to aggression from Mynas and             of army worms [Noctuidae] that was ravaging
other introduced species, is more likely to be      the pasture lands of the islands. It has spread
due to the natives’ inability to adapt to           and multiplied to an amazing extent … it is
disturbed habitats (Watling ).                  now extremely common throughout the
                                                    Territory’. It was introduced to (or colonised
French Polynesia (Cook,                             naturally) the other main islands around .
Tubuai, Society, Tuamotu, and                          Common Mynas were first recorded on
Marquesas Islands)                                  Niihau in the s, and on Kure and Midway
Table  gives details of early records of          in ; on the latter the population had
Common Mynas in Polynesia. In Polynesia,            increased to several hundred by . All
A. tristis colonised some islands very rapidly,     subsequent authorities, including the AOU
but a sea crossing of only a few kilometres can     (), confirm the species’ near-ubiquity in
      Naturalised Birds of the World

suitable habitats (i.e. not in closed canopy          Common Mynas may be significant predators
forests) in the archipelago.                          of the eggs of Wedge-tailed Shearwaters
                                                      Puffinus pacificus.
Impact: Common Mynas apparently became                   In  the ornamental plant Lantana
established in montane forests in the s           Lantana camara was introduced to Hawaii
(Bryan & Seale , Perkins ), but this          from Mexico, and before long was being
occupation seems to have been of short dura-          widely disseminated by Mynas (and alien
tion (Bryan ). Although during their time         Spotted-necked Doves Streptopelia chinensis)
in the high-elevation forest Mynas may have           which avidly consumed its berries, which
competed for nesting-sites with the Hawaii            were ignored by native species (Fisher ).
O-o Moho nobilis, Kauai O-o M. braccatus,             Elton () traced an interesting sequence of
and other hole-nesting species that began             events that followed. In an attempt to control
to decline at this time (Scott et al. ), their    Lantana several species of insect were im-
temporary tenure of this habitat lends                ported to Hawaii, to such good effect that the
credence to the belief (e.g. by Caum ,            exotic plant noticeably declined. This led to a
Munro , Berger ) that Mynas played            corresponding decrease in the population of
little if any part in the decline of native birds     Mynas, which had become largely dependent
around the turn of the twentieth century.             on Lantana berries, thus enabling the recovery
More recently, Byrd () indicated that             of the noctuids that Mynas had been

  Early records of the Common Myna Acridotheres tristis in Polynesia.

Island                Date          Remarks
Aitutaki                        Well distributed.
Manuae & Auotu                  Fairly common.
Atiu                            Well distributed.
Mauke                           Abundant near human habitation and in settlements.
Rarotonga             –     Introduced from Tahiti between  and , in  said to be
                                    abundant; in  commonest coastal bird.
Mangaia               –       Very common by .
Palmyra               s          released; apparently died out.
Rurutu                          A few seen.
Tubuai                          Fairly common near human settlements; in  plentiful on the
                                    coast and on inland grasslands.
Bellingshausen        ? s       —
Scilly                          Not recorded by Whitney expedition in . In  occurred in
                                    limited numbers near settlements.
Mopelia                         Not recorded by Whitney expedition in . In  found in small
                                     numbers near settlements on main islet.
Raiatea & Tahaa       –       Not found by Whitney expedition in . In – very common.
Huahine               –       Not found by the Whitney expedition. In – seen frequently.
Moorea                Early th    Found to be common by Whitney expedition in . Either
                      century       introduced or natural colonist from Tahiti.
Tahiti                –     Well distributed by time of Whitney expedition in ; between
                                     and  found at lower elevations and on coast.
Hao & Mururoa         c.        Present in small numbers.
Nuku Hiva             c.        Killed shortly afterwards.
Hiva Oa               c.        Six introduced; within three years had multiplied to c. ,.
                                    Very common in coastal areas and occurs in lesser numbers at higher
                                    elevations.

Source : Holyoak & Thibault . See also e.g. Holyoak .
                                                                        Sturnidae (Starlings)   

introduced to control. It was then discovered      individuals. Whether the absolute numbers of
that Lantana was being replaced by other           fuscus have declined was not determined.
exotic shrubs that proved more difficult to
control.
   Mynas in the Hawaiian Islands are hosts of
bird mites and harbour a parasitic ocular          European Starling
nematode (Oxyspirura mansoni) which is also        Sturnus vulgaris
present in some other alien species, and the
malarial parasite Plasmodium circumflexum           Natural Range: Much of the Palaearctic
(Alicata ).                                      region, from the British Isles eastwards
   Mynas also feed extensively on such culti-        to W Mongolia and W Xinjiang, N to
vated fruit as avocados, papayas, mangoes,           northern Scandinavia and S to CS Europe.
guavas and especially figs.                           Winters S to N Africa, the Middle East,
                                                     S Asia, Nepal and N India.
N C                                      Naturalised Range: Africa: South Africa. North
Delacour () said that introduced Mynas           America: Canada; Mexico; USA; West
were common in villages, gardens and                 Indies. Australasia: Australia; New Zealand.
cultivated land in New Caledonia, where their        Pacific Ocean: Fiji Is; Lord Howe I.; Mac-
current status is unknown.                           quarie I.; Norfolk I.; Tonga Is; ?Vanuatu.

S I                                    S A
Common Mynas were successfully intro-              Cecil John Rhodes, the former Prime Minis-
duced to Guadalcanal, Russell, and the Olu         ter, imported the first Starlings from England
Malau (Three Sisters) islands in the southeast-    to Table Bay Harbour in April . They
ern Solomons (Cain & Galbraith , French        were probably released at Groote Schuur
, Galbraith & Galbraith , Long ).      in Rondebosch (R. K. Brooke pers. comm.
Their present status on the islands is             ). Within a few years they were well
uncertain.                                         established on the inhabited slopes of Table
                                                   Mountain, and had been reported on the
V                                            interior side of the Cape Flats in Stellenbosch.
According to Mayr (), A. tristis is believed   By at least  they had spread to Wynberg,
to have been introduced successfully to some       some km from Cape Town, and by  had
islands in the New Hebrides (Vanuatu).             expanded eastwards across the Cape Flats to
                                                   Gordon’s Bay at the foot of the Hottentot’s
W S I                              Holland Mountains. By , large flocks
Beichle () reported the discovery of at        occurred on the Cape Flats and elsewhere
least  Common Mynas in Apia, the capital         in the South West Cape (Winterbottom &
of ’Upolu, in , when nest building was ob-     Liversidge ).
served. This was the first record of the species       Starlings also expanded northwards
for Western Samoa. Gill et al. () found that   through the Swartland, reaching Darling
Mynas had spread from central Apia as far          around the turn of the twentieth century and
west as Vaitele, east to Fagali’i airstrip, and    Velddrift, at the mouth of the Berg River,
from the end of Mulinu’u Point in the north,       between  and . Winterbottom &
south to the hospital at Moto’otua. Censuses       Liversidge () recorded their then most
of mynas on ’Upolu revealed that % were          northerly locality as Kleinvlei, km north of
A. tristis, with the remainder being fuscus. Six   Clanwilliam, where they arrived in .
years later, in , Gill () found the           By the early s, Starlings were thus
proportion between the two species had             established in the South West Cape along the
dramatically altered, with % of those            coast from Graafwater and Clanwilliam south
counted being tristis. One flock numbered         and east to Plettenberg Bay, inland to a line
   Naturalised Birds of the World

running through Citrusdal, the southern            areas of intensive cultivation and in villages
border of the Cold Bokkeveld, Orchard (near        and towns. ‘No factor other than the occupa-
De Doorns), Robertson, Montagu, Barrydale,         tion of human habitation’, wrote Liversidge
Ladismith and the Outeniqua Mountains              (: ), ‘is evident in the spread of the
(Winterbottom & Liversidge ). This area        species’, whose population is estimated to
is almost exclusively below the m contour       number several million (Richardson ; see
and had a fairly dense European human              also Richardson et al. ).
population.                                           Richardson () considered that the Star-
   From the South West Cape Starlings began        ling’s ‘phenomenal performance’ as a colonist
to spread slowly into the Eastern Cape, where      can be attributed to a number of factors,
they were first confirmed as breeding, in            including its pre-adaptability to living as a
Uniondale, in  or . By around ,        commensal of man; its catholic feeding habits;
Starlings were established and breeding in         its reproductive strategies; and its genetic
Humansdorp and Port Elizabeth and in the           constitution. Nevertheless, the species is not
residential suburbs of Walmer, Skoenamakers        preadapted to the warmer parts of southern
Kop, Swartkops and Redhouse. They were first        Africa, where it is unlikely to expand its
noted at East London in , at Gonubie           current range which is virtually restricted to
Mouth and Keisammahoek in , and at             the western and eastern Cape (Craig ).
Kei Mouth and Seymour in . ‘From Cape          The species is, however, well adapted to cooler
Town’, wrote Winterbottom (: ), ‘the        temperatures, and may thus be able to
Starling … has penetrated a considerable           colonise new regions at higher elevations
distance northward into the Karoo, even to         (Richardson et al. ). Starlings appear to
the Orange River at its mouth. However, its        be sensitive to drought conditions, and an
establishment in the Karoo seems rather            alteration in rainfall patterns could change
insecure and it is liable to retreat thence        local movements and habitat usage (Craig
during a drought’. Maclean () described        , Richardson et al. ).
Starlings as occurring throughout much of the
Cape, in the Karoo, and in southern Natal as       Impact: In orchards near the Hottentot’s
far as Durban. The species has also become         Holland Mountains some damage to soft-fruit
common in the southern Orange Free State           crops by Starlings has been reported, but in
(Richardson ), and occurs at Alexander         compensation various injurious insects are
Bay (Frauenknecht ).                           also eaten. Although Starlings have nowhere
   Although Starlings appear to be non-            invaded pristine (undisturbed) habitats, they
migratory in the Western Cape, there is            out-compete such native hole-nesting
evidence of some seasonal movement in the          species as woodpeckers (Picidae) and barbets
Eastern Cape. Colonisation of new areas in         (Ramphastidae: Lybiinae) for breeding sites
South Africa was not, as is usual with most        (Richardson ). That they have not had a
other species, by mass emigration due to over-     more significant impact in South Africa is
population, but rather by the arrival of a sin-    because they do not yet occur in the vast
gle pair that bred and then departed, followed     murmurations that are prevalent in their
later by the appearance of several pairs that      natural range (Oatley ).
nested at the same site; thereafter there was a
simple increase in the colony proportionate to     U S; C; M
the rate of successful breeding. Colonisation      As early as  (Laycock ) and again in
has tended to be by ‘leap-frogging’ rather than    –, ,  and , unsuccessful
from one township to another, with interven-       attempts were made to introduce European
ing areas being occupied later. Although           Starlings to the United States.
initially slow to spread, and almost exclusively      The earliest successful introduction was
an urban species, Starlings have moved into        made by an eccentric drug manufacturer,
the interior and occur throughout the Cape in      Eugene Schieffelin, who conceived the bizarre
                                                                        Sturnidae (Starlings)   

idea of introducing to the United States all the   eastern South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas.
bird species mentioned in Shakespeare. Ac-         Wing () estimated that Starlings occupied
cordingly, in – he acquired  pairs of      some seven million sq km and numbered up
European Starlings from England, which were        to  million; half a century later this figure
liberated in Central Park, New York (Phillips      had risen to a figure given by Richardson
): other sources say that  pairs,  indi-   () as  billion [sic] (? million).
viduals or  individuals were released. Breed-       Unsuccessful attempts to introduce Star-
ing began almost immediately, and by –       lings to Canada (Quebec) were made in ,
flocks up to  strong were being reported.          and . Natural emigrants from the
By the following year Starlings had become         United States first appeared in Ontario in 
common in many parts of New York City and          and in the following year in Nova Scotia.
had spread to Long Island, where three years       Thereafter they spread to Quebec in ,
later they were said to be abundant.               New Brunswick in , Prince Edward
   In , further unsuccessful attempts were     Island in –, Manitoba in , Alberta
made to introduce Starlings to Massachusetts,      in , Saskatchewan in , Newfoundland
Pennsylvania, New York and possibly else-          in , mainland British Columbia in
where. The birds in Central Park, however,         – and the Queen Charlotte Islands and
continued to thrive, although initially they       Vancouver Island in  (Kessell ).
increased and spread only slowly, dispersing          By –, Starlings were found through-
no more than km in their first decade.            out southern Canada and in the whole of the
Thereafter they expanded their range explo-        United States apart from southern Florida
sively, and by  had colonised parts of         and northeastern New Mexico. They were
Connecticut, New Jersey and southeastern           breeding widely in both countries northeast
Pennsylvania. By  they had appeared in         of a line extending from south-central British
Ohio and in the following year in Georgia.         Columbia, northeastern Oregon and north-
Their rate of expansion then declined, follow-     ern Utah to southern Mississippi. Southwest
ing heavy mortality in the severe winter of        of this line they occurred mainly as winter
–, and by around  the population         migrants.
appeared to have stabilised (Phillips ).          Starlings may have crossed the border from
According to Kessell () Starlings first         Texas into Mexico as early as . By the
reached Alabama in , Kentucky in ,         s they had spread south to Guanajuato,
Louisiana in , Illinois and South Carolina     northern Veracruz and Yucatán, from where
in , Texas in , Oklahoma in ,          they are still spreading southwards.
northern Mississippi and Iowa in ,                The explosive spread of the European Star-
Minnesota in , Arkansas and South              ling in North America has been little short of
Dakota in , Missouri in , Nebraska         phenomenal. It is even more remarkable
and Wyoming in ; New Mexico, Colorado          because, as Feare () points out, it has
and Nevada in ; North Dakota, Montana          taken place on a continent that already
and Utah in , Idaho in , California        possesses several native bird species with simi-
in , Oregon and Washington in ,            lar ecological requirements, such as blackbirds
Arizona in  and Alaska in .                (Agelaius), grackles (Quiscalus) and cowbirds
   The method of dispersal of Starlings in the     (Molothrus). The Starling’s colonisation of
United States was much as in South Africa          North America seems to have been facilitated
(see above). By  they had spread to oW      by three principal factors; first, although in its
and were breeding as far west as the Missis-       native European range it is seldom found
sippi and probably eastern Texas. Cooke &          above m, in North America it appears
Knappen () recorded Starlings as breeding      equally at home on the Great Plains, much of
as far south as northern Florida, as far north     which lie at between , and ,m;
as the St Lawrence River in Canada, east to        second, it competes successfully with hole-
eastern Anticosti Island, Quebec, and west to      nesting species such as the Wood Duck Aix
     Naturalised Birds of the World

sponsa, Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis and            Sibley (: ) says that in North
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythro-          America the European Starling ‘is now found
cephalus. In California, it has been recorded as   in virtually all human-modified habitats’.
also competing successfully with naturalised
Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata (L. L. Shurt-       Impact: Since at least the s, the European
leff pers. comm. ). Finally, in contrast to     Starling has been recognised as an agricultural
introductions elsewhere, at least some of the      pest, and the benefit it conveys by probing the
birds imported into the United States were, or     ground for grubs, wireworms and beetles (in
later became, migratory, thus assisting in the     summer up to % of the species’ diet may be
species’ dispersal. Indeed, the movement of        composed of invertebrates) is far outweighed
Starlings in North America in general mirrors      by its depredations on commercial fruits,
that in Europe, i.e. some populations are          berries, corn (maize), grain, rice and seeds. In
sedentary, some are migratory, and some            urban areas, the accumulated guano of
migrate in some years but not in others.           vast roosting murmurations damages
   Although, following human settlement            buildings and fosters histoplasmosis. Starlings
westward, the Starling’s distribution advanced     also transmit other diseases such as
more rapidly in southern and south-central         avian tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis, psittacosis,
states, it extended its breeding range more        cryptococcal meningitis, avian malaria and
rapidly in the north. Within  years of its in-   Newcastle disease. Several aircraft crashes have
troduction it was, said Feare (), one of       been attributed to damage caused by Starlings
the most numerous birds in North America,          being sucked into jet engines. Millions of
with a breeding range extending from Arctic        dollars have been spent annually in attempts
Canada to sub-tropical Mexico. Although the        to control the species’ numbers but with only
species’ distribution may now have stabilized,     limited success.
in some areas its population density seems still      Various authors (e.g. Vuilleumier , Rob-
to be increasing, although in others it may be     bins , James  and Dinsmore )
declining (Johnston & Garrett ). Star-         have drawn attention to the success of the
lings are now common residents on all of           Starling in competing for nesting sites with a
California’s Channel Islands (Power ).         wide variety of indigenous birds. Koenig
   The AOU (: ) described the               (), however, who compared the mean
European Starling’s range in North America         densities of  native cavity-nesting species
as breeding                                        before and after invasion of their territory by
                                                   Starlings, found that only ten of the
                                                   species showed significant effects potentially
      From east-central and southeastern           attributable to Starlings, and only % of
      Alaska, southern Yukon, northern British     these were partially negative. In two of the five
      Columbia (including the Queen                species that showed negative effects, evidence
      Charlotte Islands), southern Mackenzie,
                                                   for a decline in one analysis was counter-
      southern Keewatin, northern Manitoba,
                                                   balanced by an increase in the other, while
      northern Ontario, northern Quebec,
                                                   in two others declines were probably due to
      southern Labrador, and Newfoundland
      south to central Baja California, northern   factors other than competition from Starlings.
      Sinaloa, southern New Mexico, southern       Only sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus spp.) showed
      Texas, the Gulf coast, southern Florida      declines potentially attributable to Starlings
      (to Key West), and Bermuda [as a natural     that were not counterbalanced by other data.
      colonist], with an isolated population in    Although declines in native species may still
      Mexico City and a breeding record from       occur if Starlings continue to increase, Koenig
      Veracruz. Winters throughout the breed-      () believed that the available data fail to
      ing range and south to Veracruz, the         support the widely held belief that Starlings
      Bahama Islands (south to Grand Turk),        have had a serious impact on populations of
      and eastern Cuba.                            native cavity-nesting birds, that have so far
                                                                         Sturnidae (Starlings)   

apparently managed to survive the Starling          locally by , and had spread to the Eyre
invasion in spite of the interlopers’ abundance     Peninsula by around the turn of the century
and aggressive commandeering of sometimes           and to Kangaroo Island before . Starlings
limited nesting-sites.                              were established throughout settled areas of
                                                    New South Wales by the mid-s, and by
W I                                         the mid-s had become a serious horticul-
European Starlings were released near               tural pest in the Riverina (Tarr ).
Annotto Bay in Jamaica in  or .                Colonisation of Queensland, where Star-
Although Taylor () records that they were       lings were first recorded, at Stanthorpe
not established at the release site in the s,   in , is believed to have been through
he says that in  flocks of between  and       natural dispersal from New South Wales. On
 occurred in the Parish of St Ann, km to       Tasmania, Starlings were common in and
the west. Although initially Starlings spread       around Hobart by the early s, and had
only slowly they later began to disperse more       been recorded up to km inland.
rapidly, and Lack () recorded them as              Tarr () recorded Starlings as established
widely distributed in lowland pastures and in       in cultivated regions throughout most of New
some mid-elevations, but as seldom occurring        South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, and on
in undisturbed habitats. Bond (), who           King and Flinders Islands in the Bass Strait. In
reported Starlings at Brown’s Town, in the          Queensland they were common along some
Castleton Botanical Gardens and at Ocho Rios        km of the coast between Brisbane and
(all within km of Annotto Bay) in –,        Maryborough. In South Australia they were
said that they occurred mostly in open farm-        abundant on Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo
ing country, chiefly in the hills. Raffaele et al.    Island, but probably occurred no further
() say that Starlings are now fairly            north than Port Augusta.
common locally in Jamaica; their failure to            Pizzey () found Starlings to be well
become more widely established may be due           established in much of southern and eastern
to the lower rate of deforestation on Jamaica       Australia and on many coastal islands from
compared with other West Indian islands.            Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo Island to about
   Although the AOU () says that                the Tropic of Capricorn in Queensland.
Starlings are also established on Puerto Rico,      Today, Starlings are widespread and abundant
Raffaele et al. () say they have not taken       almost universally in New South Wales,
hold there.                                         Victoria, Tasmania and islands in the Bass
   European Starlings are fairly common             Strait; in South Australia they occur north of
breeding birds on Grand Bahama and the              Lake Eyre, and west to beyond Ooldea. Feare
Biminis (as natural migrants from the United        () believed that formation of townships
States), and have also been recorded on Cuba,       along the south coast of Australia is likely to
the Virgin Islands (St Croix) and the Cayman        enable Starlings to ‘leap frog’ their way into
Islands (Cayman Brac) (Raffaele et al. ).        Western Australia, but apart from a very few
                                                    isolated records this has not yet happened,
A                                           and breeding has not been recorded (Barrett
Between  and about  well over            et al. ).
European Starlings were released in Australia          The preferred habitats of Starlings in
in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria,             Australia are settled and cultivated areas. As
South Australia and Queensland.                     elsewhere, in Australia they are sedentary,
   As early as  large flocks of Starlings were   migratory, and nomadic (Pizzey ).
established in the Royal Park and in the
grounds of the university in Melbourne, and         Impact: Starlings in Australia damage fruit,
by  the whole of southern Victoria had          corn, vegetable crops and newly seeded fields,
been overrun (Ryan ). In South Australia,       and in Victoria in autumn and winter they eat
Starlings rapidly increased, were common            vast quantities of grain on commercial poultry
   Naturalised Birds of the World

farms. They are vectors of parasites and           Northland. Heather & Robertson ()
diseases, contaminate buildings and kill trees     recorded Starlings as breeding on the
with their droppings, and compete for food         Kermadec, Antipodes, Snares, Auckland and
and nesting sites with native species – espe-      Campbell Islands, and said that they had been
cially parrots (Psittacidae) and some waterfowl    seen on the Bounty Islands. Baker () said
(Anatidae) (Frith ). In compensation,          they were also breeding on Three Kings,
Starlings eat locusts, larvae, wireworms,          Chathams and Macquarie Islands.
blowflies, cutworms and ticks. In winter they
form vast murmurations up to , strong         Impact: Starlings compete advantageously for
that provide an additional source of food for      food and nesting sites with a variety of native
native Australian Hobbies Falco longipennis        birds. They damage many grain and fruit
and Brown Goshawks Accipiter fasciatus.            crops, especially pears, plums, peaches, grapes,
                                                   cherries, currants and strawberries, and eat
N Z                                        beneficial bumble bees (Bombus spp.) and
Between  and  a total of  European      Honey Bees Apis mellifera. Starlings also eat,
Starlings were introduced to New Zealand by        and disseminate, the seeds and fruits of several
local acclimatisation societies (see Lever )   noxious plants, and their droppings damage
to combat insect pests, and at least  more      buildings. Their consumption in autumn of
were imported by private individuals. As early     the fruits of kahikatea deprives Tuis or Parson
as  they were said in some places to have      Birds Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae and New
become very numerous, and Thomson ()           Zealand Bellbirds Anthornis melanura of a
recorded them as abundant virtually through-       valuable source of winter food (Heather &
out New Zealand.                                   Robertson ). Turbott () points to
   On the country’s off-lying islands Starlings     competition for nesting sites with native
were introduced to the Chathams by L. W.           Sacred Kingfishers Todiramphus sanctus. In
Hood before . They were first recorded          compensation, Starlings eat armyworms, crane
on Campbell Island around , on the Ker-        fly larvae, click beetles, ticks, grass grubs,
madecs before , on Macquarie in about          caterpillars, worms and snails. Feare ()
, the Snares in  and on the Antipodes      said that the dispersal of Starlings in New
in . Oliver () reported Starlings also     Zealand has been assisted by the widespread
on Three Kings, Mokohinau, Hen, Great and          provision of nesting boxes in the belief that
Little Barrier, Poor Knights, Mayor, Kapiti,       the birds help to control insect pests.
Karewa, Stewart and Auckland Islands.
Wodzicki (: ) said that Starlings were      F I
‘widely distributed and abundant, North,           Pernetta & Watling () suggest that
South, Stewart and Raoul [Kermadecs],              European Starlings may have arrived on
Chatham, Snares, Auckland, Campbell and            Ono-i-Lau, a tiny islet some km southeast
Macquarie Islands’. Kinsky () confirmed         of Viti Levu, around : other possible dates
their presence on the Chathams, Kermadecs,         are , the later s and . When first
Snares, Auckland, Campbell and Macquarie           discovered, in , a population of around
Islands, and Williams () added that they       , adults was well established and widely
nested on Three Kings, the Kermadecs,              distributed on Ono-i-Lau, and the species was
Chatham, Antipodes, Campbell, Auckland             also found on Tuvana-i-Tholo and Tuvana-i-
and Macquarie. Falla et al. () said that the   Ra to the south; on Votua (several hundred)
European Starling was one of the most famil-       km north-north-east; and on Doi (Carrick
iar birds in New Zealand, occurring in most        & Walker , Manson-Bahr ). Although
habitats, apart from dense native bush or over     Hill () suggested that the birds arrived as
,m above sea level. In the mid-s           natural immigrants from the Kermadecs,
Starlings became established on Cavalli Island     some ,km to the south, Pratt et al. ()
(Motuharakeke) off the east coast of                and the AOU () say the species was
                                                                       Turdidae (Thrushes)    

introduced to Fiji – a seemingly more likely          TURDIDAE (THRUSHES)
explanation; the former authors and Pernetta
& Watling () say the birds are common in       Eurasian Blackbird
agricultural areas and in villages on Ono-i-       Turdus merula
Lau and also on Vatoa.
                                                   Natural Range: Palaearctic and Oriental
L H I; N                            regions, from the British Isles eastwards
I                                               through Europe (N to around oN in
Starlings have been recorded on Lord Howe            Norway), Asia Minor, India, Sri Lanka and
and Norfolk Islands (Barrett et al. ) since      N Burma to CS China, N Vietnam, and C
 and  respectively.                          Laos. Also Madeira, the Azores and the
                                                     Canary Is. in the Atlantic, and Morocco,
M I                                     Algeria and Tunisia in N Africa.
Starlings are listed as breeding on Macquarie      Naturalised Range: Australasia: Australia; New
Island (Barrett et al. ).                        Zealand. Pacific Ocean: Lord Howe I.;
                                                     Macquarie I.; Norfolk I.
T I
In the absence of competing Common Mynas           A
Acridotheres tristis, European Starlings           Between  and  Eurasian Blackbirds
are common on the island of Tongatapu,             from England were released on some  occa-
especially in the capital Nuku’alofa (Dhondt       sions in Australia, principally in Victoria (in
a, Pratt et al. ). They probably arrived   the Melbourne Botanic Gardens, on Phillip
in Tonga through human intervention.               Island south of Melbourne, at Western Port
   Attempts to eradicate European Starlings        and at Gembrook: Ryan ) and in the
in Fiji and Tonga were unsuccessful, but           Royal Park near Sydney in New South Wales
the birds have not spread as much as               (Chisholm ), but also at Hobart on Tas-
was initially feared, probably because the         mania (Dove ), Adelaide and elsewhere in
climatic conditions are unsuitable (Watling        South Australia, and at Brisbane, Queensland.
).                                             By , Blackbirds were said to be ‘thor-
                                                   oughly established’ in the Melbourne Botanic
V                                            Gardens, and by  they were apparently
According to Cain & Galbraith (), Euro-        ‘breeding freely’ elsewhere in Victoria.
pean Starlings have been reported from                By the mid-s, Blackbirds were estab-
the former New Hebrides; whether they are          lished in the Botanic Gardens at Sydney
established there is unknown.                      (where they later died out and were reintro-
                                                   duced in ) and at Albury near the border
                                                   with Victoria (Coleman ). A quarter of a
                                                   century later they had become widespread
Asian Pied Starling                                and quite numerous in South Australia on the
Sturnus contra                                     Adelaide Plains, around Mount Lofty, at
                                                   Victor Harbour, at Coorong and near Mount
Natural Range: N and C India to Laos, Cam-         Gambier northwards to Oodnatta, and in
  bodia and SW Yunnan.                             various parts of Victoria. Blackbirds first ap-
Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan.                    peared on Kangaroo Island (South Australia)
                                                   in  (Cooper ), at Canberra (ACT)
J                                              and on Flinders Island in Bass Strait (where
This species is listed by the OSJ () as        they may have been originally introduced in
a breeding resident in cultivated fields and        about ) around , at Deniliquin (New
residential areas around Tokyo on Honshu.          South Wales) in , at Doveton in  and
                                                   at Dareton in . By the early s they
   Naturalised Birds of the World

occurred in citrus orchards along the Murray           In about  Blackbirds were first released
River in New South Wales, in the Riverina,          on Stewart Island, where by around 
on the central tablelands, at Baroonga,             Thomson (: ) recorded them as ‘seen
Tocumwal, Mathoura, Tooleybuc and Good-             every breeding season near settlements’.
night, in the Sunraysia district and on the         According to Williams (), Blackbirds had
coast north of Sydney. Blackbirds appeared at       dispersed naturally to Campbell Island and
Broken Hill in –, at Cobar in  and        the Chatham and Auckland Islands by the
at Armidale in  (Frith ).                   turn of the twentieth century, the Snares in
   In Tasmania, Blackbirds were first recorded        and the Kermadecs by , while
as breeding in the wild around  (Dove           Drummond () said they were established
); by – they had spread to Port           on the Auckland Islands. By the mid-s,
Davey in the southwest, and by the end of           Blackbirds had also been recorded on Three
the following decade they were widely               Kings, Poor Knights, Hen, Little Barrier,
distributed. By the s they occurred on the      Mayor, Karewa, Kapiti and Solander Islands.
coast at Recherche, Bound Bay, Spain Bay,              In Southland (South Island) Philpott (:
Point Eric, Cox Bight and Moth Creek.               ) recorded that ‘Unlike the thrush the
   Blackbirds in Australia initially dispersed      blackbird is to be found in the heart of the big
only slowly from their points of release; after     bushes. I have met with the bird wherever I
the Second World War, however, they began           have gone, and found it as common on
to spread more rapidly, and had soon                the Hunter Mountains at , feet [m]
colonised most of the southeastern mainland,        elevation, as in the bush near Invercargil’.
Tasmania, and islands in Bass Strait, but until        Guthrie-Smith () suggested that Black-
the early s remained uncommon in much           birds (and Song Thrushes) in New Zealand
of New South Wales. Their present distribu-         dispersed from Auckland via the coast of the
tion remains largely unchanged (Barrett et al.      Gulf of Thames, the Coromandel Peninsula,
).                                              down the Bay of Plenty, round the East Cape
                                                    and onwards to Hawke’s Bay; he found Black-
Impact: Eurasian Blackbirds can be a serious        birds in the heart of forest country. Thomson
pest to such soft fruit crops as grapes, cherries   () saw no reason why, since the interven-
and figs (Frith ). In Victoria, they eat the     ing strip of bush was relatively narrow, Black-
fruits of such native species as Pittosporum        birds (and Song Thrushes) should not have
undulatum and Exocarpos cupressiformis,             spread over from the Thames Valley direct to
which they are spreading to new localities.         the east coast. Although Blackbirds were rare
Their impact on native species, such as the         or absent north of Whangarei in North
Bassian Thrush Zoothera l. lunulata, in south-      Island, in many other places they were one of
eastern Australia, Tasmania and islands in          the country’s commonest introduced birds
Bass Strait, has yet to be fully determined.        (Thomson ). Oliver () found Black-
                                                    birds to be distributed throughout both the
N Z                                         main islands, while Wodzicki () and
Table  shows that between about  and          Kinsky () referred to them also on Stew-
 a total of around  Eurasian Black-          art, Raoul (Kermadecs), Chatham, Snares,
birds from England were introduced to New           Auckland and Campbell Islands. Falla et al.
Zealand, where by about  the Otago              () recorded the species to be one of New
Acclimatisation Society (see Lever ) was        Zealand’s commonest birds, and as occurring
admitting, somewhat naively, that the birds         on the main islands from sea level to around
were ‘now exceedingly numerous and we               ,m. Today they are common and proba-
regret to say are found to be rather partial to     bly the most widely distributed bird in New
cherries and other garden fruits’. (Heather &       Zealand, occurring in suburban gardens,
Robertson () say that around , birds        parks, orchards, hedged paddocks, exotic
were introduced up to ).                        plantations, scrub and native forest to at least
                                                                      Turdidae (Thrushes) 

,m. They are well established on the          L H I
Kermadecs, Chathams, Snares, Auckland and         On Lord Howe Island, where Blackbirds were
Campbell Islands, while a vagrant has been        first observed in  and where by the end of
recorded on the Antipodes Islands. They were      the decade they were widely but thinly distrib-
reported by Baker () as breeding on Three     uted, they are believed to have arrived as nat-
Knights, Kermadecs, Chathams, Campbell,           ural immigrants from New Zealand (McKean
Auckland and Snares Islands. Blackbirds are       & Hindwood ). See also Barrett et al. .
uncommon only on offshore islands with
pristine native bird and forest communities       M I
such as Little Barrier and Kapiti (Heather &      Barrett et al. () record T. merula on
Robertson ).                                  Macquarie Island.
   An important factor in the Blackbird’s
successful colonisation of New Zealand is         N I
likely to have been that the introduction         Williams () suggests that Blackbirds were
was of the partially migratory nominate           probably introduced to Norfolk Island in
subspecies of western Europe.                     about , where some  years later they
                                                  were said to be abundant (Smithers & Disney
Impact: Thomson () reported that in           ). See also Barrett et al. .
New Zealand T. merula sometimes kills such
native species as the Tui or Parson Bird
Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae, while Smithers
& Disney () suggested probable competi-       Song Thrush
tion on Norfolk Island with the endemic race      Turdus philomelos
of the Island Thrush Turdus p. poliocephalus,
which is now extinct (Dickinson ). (For       Natural Range: From the British Isles and Eu-
the impact of T. merula in orchards and on          rope through N Turkey, the Caucasus, and
native and alien shrubs and weeds see under         N Iran to W and C Siberia: winters S to S
T. philomelos).                                     Europe, N Africa and SW Asia.

      Introductions of Eurasian Blackbirds Turdus merala to New Zealand,
    –.
    Year                Number               Introduced by
    c.                                 Nelson Acclimatisation Society (A.S.)
                    ?                    Auckland A.S.
                    A pair               Otago A.S. Released at Dunedin
                    A pair               Canterbury A.S.
                                        Otago A.S. Released at Dunedin
                                       Canterbury A.S.
                    c.                 Auckland A.S.
                                      Auckland A.S.
                                       Otago A.S.
                                      Canterbury A.S.
                                       Otago A.S.
                                       Otago A.S.
     or                            Mr R Bills (on behalf of Canterbury A.S.)
                                       Canterbury A.S.
                                      Canterbury A.S. ( released at Levels, Otipua,
                                             Waimate, Otaio, Geraldine, Albury and Timaru)
    Sources : Drummond ; Thomson .
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Naturalised Range: Australasia: Australia; New   Southland (South Island) Philpott (: )
  Zealand. Pacific Ocean: Lord Howe I.;           found that:
  ?Macquarie I.; Norfolk I.
                                                    The song thrush does not appear to pene-
A                                           trate far into the big forests, nor to spread
Between  and  several hundred Song          into unsettled areas. In the coastal forests
Thrushes were introduced from England to            of Fiord Country they are seldom to be
Australia by various acclimatisation societies      heard, though plentiful enough about the
(see Lever ), who released them in              settlements of Tuatapere and Papatotara.
Victoria (at Melbourne; Phillip, Sandstone          Nor does the bird favour the mountains; I
and Churchill Islands; Yarra Bend; Geelong;         do not think I have ever heard one above
Gembrook), New South Wales (Sydney),                the bush-line (about , feet) [c. m].
Queensland (Brisbane), and South Australia
(Adelaide).                                         In North Island, Thomson () believed
   By around the turn of the twentieth           that Song Thrushes (like Blackbirds)
century Song Thrushes in Victoria had spread     dispersed east and south from Auckland (for
from their points of release in the Botanic      their route of dispersal see under T. merula),
Gardens and Royal Park all over Melbourne        and said (p. ) that ‘at the present day
and its suburbs (Ryan ), and by the late     thrushes are found from one end of
s were fairly common in the city and had     New Zealand to the other in enormous
dispersed to Sherbrooke Forest, Macedon,         abundance’.
Geelong (where some had been planted in             On New Zealand’s offshore islands, Song
), Belgrave and perhaps Ararat (Chisholm     Thrushes have been recorded on Poor
, Tarr ). Frith (: ) said that    Knights, Hen, Little Barrier, Three Kings,
the Song Thrush was ‘quite common in             Kapiti, D’Urville, Raoul (in the Kermadecs,
Melbourne and is widespread in small             prior to ), the Chathams (before ), the
numbers in towns and heavily developed           Antipodes, Campbell, the Snares (about the
districts in southern Victoria generally. It     turn of the twentieth century), Stewart, Cod-
has disappeared elsewhere’. Pizzey (),       fish, the Aucklands and Macquarie Islands.
who recorded Song Thrushes in Melbourne,            Today, the Song Thrush is one of the
Warragul, the Mornington Peninsula,              commonest and most widely distributed birds
Dandenong, Yellingbo, Macedon, Werribee,         in New Zealand, occurring in a variety of
Geelong and Lorne, described the species as      habitats from farmland hedgerows, orchards,
rather rare and local near human habitation.     parks, and suburban gardens at sea level to
Barrett et al. () indicate a very limited    subalpine scrub at ,m, exotic plantations
range centred on Melbourne.                      and forest. The species is, however, still scarce
                                                 in pristine native forest and on islands such as
N Z                                      Little Barrier and Kapiti, where indigenous
Table  shows that between  and         forest and bird communities remain virtually
over  Song Thrushes from England were         intact (Heather & Robertson ). Baker
introduced to various parts of New Zealand.      () recorded breeding on Three Kings,
(Thomson :  says ‘about ’. Since      Kermadecs, Chathams, Campbell, Aucklands
he () and later authors give the date as     and the Snares Islands, but not on the
 the former is presumably a literal or was   Antipodes or Macquarie Islands.
subsequently revised. Baker () says the
date was , which is clearly an error).       Impact: Since the early years of the twentieth
Although in Auckland and Otago the birds         century, Song Thrushes and Blackbirds in
became established in native bush, they          New Zealand have been responsible for the
were slower to do so in the comparatively        dispersal of native and introduced plants and
more open country of North Canterbury. In        for serious depredations in orchards (Philpott
                                                                        Turdidae (Thrushes)   

, Thomson ). The cultivated fruits           ‘common’ in  (Smithers & Disney ),
most affected include cherries, plums,                while on the latter about  were present in
apricots, currants, raspberries, strawberries,        and breeding was reported in the early
boysenberries, grapes, gooseberries, pears,          s (McKean & Hindwood ). See also
apples and tomatoes (Dawson & Bull ).            Barrett et al. .
Non-commercial introduced plants eaten and
spread in native forests and agricultural crops
include Blackberry Rubus fruticosus, Sweet-
briar Roses Rosa rubiginosa, Cape Fuchsia            Island Thrush
Leycesteria formosa, Elderberry Sambucus             Turdus poliocephalus
nigra, Inkweed or Pokeweed Phytolacca
octandra and Barberry Berberis vulgaris.             Natural Range: Numerous islands in Indone-
In compensation, both T. merula and                    sia and the Pacific Ocean from Sumatra
T. philomelos consume large quantities of              and Java to Fiji and Samoa.
injurious insects and snails.                        Naturalised Range: Indian Ocean: Cocos
                                                       (Keeling) Is.
M I
Barrett et al. () say that T. philomelos has     C (K) I
been recorded on Macquarie Island.                   Between  and  Island Thrushes from
                                                     Christmas Island, where the form is T. p.
N I; L H                            erythropleurus, were released on Pulo Luar
I                                               (Horsburgh) in the Cocos (Keeling) archipel-
According to Williams (), T. philomelos          ago some km to the west. By the late s
probably arrived on Norfolk Island around            they had spread to Atas (South Island) and to
 and on Lord Howe Island about  – in         Panjang (West Island), and by the s were
both cases probably as natural immigrants            said to be abundant on all three (Gibson-Hill
from New Zealand. On the former, Song                a, Van Tets & Van Tets ).
Thrushes were breeding in the s and were

  Introductions of Song Thrushes Turdus philomelos to New Zealand, –.
Year               Number            Introduced by
                                     Nelson Acclimatisation Society (A.S.)
                                      Otago A.S.
                                     Auckland A.S.
                                     Canterbury A.S.
                                      Otago A.S.
                                     Canterbury A.S.
                                     Auckland A.S.
                                     Otago A.S.
                                     R Bills for the Otago A.S.
                 ?                     Canterbury A.S.
                                     Otago A.S.
                 ?                     R Bills for the Canterbury A.S. (Released Christchurch
                                           Gardens, Bluecliffs, Four Peaks, Timaru)
                  pairs              Canterbury A.S.
                                      Wellington A.S.
                  pairs              Canterbury A.S.

Sources : Drummond ; Thomson , .
   Naturalised Birds of the World

        MUSCICAPIDAE
       (CHATS AND OLD
      WORLD FLYCATCHERS)

White-rumped Shama
Copsychus malabaricus
Natural Range: From India, Nepal, Sri Lanka
  and the Andaman Is. to Burma, Thailand,
  Indochina, Malaysia, Borneo, Java, and
  Sumatra and many Indonesian islands.
Naturalised Range: Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.

H I
In , White-rumped Shamas of the form
C. m. indicus (Nepal, northeastern India,
southern Yunnan, northwestern Thailand and
northern Indochina) were released on Kauai
by Alexander Isenberg, where Richardson &
Bowles () found them to be a fairly
common, albeit local, resident in a variety of
habitats, but principally in settled lowland                    White-rumped Shama
areas. In , more were liberated in the
Nuuanu Valley and on the Makiki Heights on          where they are thus a primary reservoir for the
Oahu, where some were observed at Pauoa             maintenance of the disease among native
Flats in , in the upper Manoa Valley in         passerines.
, and at Tantalus in  (Harpham ).
   Berger () reported C. malabaricus to be
fairly common in damp habitats in the upper
Manoa Valley, Tantalus, the upper Nuuanu
Valley, along the Koolau Range and on the             PASSERIDAE (SPARROWS,
slopes of the Pali. A decade later, Berger ()   SNOWFINCHES AND ALLIES)
said that Shamas were common on both the
windward and leeward sides of Oahu, where           House Sparrow
although they preferred areas of lush vegeta-       Passer domesticus
tion they also occurred in various other
habitats, including residential Kailua. Scott et    Natural Range: Much of the Palaearctic
al. (), who incorrectly give the first date of     region, from the British Isles eastwards
introduction as , observed Shamas on the          through Europe (N to N Scandinavia), the
edge of the Alakai Swamp on Kauai. Pratt et           Middle East, Arabia, NW Africa, Libya,
al. (), Pratt (), and the AOU ()          Egypt, Sudan, and Asia to Kamchatka,
confirm the presence of the species on both            Sakhalin, Hokkaido and NW Manchuria
Kauai and Oahu, where the first-named                  (S of the Arctic Circle). P. domesticus has
authors describe its status as ‘common’.              considerably extended its range eastwards
                                                      naturally during the past  years.
Impact: Shehata et al. () found a high          Naturalised Range: Asia: ?Java. Africa: ?Chad;
prevalence (.%) of Plasmodium avian                Guinea-Bissau; Kenya; Mozambique;
malaria infection among White-rumped                  ?Niger; Senegal [Mauretania, The Gambia,
Shamas in the Lyon Arboretum on Oahu,                 Liberia]; ?Somalia; South Africa [Botswana,
                                             Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

  Malawi, Namibia, Zaire, Zambia, Zim-           Lourenço Marques (Maputo) by a Portuguese
  babwe]; Tanzania (including Zanzibar).         immigrant in late ; they spread rapidly
  North and Central America: Canada; USA         and by the end of the decade were thoroughly
  [? Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guate-     established. House Sparrows that became
  mala,? Honduras, Mexico, ?Nicaragua,           widespread in the Sul do Save (Da Rosa Pinto
  Panama]; West Indies. South America: Ar-       ) were probably natural indicus immi-
  gentina [Uruguay]; Brazil; Chile; Peru [Bo-    grants from South Africa (Harwin & Irwin
  livia, ?Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay,           ). By , House Sparrows had spread
  ?Venezuela]. Australasia: Australia; New       km north to the border with Southern
  Zealand. Atlantic Ocean: Ascension I.;         Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where they were wide-
  Azores Is; Bermuda; Canary Is.; Cape           spread and abundant (Harwin & Irwin ).
  Verde Is; Falkland Is. Indian Ocean: An-       In northern Mozambique, indicus birds
  daman Is; Chagos Archipelago;Christmas I;      were established in Tete before , having
  Comoros Is; Madagascar; Maldive Is; Mas-       probably arrived as natural immigrants from
  carene Is.; ?Nicobar Is; ?Seychelles Is.       Salisbury (Harare) (Payne & Payne ).
  Pacific Ocean: Easter Is; Hawaiian Is; Juan
  Fernandez Is; New Caledonia; Norfolk I;        S
  ?Vanuatu.                                      House Sparrows arrived, probably as ship-
                                                 borne stowaways, in Dakar in about .
Countries and islands that have been             From here they subsequently spread km
colonised by the natural extension of range of   inland up the Sénégal River (Clement et al.
naturalised populations are enclosed (above      ) to Podor, and also Kaolack and
and in the following text) within square         Diourbel, and northwards to Nouakchott
brackets. For further details see Lever .    (Ndao ).
                                                    [From Senegal, House Sparrows spread
J                                             naturally north to Mauretania in the s
Summers-Smith () quotes R Meinertzha-        and south to The Gambia (Gore ) and
gen as saying that House Sparrows were           Liberia (Monrovia –: Borrow &
introduced to Java sometime after , where    Demey )]. The species has also been
they became established in some settled          claimed for central Chad and the form tingi-
areas. However, they are not mentioned by        tanus (Morocco to northeastern Libya) for
MacKinnon & Phillips ().                     northeastern Niger (Borrow & Demey ).

G-B                                    S
In early May  House Sparrows were            According to Mackworth-Praed & Grant
observed for the first time in Guinea-Bissau,     (), House Sparrows of the Egyptian race
where on  May two nests were found in har-     (P. d. niloticus) occurred at Berbera on the
bour structures in the old Bissau harbour of     Gulf of Aden coast of Somalia, where they
Pidjiguiti, and where an estimated population    were ‘probably introduced’ from Egypt by
of – birds was established over an area of   ships via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. The
approximately six hectares; no Sparrows were     present status of the species in Somalia is
then seen in the Bissau city centre. The birds   uncertain, but Clement et al. () say it may
were believed to be a very recent arrival,       occur in Mogadishu.
probably, given the location, as ship-borne
stowaways rather than as natural immigrants      S A
from Senegal (Catry & Monteiro ).            Two forms of the House Sparrow, P. d. indicus
                                                 (southern Israel and Arabia through southern
M                                       Asia to Laos) and the nominate domesticus
According to Da Rosa Pinto (), birds of      (western Europe through northern Asia
the nominate subspecies were introduced to       to northwestern Manchuria), have been
   Naturalised Birds of the World

introduced to East London in the Eastern              eventually a successful colonist. Yet another
Cape and to Durban, Natal, in South Africa,           possible factor, referred to by Harwin & Irwin
and various dates between  and  have          (), has been its readiness to associate with
been suggested by different authors for the            such nomadic natives as the Red-billed
earliest releases in different localities. (For full   Quelea Quelea quelea. A possibly inhibiting
details see Lever : –).                     element, at least in the early years of the
   ‘The extension of range [of the House              House Sparrow’s expansion, may have been
Sparrow in South Africa]’ wrote Summers-              competition with the indigenous Cape Spar-
Smith (: ), ‘has been less spectacular         row or Mossie P. m. melanurus and perhaps
than in other parts where it has been liber-          the Southern Grey-headed Sparrow P. diffusus.
ated.’ The domesticus birds that were released           In the northern Cape Province, the Trans-
at East London, which seem to have been               vaal and elsewhere, the major dispersal of the
mainly or entirely sedentary, interbred with          species seems to have begun in the late
indicus, which dispersed naturally and/or             s/early s. As mentioned above, it was
was translocated from Durban, to produce              not until half a century after the House Spar-
offspring with dual characteristics; these were        row’s introduction to Durban between 
subsequently superseded by others with the            and  that it colonised Natal. In  it
appearance of the usually dominant indicus,           crossed the Drakensberg Mountains, km
and it is birds of the latter form that have          to the northwest. By  it had spread
colonised the region (Harwin & Irwin ).           throughout the Orange Free State and the
‘From Durban’, Summers-Smith (: )              central and southern Transvaal, and in  it
continues, ‘the House Sparrow has spread              appeared in Swaziland. Within a decade
over all Natal and into Transvaal and Orange          House Sparrows had spread dramatically
Free State; from East London a spread has             ,km or more southwest to the Cape
taken place along the coastal regions of Cape         Peninsula and northwards to Great Namaqua-
Province joining up in the north with the             land (Harwin & Irwin ).
birds from Durban.’ This expansion was                   Temperature seems unimportant in shaping
initially gradual and steady rather than explo-       the distribution of House Sparrows in South
sive – it took around  years, for example, for      (and southern) Africa, where they occur in both
the whole of Natal to be colonised.                   warm and cool areas; they also appear to be
   To quote Summers-Smith (: ) again,          unaffected by the amount of precipitation or
‘When it is considered how sedentary the              by drought (Brooke , Richardson et al.
House Sparrow is in most parts of its range it        ).
is not surprising that the dispersal is rather           Today, P. domesticus is virtually ubiquitous
variable. This is particularly the case when the      in South Africa wherever there are human set-
suitable habitats are separated by even quite         tlements to provide food, shelter and nesting-
short distances of unsuitable country’. In-           sites (Brooke , Richardson et al. ).
deed, the species’ acquired ability in southern
Africa to disperse for a considerable distance        Impact: Opinions differ on the impact, if
over apparently inimical terrain has, perhaps,        any, of the House Sparrow on the native
been the most important element in its occu-          P. m. melanurus, which it has been accused
pation of the region. Another factor has been         of replacing particularly in urban and
the difference in the density of the human             agricultural localities, and the evidence is
population (on which the species is largely de-       contradictory and inconclusive.
pendent) between southern Africa and that
pertaining in much of its natural range, where        [Central Africa]
even today its distribution is somewhat               Following their introduction to South Africa
discontinuous; again, the species’ adaptability       over  years ago House Sparrows have been
– through a gradual modification of the                spreading naturally northwards. The major
original genotype – has enabled it to become          dispersal that led to the colonisation of other
                                              Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)     

southern African countries began in the late      were freed in over  urban localities in
s/early s. The earliest recorded           American states and four Canadian
appearances of P. domesticus are as follows:      provinces. The species’ spread from its points
Botswana ( or earlier); Zimbabwe ();      of release averaged some km in the first five
Namibia (); Zambia (); Malawi             years, km after  years, and over km
(); Zaire (? mid-s). (For full details    after  years – a remarkable rate of expansion
and routes followed see Lever : –).     triggered by an equally remarkable increase in
Today, House Sparrows are widely distributed      the population (Barrows ).
in southern Africa, where their range is             Doughty (), from whom much of the
mainly controlled by the presence of human        following account is derived, has traced the
settlements (Brooke , Richardson et al.       establishment and spread of Passer domesticus
).                                            in North America. The vast growth of urban-
                                                  isation and of the human population in the
T ( Z);                    late nineteenth/early twentieth century, with
K                                             its concomitant formation of parks and
Summers-Smith (: ) says that ‘indicus      municipal gardens and the preponderance of
birds were introduced from Bombay to Zanz-        horse-drawn transport which ensured a
ibar about  and are still confined to the      continual source of food through grain spilled
city’. From Zanzibar, House Sparrows crossed      from nose-bags and droppings, were of
to the coastal mainland of Tanzania (probably     material assistance to the largely commensal
by ship), while the rest of the country was       House Sparrow.
apparently colonised by natural immigrants           Most introductions took place in the decade
from Zambia (Summers-Smith ).                 after , and urban colonies established in
   House Sparrows have been reported              such cities as Brooklyn, New York, Boston and
sporadically in Mombasa, Kenya, since at          Philadelphia became the source of supply
least , and by the early s they had       both for human translocations to other states
colonised most of the town and were spread-       and, as the population increased, for natural
ing inland (M-Y. Morel pers. comm. to J. D.       dispersal.
Summers-Smith).                                      From the early releases in the s in New
                                                  York, Maine, Rhode Island and Massachu-
U S; C                             setts, House Sparrows spread westwards
House Sparrows were first introduced to the        throughout those states, and by the following
United States by Nicholas Pike, Director of       decade had reached the six central mid-west-
the Brooklyn Institute of New York, in ,      ern states in the Mississippi drainage system
in the hope, according to Barrows (: ),    and Texas and South Carolina. Colonisation
that ‘they would control a plague of the          of the four north-central states, of a further six
“hanging worm” or measuring worm’ (larva of       in the south, of three between the Mississippi
the Snow-white Linden Moth Eunomos                River and the Rocky Mountains, and of Cali-
subsignarius) that was defoliating trees. These   fornia, occurred during the next decade. By
birds, liberated in , did not thrive, but a   , Sparrows had gained a toehold in some
second and larger shipment imported from           states, in the District of Columbia, and in
England in  was more successful, and the      one (or perhaps two) Canadian provinces,
birds, released in the Narrows (between Staten    stretching south to South Carolina, Kentucky
Island and Brooklyn) and in Greenwood             and Texas, and west to Missouri and Iowa,
Cemetery, quickly became established              reaching the latter in  (Dinsmore ),
(Palmer ).                                    and north to Montreal in Canada. By the
   Until at least well into the s large       mid-s, they occurred in some  states
numbers of House Sparrows (some ,             and five territories (future states), including
of which were imported from western Europe        most states east of the Mississippi River (apart
and were thus of the nominate subspecies)         from parts of Florida, where they reached
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Lake City in  (James ), Alabama and       had been overrun, and three years later it was
Mississippi) as well as portions of eight west-   estimated that Sparrows were established over
ern states. Sparrows thus occurred in North       . million sq km of North America, includ-
America from southern New Brunswick,              ing more than , sq km of Canada; in
Canada, south to southern Georgia, central        the following year a further . million sq km
Alabama and Mississippi, west to eastern          were occupied. Palmer () reported
Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, north-central         that only Montana, Nevada, Wyoming,
Iowa and southeastern Minnesota, and north        Alaska, Arizona and New Mexico remained
to Wisconsin and upper Michigan, and to           uninfested; in Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and
Ontario and Quebec in Canada. Large and           Utah House Sparrows had become an offi-
thriving populations were also established        cially designated pest. By , Sparrows had
around New Orleans, Louisiana.                    crossed the Great Plains to the eastern
   In western Canada, House Sparrows are          foothills of the Rocky Mountains, and by the
believed to have crossed the border into          early years of the twentieth century only cen-
British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan        tral Nevada, southern California and parts of
shortly after their establishment in Washing-     the Rockies remained uncolonised, and even
ton, Montana and North Dakota in the late         here Sparrows were established locally by .
nineteenth century. By the late s they had        Between  and  there is evidence of
spread along the railroads north to the limits    a decline in the population in eastern North
of human settlement (Summers-Smith ).         America coinciding with a decline in the use
   House Sparrows were introduced into            of horse-drawn transportation in favour
western states in  or  in California      of motor vehicles. Nevertheless, Wing ()
(Sibley  incorrectly says that House          estimated the House Sparrow population to
Sparrows did not reach California until )     number up to a staggering  million. There
and in  or  at Salt Lake City, Utah       is evidence for a further decline since the mid-
(Robbins ). By the mid-s flourishing       s (Robbins ) apart from in the west
populations occurred in the San Francisco         where the population appears to be relatively
Bay area, and in the lower Sacramento and         stable (Johnston & Garrett ).
San Joaquin River valleys in California               According to Johnston & Selander (),
(Vuilleumier ), and in Salt Lake City.        geographic morphological variations have
Today, House Sparrows occur in all parts of       developed among House Sparrows in North
the western United States and Canada, but at      America as a result of widely differing envi-
low densities in eastern Oregon, southern         ronmental conditions; thus northern birds
Idaho and Montana, western Wyoming,               tend to be larger than those in the south,
Colorado, and Arizona, and most of Utah           and birds in the arid southwest are paler
(Johnston & Garrett ).                        than those in the west and east. (For further
   The species was first recorded on Cali-         references see Lever :  and Sibley
fornia’s Channel Islands (Santa Cruz and San      : ).
Clemente) in . It later became a breeding         According to the AOU (: ), House
resident on Santa Rosa (where it was first         Sparrows in North America are
recorded in ), San Nicolas (colonised
between  and ), Santa Catalina (first         presently resident from central and south-
reported in ) and San Clemente before            eastern British Columbia, southwestern
. A breeding population never became             Mackenzie, northwestern and central
properly established on Santa Cruz, and the          Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, cen-
species has now died out on Santa Rosa (H. L.        tral Ontario, southern Quebec (including
Jones pers. comm. to Power ).                    Anticosti and Magdalen islands), and
   Between  and  House Sparrows ex-          Newfoundland south throughout south-
panded their range by around . million sq          ern Canada, the continental United
km. By  about a third of the United States       States, and most of Mexico to Veracruz,
                                                Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

   Oaxaca, and Chiapas, locally in Central          Pennsylvania, in  (quoted by Laycock
   America (where range expanding rapidly           ) appeared to have been the first to draw
   in recent years) south to Panama (east to        attention to the threat posed by House Spar-
   eastern Panamá province).                        rows. His warning was echoed by Barrows
                                                    () and Palmer (: ) who said: ‘The
   [House Sparrows arrived in Mexico in the         damage which it does in destroying fruit and
early twentieth century (Alvarez del Toro           grain, in disfiguring buildings in cities and
), Guatemala in  (Thurber ), El         towns, and in driving away other birds, makes
Salvador in  and Costa Rica in  (Stiles     it one of the worst of feathered pests’. It was
& Smith ). They colonised Panama in             the warning given by Warren, Barrows,
, and later Belize, Honduras, and               Palmer and other like-minded individuals,
Nicaragua (Summers-Smith )].                    that persuaded Congress in  to pass the
                                                    Lacey Act prohibiting further introductions
Spreading through the Americas: House               of alien animals into the United States.
Sparrows arrived in Mexico in the early                House Sparrows proved a signal failure in
twentieth century (Alvarez del Toro ),          controlling geometrids such as the larvae of
Guatemala in  (Thurber ), El Sal-           the White-marked Tussock Moth Orgyia
vador in  and Costa Rica in  (Stiles &      leucostigma and the Snow-white Linden Moth
Smith ). They colonised Panama in ,         Eunomas subsignarius.
and later Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua              The US Department of Agriculture has
(Summers-Smith ).                               recorded harassment by P. domesticus of more
                                                    than  native bird species, mainly involving
   ‘The marvellous rapidity of the Sparrow’s        competition for food and nesting sites (Dins-
multiplication’, wrote Barrows (: à),       more ).
‘the surpassing swiftness of its extension, and        House Sparrows are an economic threat to
the prodigious size of the area it has overspread   farmers, consuming an estimated kg of grain
are without parallel in the history of any bird     per bird per annum. They eat corn (maize),
?’. These were achieved firstly through the         wheat, oats, rye, buckwheat, sorghum,
species’ deliberate translocation by nostalgic      rice, barley, pears, plums, grapes, cherries,
European settlers; secondly, because of the         currants, apples, strawberries, raspberries,
House Sparrow’s habit of riding the paddle-         blackberries, tomatoes and peas. They spread
boats that regularly plied the major river          cestode and nematode parasites among
systems; and thirdly by dispersal along railway     domestic poultry, and foul stored food. They
tracks and highways where the birds found           also block gutters, downpipes and drains, and
plenty of food from the spillage from boxcars       damage brickwork. The only benefit they
on freight-trains and from carts. They were         confer is the destruction of large numbers of
further helped by the provision of artificial       introduced alfalfa weevils.
nest-boxes, the destruction of potential
predators and legal protection in the late s    W I
in some  states.                                  According to Raffaele et al. (), House
   Although adult House Sparrows are preyed         Sparrows probably arrived in the West Indies
on by hawks, owls and cats, and their               as stowaways on grain and tourist vessels.
nestlings and young by grackles (Quiscalus          Lack () says they first reached Jamaica,
spp.) and Red-headed Woodpeckers Melaner-           at Annotto Bay, around . ‘The species
pes erythrocephalus, heavy and prolonged            flourished in the s, declined in the s
winter snow seems to be their main control-         and appeared to have died out in the s.
ling factor.                                        However, there is a  sighting from south-
                                                    central Jamaica’ (Raffaele et al. : ).
Impact: Dr B. H. Warren, speaking to the               In the Virgin Islands, a small population of
Microscopical Society in West Chester,              House Sparrows was established in  in the
   Naturalised Birds of the World

town of Charlotte Amalie on St Thomas,             A
where Bond () said they had perhaps died       An anonymous account says that House Spar-
out. Since then the birds have recolonised St      rows were first introduced (? unsuccessfully) to
Thomas and have recently established them-         Argentina by European farmers around .
selves on St John (Raffaele et al. ).           In  or  E. Bieckert released about 
   From St Thomas, House Sparrows are said         pairs in Buenos Aires in an unsuccessful
to have been introduced (or to have dispersed      attempt to control a psychid moth Oiketicus
naturally) to Puerto Rico and Hispaniola.          kirbyi (O. platensis in Summers-Smith ).
Although Raffaele & Kepler () record a          More are believed to have been liberated
sight record for the species in Ponce in Puerto    shortly thereafter, and by  they had
Rico in , Pérez-Rivera et al. () suggest   dispersed up to km from Buenos Aires. By
an earlier arrival, as the birds were already       they had reached Chaco Province, km
common in . They hypothesise that              to the north, and by  had spread further
House Sparrows may have been illegally             north still to Las Palmas and south to Cabo
introduced or arrived on a grainship for the       San Antonia (Gibson ). By about 
United States, the US Virgin Islands, or the       Sparrows were established in settled localities
Dominican Republic. The species seems to           throughout the country, and were beginning
have spread slowly from Ponce (Pérez-Rivera        to invade unsettled areas (Navas ), and by
) until it began to disperse more rapidly      the mid-s they had spread westwards
in the early s (Moreno ), and has          along the railway to Neuquüén Province in
now established itself throughout the coastal      the foothills of the Andes. By  they had
plain and is currently colonising towns at high    penetrated as far south as Ushuaia in Tierra
elevations (Raffaele et al. ). It reached the   del Fuego, at o ’ S the most southerly
islands of Mona and Culebra in in  and         township in the world, and shortly thereafter
 respectively (Moreno ). On Hispan-        were established virtually countrywide (Olrog
iola, House Sparrows are said by Raffaele et al.    ). See also Narosky & Yzurieta ()
() to be locally common in all urban areas     and Mazar Barnett & Pearman ().
of the Dominican Republic. Raffaele et al.
() also record its presence in St Martin       [B]
and Guadeloupe.                                    Dott (), from whom much of the follow-
   Spanish monks are said to have introduced       ing account is derived, has traced the spread of
House Sparrows to Havana, Cuba in  and         the House Sparrow in Bolivia.
again in the late s. Today the species is         Although according to Summers-Smith
very common and widespread (Raffaele et             () the species first appeared, in the south,
al. ), especially in large towns such as       in , Eisentraut () says that the first
Havana and Camagüey.                               record, at Villa Montes, dates from .
   House Sparrows were unsuccessfully intro-       Others were seen at three other southern
duced to the Bahamas, at Nassau on New             localities in , which suggests that, in the
Providence, in  (Palmer , Summers-         absence of any documented introductions,
Smith ), where they were reported by           Bolivia was colonised by natural immigrants
Gebhardt () to have been wiped out by a        from Argentina and, perhaps, Paraguay, in the
hurricane in . In  or  House           middle to late s. Thereafter, they may
Sparrows were seen again in and around Nas-        have spread steadily northwards, but although
sau, and since then others have been recorded      Summers-Smith () says they had reached
from Grand Bahama and Eleuthera. Today,            the capital, La Paz, in west-central Bolivia, in
the species is locally common in the northern      the early s, Dott () stated that by that
Bahamas and on Grand Inagua in the south-          date they had not yet penetrated to central
ern Bahamas (Raffaele et al. ), at least as     Bolivia.
far north as Walker Cay. These birds probably         Between  and  the distribution of
arrived as stowaways on ships from Florida.        House Sparrows altered dramatically, and
                                               Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

many new and widely distributed new locali-        central Brazil since  almost certainly
ties were colonised – mostly at low or mid         helped to facilitate the House Sparrow’s
elevations but a few at high altitude. On          spread northwards; between  and  the
the sparsely vegetated and very cold high          birds extended their range km along the
altiplano, the Andean plateau, Dott ()         Belém/Brasília highway to Maranhão and
found House Sparrows in small numbers in           Pará states. House Sparrows made their first
 and  in Oruro and La Paz, both at an      appearance in Brazilian Amazonia, at Itinga,
altitude of ,m, where in winter night-         in , and by  were widely established
time temperatures fall regularly to between        (Smith ). See also Souza ()
–oC and –oC. This may be the highest
elevation at which House Sparrows have ever        Impact: In São Paulo state, P. domesticus
been recorded. Since it is unlikely that they      has been found to be host to the first instar
could have crossed km of antiplano and          nymphs of Triatoma sordida – a vector of
mountain unaided, it seems probable that           Chagas’ disease which can prove fatal to man.
they arrived in La Paz and Oruro via the
railway line. In the central and southern low-     C
lands, Dott () found Sparrows in  to       House Sparrows were introduced to Chile by
be well established and abundant, though           A. Cousino in , at Los Andes and Rio
only locally. In the humid Andean foothills        Blanco in Aconagua in  (Hellmayr )
and in the northern and eastern lowlands they      and, according to Summers-Smith () at
were even more sparsely distributed. Today,        Punta Arenas on the Strait of Magellan,
they mainly occur in the tropical and semi-        probably by monks from Buenos Aires, in
arid slopes of the Andes in southern and           . The birds spread rapidly, and by 
central Bolivia and in towns and villages in       were established from Tierra del Fuego and
the lowlands.                                      Chiloé Island north to Arica on the Peruvian
                                                   border, which they reached around 
B                                             (Philippi ). They are today common
Summers-Smith () says that House               countrywide in urban localities and farmland
Sparrows were imported to Brazil in  to        (Jaramillo et al. ).
kill caterpillars that were attacking ornamen-
tal shrubs in Rio de Janeiro; his map, however,    Impact: Although Johnson (: –)
shows the year as  – the same date as that     claimed that House Sparrows in Chile have
given by Sick (). Smith (), on the         ‘… ousted the indigenous Rufous-collared
other hand, says the birds were introduced to      Sparrow [Zonotrichia capensis] and [Common]
kill mosquitoes in the city in , and that in   Diuca Finch [Diuca diuca] from many of their
 some were translocated to southern            former haunts around the towns and forced
Brazil, where they quickly became established      them to withdraw to the countryside’,
in Rio Grande do Sul.                              Vuilleumier () points out that the habitats
   In the mid-twentieth century House              of the two native species tend not to overlap
Sparrows expanded their range rapidly in           with that of P. domesticus.
Brazil, reaching Mato Grosso in ; Espirito
Santo in ; Goiás (where they were released     [E]
to kill noxious insects) in ; Piani in ;   According to Ortiz-Crespo (), House
Minas Gerais in ; and Ceará in .           Sparrows reached Guayaquil on the coast of
Summers-Smith () recorded that by the          Ecuador (presumably from Peru) in .
early s the southern states of Rio Grande
do Sul, Santa Caterina, Parana, São Paulo, Rio     [P]
de Janeiro, Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais and       Wetmore () records the presence of
parts of Goiás and Mato Grosso had been            House Sparrows in the capital, Asunción, in
colonised. The construction of roads in            , which they had probably reached as
 Naturalised Birds of the World

natural immigrants from Argentina. They            capensis, Saffron Finches Sicalis flaveola,
now occur virtually throughout the country.        Pale-legged Horneros Furnarius leucopus,
                                                   Bare-faced Ground Doves Metriopelia ceciliae,
P                                               Hooded Siskins Carduelis magellanica, Palm
House Sparrows were introduced to parks in         Tanagers Thraupis palmarum and Common
Lima in , where within  years they           Diuca Finches Diuca diuca.
outnumbered the native Rufous-collared
Sparrow Zonotrichia capensis (Leck ).          A
Summers-Smith () says that in  some        Table  gives details of early introductions of
were translocated to Callao, km west of          House Sparrows to Australia.
Lima, where within a decade they had joined           In , only one year after the first
up with Sparrows that had spread north from        successful introduction, the Victoria Acclima-
Chile around  and west from Bolivia.           tisation Society announced that ‘the Sparrow
                                                   … may now be considered thoroughly estab-
U                                            lished’ (Ryan ). In South Australia,
‘By the end of the th century the House          House Sparrows were reported at Magill, near
Sparrow was advancing across the border            Adelaide, in , at Mount Gambier in ,
[from Argentina] into Uruguay’ (Summers-           and on Kangaroo Island in . On Tasmania
Smith : ). There is also believed to        they became established at Launceston shortly
have been at least one deliberate introduction     after their release in  or . The popula-
from Buenos Aires to Colonia around .          tion in Queensland is derived from natural
By  House Sparrows were said to be             dispersal from New South Wales, where
common throughout Uruguay (Wetmore                 Sparrows were established soon after their
). See also Narosky & Yzurieta ()          liberation. Stringent precautions, the presence
and Azpiroz ().                                of the Nullarbor Plain, and the change
                                                   from horse-drawn to motorised transport
Range in South America: By , J. D. Sum-        prevented House Sparrows from becoming
mers-Smith recorded the establishment of           settled in Western Australia (Tarr ).
Passer domesticus over most of the southern           Ryan () reported that House Sparrows
half of South America south of o-oS,           had spread out over much of Victoria, south-
including most of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay,       ern New South Wales and South Australia, as
Paraguay, parts of Brazil, western Peru and        well as occurring in Tasmania and islands in
parts of Bolivia and Ecuador. By the               Bass Strait – as elsewhere usually following
mid-s the species had extended its range       human settlement. Tarr () found them to
northwards into northern Bolivia and               be abundant throughout New South Wales
Ecuador, and was continuing to spread              and in many parts of Victoria; in Queensland
towards Colombia and Venezuela in the              they had reached as far north as Rockhampton,
northwest and north, and towards the north-        while in South Australia they ranged north to
east, through both natural dispersal and inter-    Marree and west to Tarcoola; they were also
and intra-national translocations by man. The      common in settled districts of Tasmania and
birds’ apparent reluctance to colonise parts of    on King and Flinders Islands in the Bass Strait.
northern South America may be due at least         A decade later, House Sparrows were well es-
in part to the need for considerable metabolic     tablished on Kangaroo Island, and in Tasmania
and physiological adaptation in some regions       had spread north to Moth Creek. In Queens-
(e.g. Kendeigh ).                              land they first appeared at Atherton in ,
                                                   and before the end of the decade had expanded
Impact in South America: In some parts of          their range to Tolga and Kairi; by  they
the continent House Sparrows are said to           were breeding on islands in the Torres Strait.
compete for food and, especially, nesting sites,      Frith (: ) described the House Spar-
with Rufous-collared Sparrows Zonotrichia          row’s range as extending ‘from the eastern
                                                    Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

  Introductions of House Sparrows Passer domesticus to Australia, s–.

Date      Number                 Introduced to/by              Remarks
? s   ?                      Victoria                  ?
       (or  pairs)       Victoria                  All died on the voyage from England.
                           Melbourne, Victoria       ?
       pair (?+)            Sydney, New South Wales   Imported from Melbourne, Victoria. Bred
                                                           successfully; fledglings transferred to
                                                           Murrurundi in , where they also bred
                                                           successfully.
      ?                      ?                         Released at Adelaide, South Australia.
       (including         Melbourne, Victoria        released in Melbourne Botanic Gardens
          some Chaffinches)                                  and  at Partridge Stockade (gaol).
 or   ?                      Hobart and/or Launceston, Imported from Melbourne, Victoria.
                             Tasmania                  More later imported from Adelaide,
                                                           South Australia. Released at Launceston.
                          J. O’Shannasy, Victoria   Released at Boroodata.
                            Victoria Acclimatisation  Released at Ballarat.
                                 Society (A.S.)
      ?                      Victoria A.S.             ?
      ?                      Thomas Austin, Victoria   Released in various localities in Victoria
                                                           (see Lever : ).
                          Victoria A.S.             Released in various localities in Victoria.
?         ?                      Brisbane, Queensland      All died shortly after arrival.
      ?                      ?                         First record for Western Australia (Perth).

Sources : Helms ; Littler ; Ryan .

edge of the Nullarbor Plain throughout South           amendment to the Game Act excluded Passer
Australia, except the most arid parts, through-        domesticus from its protection – thus in effect
out Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and            declaring it a pest. When the Adelaide to
Queensland to as far north as Mount Isa at             Perth railway line was being constructed
least in the inland and to Cairns on the coast         between  and  a man was employed to
… it has failed to cross the deserts to colonise       destroy any Sparrows that tried to follow the
the Northern Territory’. Pizzey () recorded        line and glean scraps from the railhead camps.
Sparrows also on some offshore and Great                   Particularly in Victoria, and to a lesser
Barrier Reef islands, on those in the Bass             extent in Queensland, House Sparrows
Strait, on Kangaroo Island, and on some                consume large amounts of food on poultry
smaller coastal islets. The map in Barrett et al.      farms. Wherever cereal crops are grown they
() shows that while House Sparrows                 eat growing and stored grain (especially maize
remain most abundant in southeastern                   and wheat) and germinating seedlings, fruit
Australia and have yet to cross the Nullarbor          (mainly cherries, apricots and plums) and
Plain into Western Australia, they have                vegetables (largely tomatoes and peas). They
spread north in Queensland to the Cape York            damage and deface buildings with their
Peninsula and west across the deserts to the           droppings, and block gutters, downpipes and
central Northern Territory. Overall, however,          drains with their nesting material.
there has been some decrease in the popula-               (For the interaction between P. domesticus
tion during the past two decades.                      and P. montanus see the latter species).

Impact: As early as  complaints                    N Z
were being made about damage to fruit                  Table  gives details of what appear to have
trees caused by Sparrows, and in  an               been the only recorded introductions of
     Naturalised Birds of the World

House Sparrows (of the nominate subspecies)           () said that House Sparrows were wide-
to New Zealand. The birds were imported               spread throughout New Zealand, not always
mainly for nostalgic reasons by immigrants            (as elsewhere) in association with man. In the
from England, but also to control caterpillars        north they frequent the unlikely habitats of
and insects in the grain fields of South Island        saltings and mangrove swamps.
and in the orchards of North Island. They                House Sparrows are now ‘common through-
soon became established and were widely               out the mainland and inhabited offshore is-
distributed by . According to Thomson             lands, and the Chathams and Norfolk Island,
(: ), they ‘very quickly increased in all      are recorded from the Antipodes, The Snares,
parts until they became a very serious pest’.         Auckland and Campbell Islands’ (Heather &
   House Sparrows colonised, either naturally         Robertson : ). Baker () records
or more probably by ship, the Chatham                 breeding on the Chathams, Campbell, Auck-
Islands around  (the map in Summers-              land and Snares Islands. They live principally
Smith (: ) indicates colonisation              in arable farmland, rural and suburban gardens
between  and , while Forbes ()            and parks, and in the vicinity of grain stores.
suggests an earlier date); Campbell Island
around  (Summers-Smith’s map indicates            Impact: As early as  the Small Birds
between  and ), where they died out           Nuisance Act was passed in an attempt to
between  and ; Great and Little Bar-          control House Sparrows and other small
rier, Poor Knights, Kapiti and Stewart Islands        introduced pest species. Dawson ()
around ; the Snares in about  (Sum-           estimated the average grain loss through
mers-Smith’s map indicates between  and           House Sparrow depredation at between five
); and Three King’s, Mokohinau, Mayor,            and %. ‘House Sparrows’, wrote Heather &
Karewa, Codfish and the Auckland Islands by            Robertson (: ), ‘are probably the most
 (Summers-Smith’s map indicates coloni-           economically important bird pest in New
sation of the Aucklands between  and              Zealand, by causing serious damage to wheat,
). Wodzicki () suggested a recent             barley, and maize crops, and lesser damage to
occupation of White Island in the Bay of              oats and seedling peas and brassicas. They also
Plenty, where Summers-Smith’s map indicates           attack grapes, cherries, and other ripening
an arrival between  and . Wodzicki            fruit, and feed on grain products being fed to
(: ) described the House Sparrow as            livestock and poultry’. In compensation they
‘widely distributed and abundant, North,              eat large quantities of destructive beetles,
South, Stewart, and Chatham, Auckland,                caterpillars, leafhoppers, grasshoppers and flies
Snares and Campbell Islands’. Falla et al.            (Heather & Robertson ).

  Introductions of the House Sparrow Passer domesticus to New Zealand, –.

Date      Number     Introduced by                           Remarks
?             ‘Mr Brodie’                             Soon disappeared.
                Nelson Acclimatisation Society (A.S.)   —
      ?          Nelson A.S.                             Only a single bird survived the voyage
                                                             from England.
               Auckland provincial government          Two survivors released.
      ?          Wanganui A.S.                           —
               Canterbury A.S.                         Released at Kaiapoi and bred in .
               Auckland provincial government          Released.
                Otago A.S.                              Released.
               Otago A.S.                              Released.
                Nelson A.S.                             Released at Stoke and soon established.

Source : Thomson .
                                              Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

A I                                  Islands. They are a recent arrival, probably by
House Sparrows introduced to Georgetown at        ship, to Gran Canaria, where they first bred in
Christmas  continue to survive in              (Martí & del Moral ).
very small numbers (Summers-Smith ,
Clement et al. , Rowlands et al. ). See   C V I
also McCulloch .                              Bourne () suggested that House Sparrows
                                                  may have reached the Cape Verde islands as
A I                                    stowaways on ships from Europe between
According to Agostinho (), large numbers       and , when a dozen were collected
of House Sparrows from Portugal (? P. d.          on São Vicente. By  they were common in
balearoibericus) were released at Lajes airport   central Mindelo and the Porto Grande on São
on Terceira in , and within two years the     Vicente, but apparently had spread to no
entire island had been overrun. By  the       other islands. In  Summers-Smith ()
birds were breeding residents on Graciosa,        found them to be restricted to the town and
São Jorge, Pico, and Faial (Le Grand ) and    impoverished farmland in the south. On São
they had reached São Miguel in  or        Vicente, P. domesticus has hybridised with
and Flores a decade later. Only Santa Maria       the Spanish Sparrow P. hispaniolensis, which
and Corvo were not yet overrun. Summers-          arrived, presumably naturally, but possibly by
Smith () estimated the population in      ship. House Sparrows remain restricted to São
to number between , and ,.              Vicente, where they are common in Mindelo
                                                  and its environs, at Ribeira da Vinha, and at
B                                           oases in the interior. (Hazevoet ).
D. B. Wingate (pers. comm. ) said that
the House Sparrow was a ‘deliberate introduc-     F I
tion in  and  “for house fly control in    Hamilton () states that about  House
the towns”. The first introduction of a few        Sparrows arrived in the town of Stanley on
birds was to St Georges by the mayor Mr W.        East Falkland on board a whaling factory ship
C. J. Hyland. The second involving about        from Montevideo, Uruguay, in October ,
birds was to Hamilton. Both introductions         and in later years they were probably joined
were imported from New York, USA [where           by more from other visiting vessels. Although
the birds are of the nominate form] …. The        Bennett () claimed that by  they had
Sparrow rapidly increased to abundant before      spread throughout the archipelago, Hamilton
 … it is now the most abundant land bird      () found them only in Stanley. By about
on Bermuda’.                                       House Sparrows had dispersed km
   Until after the Second World War Ber-          westwards to Darwin and km northwest to
muda relied exclusively on horse-drawn            Teal Inlet (Cawkell & Hamilton ). Woods
transport, and this, as in North America,         () recorded them at Goose Green Patch –
undoubtedly contributed to the House Spar-        also on East Falkland.
row’s successful establishment in Bermuda,           In – small group of House Sparrows
where it is now common and ubiquitous             became established on West Point and
(Raine ).                                     Carcass Islands off West Falkland; their origin
                                                  is uncertain, but they may have arrived by
Impact: House Sparrows in Bermuda have            ship or as storm-borne waifs from South
largely displaced the endemic race of the         America or on inter-island boats from Stanley,
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis bermudensis as a   or alternatively as natural dispersers. Although
cavity-nester on the islands.                     by  the West Point colony numbered
                                                  around  individuals (R. Woods pers. comm.
C I                                    ) it is believed to have since died out.
According to Langley (), House Spar-          Today, House Sparrows are numerous only in
rows are becoming established in the Canary       Stanley.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

A I; N                         C I
I                                          Hawkins & Safford (in prep.) record the pres-
Abdulali () says that about half-a-dozen     ence of House Sparrows on Christmas Island.
House Sparrows of the form indicus were
imported to Ross Island by O. H. Brookes in      M
, followed by  more in ; Abdulali      On Madagascar, House Sparrows are confined
() found them to be quite common at          to an area of around km around Tamatave
Port Blair on South Andaman, with some also      on the east coast (Hawkins & Safford in
at Choldhari. From the Andamans House            prep.). Their date of arrival and origin are
Sparrows may have spread naturally to the        apparently unrecorded. In  F. Hawkins
Nicobar Islands.                                 saw one in Antananarivo, which represents a
                                                 significant extension of range (R. Safford pers.
C A                               comm. ).
House Sparrows were first recorded by the
Percy Sladen Trust expedition of  on the     M I
islands of Salomon and Peros Banhos, to          According to Ash (a), House Sparrows of
which they were said to have been introduced     the form P. d. indicus were a recent immigrant
from Mauritius (Bourne ). Hutson ()      in the Maldives, where they occurred only on
found them to be still common on both these      Malé. Whether they arrived naturally from
islands.                                         southern India or by ship is unknown.

C I                                  Impact: Ash (a) expressed his concern
House Sparrows were first recorded on             should P. domesticus spread to other islands in
Grande Comore in , in settled areas of       the archipelago on which millet Panicum sp. is
Mohéli in  (Grote ) and on Pamanzi       grown.
in  where, according to Summers-Smith
(), they were introduced by occupying        M I
troops, and are of the Sudanese race             Clark () says that British soldiers brought
rufidorsalis. Watson et al. () recorded       House Sparrows from India (P. d. indicus) to
Sparrows as common on Grande Comore and          Mauritius in about  or , and that they
as present in settled localities on Mohéli and   were released in the barracks at Port Louis,
on Pamanzi. Summers-Smith (: ) said       where by  they were well established and
that ‘on Mohéli they are present in every        rapidly increasing. They were numerous
village, while on the Grand Comoro they are      throughout the island by  (Meinertzha-
found in only one; C. W. Benson … could          gen ) and remain so (Staub , Cheke
not detect any difference between the islands     ), including in forest clearings and on
…’. Louette () and Hawkins & Safford          small islets (Hawkins & Safford in prep.), but
(in prep.) say that House Sparrows occur         especially in parks, gardens, and urban areas
in many (perhaps most) towns on the islands      (Jones ).
of Grande Comore and Mohéli, but that the           House Sparrows that had escaped from an
populations may fluctuate. House Sparrows         aviary were recorded as breeding on Réunion
have not been recorded on Anjouano. On           in  by Henri (). During the next few
Mayotte, where they are also established, the    years the birds spread throughout St Denis,
House Sparrows’ range is increasing, but they    and are now widespread and abundant on the
are currently restricted to Dzaoudzi,            island (Staub , Barré & Barau ,
Mamoudzou and to the adjacent coastal            Cheke ) in villages but are less common
area from Koungou to Dembeni and Mbouzi          at higher elevations (Hawkins & Safford in
islet (Louette , , Hawkins & Safford      prep.).
in prep.). See also Sinclair & Langrand             Bertuchi () reported the presence of
().                                          Sparrows on Rodrigues in , although
                                                 Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

Cheke () believed they may have been             able to trace was to ‘a further supply’ in ,
introduced earlier. They are common                  signifying an earlier introduction that
and widely distributed today (Cheke ),           presumably failed. In  nine Sparrows from
including in forest clearings and on most islets     New Zealand were released in Honolulu on
(Hawkins & Safford in prep.). They have also         Oahu, where by the end of the decade they
been seen on Île Coco (Showler ).                were said to be numerous. As late as ,
                                                     however, they were not reported from outside
Impact: A. S. Cheke (pers. comm. to Jones            Honolulu, and it was not until  that they
) pointed out that the decline and subse-        began to appear on other islands, presumably
quent extinction on Mauritius of the Java            as a result of further importations and/or
Sparrow Lonchura oryzivora in the mid- and           translocations (Caum ). Peterson (),
late nineteenth century respectively coincided       Summers-Smith (), Zeillemaker & Scott
with the establishment of P. domesticus.             () and Berger () reported them to be
                                                     common on all the main inhabited islands
S I                                   (but less so on Kauai and Niihau) and to
Gaymer et al. () found House Sparrows            occur as vagrants on Kure and Midway atolls.
to be established and common on the islands          They live principally in settlements, ranch
of Alphonse and D’Arros. According to Sker-          paddocks, feedlots and camping grounds
rett et al. (), they are of the form indicus     (Scott et al. ). Pratt et al. (: )
(Israel to Laos) . Penny (: –) said ‘It    describe House Sparrows as ‘common to
occurs and breeds on Desroches, Resource, St         abundant in cities and towns’ and the AOU
Joseph, D’Arros and probably other islands           (:) says they have spread ‘throughout
…’. Skerrett et al. () and Hawkins & Sa-         all main islands’. According to Johnston &
fford (in prep.) record it as also occurring on       Selander (), House Sparrows in the
Rémire, Desnoeufs, Marie-Louise, Bijoutier,          Hawaiian Islands differ markedly in their
St François and Alphonse, and as breeding on         plumage from European and North American
Ressource, Var and St Joseph. It has also been       mainland populations.
recorded on the granitic group of islands.
   Although the origin of House Sparrows in          Impact: Three out of a flock of nine House
the Amirantes is uncertain, Skerrett et al.          Sparrows on Oahu were found to be infected
() point out that the Asian form of the          with the malarial parasite Plasmodium
Indian House Gecko Hemidactylus brookii              cathemerium – the first record for this species
(see Lever ) exists in the Seychelles only       from any Pacific Island (Berger ).
on Desroches (where it was introduced prior
to ), and it is likely that it and P. domesti-   J F I
cus were stowaways on vessels from India.            House Sparrows arrived in the Juan Fernan-
Alternatively, House Sparrows could have             dez archipelago in about , probably as
arrived in the Amirantes via Mauritius, the          stowaways on a ship from Valparaiso in Chile,
source of other introductions to the Seychelles.     and are established on Más á Tierra and Más á
                                                     Fuera Islands (Summers-Smith , Philippi
E I                                        , Vuilleumier , Jaramillo et al. ).
In  House Sparrows were introduced
from Chile to Easter Island, where they              N C
quickly became established; the reason for the       Palmer () reported the presence of House
introduction is unknown (Philippi , Sick         Sparrows on New Caledonia, where they soon
, Vuilleumier , Jaramillo et al. ).      became established in settled areas (Leach ,
                                                     Delacour , Long ).
H I
The earliest reference to House Sparrows in          N I
the Hawaiian Islands that Thrun () was           Williams () says that House Sparrows
     Naturalised Birds of the World

colonised Norfolk Island in about ; the             range on the west coast [appears likely]
map in Summers-Smith (: ) indicates a            …. It seems improbable … that the
date between  and . It seems probable           House Sparrow will for long be denied
that they arrived as stowaways on a ship from           entry to Western Australia but extensions
Australia or New Zealand. Smithers & Disney             in other parts of Australia appear unlikely.
() found them to be abundant in villages,           Further spread is to be expected in South
around homesteads and in neighbouring                   Africa despite competition from related
pastures – a status confirmed by Heather &               species …. In the last hundred years its
Robertson (). See also Barrett et al.               range has more than doubled [to some 
                                                        million sq km] and at present it occurs on
().
                                                        about a quarter of the earth’s surface ….
V
Cain & Galbraith () record the presence
of P. domesticus in the New Hebrides; how and
when the species arrived and its present status,     Eurasian Tree Sparrow
are unknown.                                         Passer montanus
Summary: Summers-Smith (, passim)                Natural Range: Most of Eurasia (except S Iran,
summed up the results of House Sparrow                 the Middle East and India) S of the tundra
introductions worldwide and the future of              and taiga zones, from W Europe eastwards
naturalised populations.                               to China and Japan, S to Malaysia and
                                                       Indonesia.
      The outstanding thing about these intro-       Naturalised Range: Europe: France (Corsica);
      ductions has been their extraordinary suc-       Italy (Sardinia); Malta. Asia: Borneo
      cess. The main reason for this has been the      (Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak); ?India; Lesser
      lack of competition from native species.         Sunda Is; Molucca Is; Pescadores Is.;
      No bird of any other genus has exploited         Philippine Is; ?Singapore; Sulawesi. North
      and adapted man-made urban habitats to           America: Canada; USA. Australasia:
      anything like the extent of the House            Australia. Atlantic Ocean: Canary Is.
      Sparrow and thus there were no real com-         Indian Ocean: ?Christmas I. Pacific Ocean:
      petitors …. It is interesting that the House     Mariana Is; Marshall Is; Federated States of
      Sparrow appears to have been less success-       Micronesia.
      ful in other parts of the world [this was
      written before the species’ major African      F (C)
      expansion]. Here is the one place where        Ivanov & Summers-Smith () say that Tree
      members of the genus Passer were already       Sparrows colonised the island of Corsica
      established …. In North and South
                                                     during the twentieth century, though whether
      America the pattern of spread appears to
                                                     as natural immigrants or as ship-borne
      have been very similar: first the cities and
                                                     stowaways cannot be determined.
      larger towns were occupied and from
      these the birds infiltrated to the villages
      and populous farming areas. The main           I (S)
      factor responsible was most probably the       According to Voous (), the Eurasian Tree
      transportation of grain …. In North            Sparrow on the island of Sardinia was intro-
      America, the limit in the north is already     duced by man; this is likely to have been by
      the limit of cultivation … to the south it     ship from Naples (J. D. Summers-Smith pers.
      is probable that the bird will continue to     comm. ), where the nominate subspecies
      spread southwards in Central America.          occurs in the city centre, during the twentieth
         In South America … consolidation of         century (Ivanov & Summers-Smith ).
      that area of the sub-continent already         This introduction is not referred to by either
      occupied [and] a further extension of          Baccetti et al. () or Bertolino ().
                                              Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

M                                             (Medway & Wells , Summers-Smith
Ivanov & Summers-Smith () say that            ).
P. montanus colonised Malta during the twen-
tieth century, though whether naturally or        I
through the intervention of man is uncertain.     Raju & Price () reported a small isolated
                                                  population of Tree Sparrows, believed to be of
B (B; S;                            the race malaccensis (Himalayan foothills to
S)                                          southeast Asia), in the Eastern Ghats in
Although Passer montanus is said by C. Vaurie     Andra Pradesh. The origin of these birds is
(in Peters ) to have occurred on the island   uncertain, but they may well represent an
of Borneo as early as the s, no specific       introduction by man. Price () estimated
localities are mentioned. Gore () reported    the population at under , and believed it
a small group in the port of Sandakan in          was declining.
Sabah, where a breeding colony became
established in the docks area and from where      L S I; M
the birds spread to other parts of the town.      I
Smythies () recorded Tree Sparrows in         C. Vaurie (in Peters ) says that Tree
Sarawak in , and Gore () found some       Sparrows (malaccensis) have been successfully
on Labuan Island off Sabah in . Harrison       introduced to the island of Ambon in the
() saw the species in Brunei in .         Moluccas and Lombok in the Lesser Sunda
These birds probably arrived as stowaways on      Islands; on the latter, Summers-Smith ()
ships from Singapore and/or Hong Kong             says they may be natural immigrants from
                                                  Bali. Dickinson () confirms that the
                                                  subspecies is malaccensis.

                                                  P I
                                                  According to Horikawa () and Hachisuka
                                                  & Udagawa (), Tree Sparrows from
                                                  Formosa (Taiwan) were released on the
                                                  Pescadores Island in the Formosa Strait
                                                  between Taiwan and mainland China by a
                                                  Chinese named Rosuirin in about . The
                                                  form in the Pescadores, where Tree Sparrows
                                                  are established on the islands of Yü-weng Tao,
                                                  P’eng-hu Yao, Pa Chao Hsü and Ta Hsü, is
                                                  said by Peters () to be dilutus (Iran and
                                                  Pakistan to Mongolia). The form native to
                                                  Taiwan is, however, saturatus (Dickinson
                                                  ).

                                                  P I
                                                  Between  and  Tree Sparrows were
                                                  recorded in Manila on the island of Luzon
                                                  and in Cebu City on Cebu by Whitehead
                                                  (), who believed they had been imported
                                                  from China before about . Delacour &
                                                  Mayr () found them to be well estab-
                                                  lished and common in many settled localities
                                                  on both islands. According to Parkes (),
            Eurasian Tree Sparrow                 the subspecies on Luzon is saturatus and was
   Naturalised Birds of the World

imported from Japan or Taiwan and that on         city limits, where they re-established
Cebu is malaccensis and came from the Malay       themselves in Tower Grove Park and the
Peninsula. Du Pont () said that the latter    Missouri Botanical (Shaw’s) Garden. Here
had also occurred on the island of Negros.        they remained until the s when encroach-
Clement et al. () say that now all inhab-     ment by man and P. domesticus compelled
ited islands have been colonised. Dickinson       them to move again, this time to several
() confirms that the form occurring in         suburban districts including parts of St
the southern Philippines is malaccensis and       Charles and St Louis Counties and to Creve
that in the north saturatus. See also Ivanov &    Coeur Lake, from where they subsequently
Summers-Smith .                               spread km westwards to Washington on the
                                                  Missouri River.
S                                             By the early twentieth century Tree
Although Robinson & Chasen () suggest         Sparrows had crossed the Mississippi River
that Tree Sparrows may have been introduced       into western Illinois, and by  they
to Singapore after its settlement by the East     occurred in Madison, Jersey, Calhoun,
India Company in , Ward () believed       St Clair, Jersey and Monroe Counties. In
that the species might have already been           they first appeared in Fulton County,
established in the region prior to European       Kentucky, km southeast of St Louis. As in
colonisation, having spread southeastwards        the case of the House Sparrow they are
down the Malay Peninsula, perhaps on coastal      believed to have travelled on the paddleboats
trading vessels, in the sixteenth and seven-      that plied the Mississippi River.
teenth centuries. It is today a common and            During the late s, Tree Sparrows
ubiquitous resident (Seng ).                  increased their range in Illinois, and after the
                                                  Second World War began to occur more
S                                          frequently outside an km radius of St Louis.
Tree Sparrows (of the race malaccensis) (Peters   In the s the centre of the population grad-
) have been introduced to Sulawesi,           ually moved from Horseshoe Lake, which they
where Stresemann () said they were            had colonised in –, to Grand Marias
then restricted to the southern peninsula:        State Park, East St Louis. By the end of the
since then they have become established in        decade, when they occurred mainly in east-
numerous localities (Escott & Holmes ).       central Missouri and western Illinois, Tree
Dickinson () confirms that the form in         Sparrows were dispersing slowly to the north
Sulawesi is malaccensis.                          and northeast.
                                                      Between  and  Tree Sparrows
U S; C                             extended their range north from St Louis
For much of the history of the Eurasian Tree      km up the Mississippi River to Quincy and
Sparrow in the United States I am indebted to     south to Modoc, and km northeast up the
Flieg ().                                     Illinois to Cass County, Virginia; by the end
   In  Carl Daenzer released  pairs of      of the decade they were established along the
Tree Sparrows of the nominate form (Merrill       Illinois for km between Hardin and
), which had been imported from Ger-          Beardstown, and eastwards to Sangamon
many by a bird-dealer named Kleinschmidt,         County. Although on the Missouri River they
in Layfayette Park in southern St Louis,          had still spread no further west than Washing-
Missouri. The birds soon became established,      ton, some places from which they had dis-
apparently because the presence of breweries      appeared had been recolonised. Almost
started by German immigrants provided an          a century after its introduction, the Tree
abundant supply of grain. In  the larger      Sparrow’s expansion of range was still closely
and more aggressive alien, the House Sparrow      associated with major river systems.
Passer domesticus, arrived in St Louis, and           Between the s and s the Tree Spar-
forced Tree Sparrows to disperse outside the      row spread into several western midwestern
                                               Passeridae (Sparrows, Snowfinches and Allies)   

states, including Iowa in , Minnesota in       Rusden on behalf of the Victoria Acclimatisa-
 and Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan           tion Society (see Lever ), were liberated in
in the s (Lang , Svingen ).            the Melbourne Botanic Gardens and in the
   The AOU (: ) described the               Partridge Stockade (prison), and in the same
Eurasian Tree Sparrow’s distribution in North      year a further  were freed in the St Kilda
America as ‘… east central Missouri and west-      district of Melbourne; in  another 
ern Illinois, with stragglers reported in south-   (including some malaccensis from Java) were
ern Manitoba, southern Ontario [Canada],           released at St Kilda and Ballarat, a few more
Minnesota, Wisconsin, southeastern Iowa …          possibly in , and  in . In  the
Indiana … and western Kentucky …’.                 Victoria Acclimatisation Society announced
   Flieg () found that the Tree Sparrows’      that the species was ‘thoroughly established’.
expansion of range had followed a well-            Some sent later from Melbourne to Sydney,
defined pattern; when flocks disperse in spring      New South Wales, soon became settled, but
the birds scatter and settle over a wide area,     others despatched to Tasmania apparently
those occurring in the most densely populated      disappeared (Ryan ).
localities spreading furthest to find enough           By the turn of the twentieth century Tree
space for each breeding pair. The relatively       Sparrows had spread south from Sydney
low-density populations in urban areas and in      to Junee in New South Wales, and by the
southern Missouri required little if any more      outbreak of the First World War they were
space for breeding than for overwintering.         fairly common around Wangaratta in Victoria
   The preferred habitat of Eurasian Tree          (km northeast of Melbourne) and in most
Sparrows in North America is agricultural          of the townships in the Riverina in New South
land, rich in food, nesting sites, shelter and     Wales (Hobbs ). By the early s, Tree
roosting places. In autumn and winter the          Sparrows had spread km north of Junee
birds form flocks several hundred strong,           and km northeast from Melbourne.
from which in spring mated pairs disperse to       Although as late as the mid-s they were
breed. The species’ distribution in North          still most abundant around Melbourne, by
America is discontinuous because of an absence     the late s they were starting to disperse
of unbroken suitable habitat.                      along the Melbourne to Sydney railway (Tarr
   St Louis & Barlow () found that the         ). In the second half of the following
introduced populations in the United States        decade they became established in several new
were less variable genetically than the ances-     localities in New South Wales and in some
tral German stock, presumably a result of the      towns in northern Victoria.
founding event. The smaller body size of              Pizzey () recorded Tree Sparrows as
North American P. montanus in comparison           established from Melbourne and towns of
to German birds may be either a result of          central and northeastern Victoria to southern
interspecific interactions or of flight habits, or   New South Wales, northeastwards to Sydney,
a combination of both. It could also be a con-     Newcastle and the Hunter River Valley.
sequence of the founder effect (E. F. J. Garcia     In Victoria, they occurred as far west as
pers. comm. ). Significant disparity in bill    Dimboola (km northwest of Melbourne)
morphology between North American and              and in New South Wales km west of
German birds may reflect differences in diet         Sydney. Summers-Smith () recorded
between the two populations. North Ameri-          them as far north as Wellington in New South
can birds seem to be just as variable morpho-      Wales. Chapman () reported the eradica-
logically as German ones, despite their lower      tion in  of a breeding colony of
genetic variation (St Louis & Barlow ).        Tree Sparrows in Darwin in the Northern
                                                   Territory, which had probably been
A                                          introduced accidentally from southeast Asia.
In  between  and  Tree Sparrows (P.           The Tree Sparrow in Australia has not been
m. saturatus), imported from China by G. W.        as successful a colonist as the House Sparrow,
   Naturalised Birds of the World

and its populations seldom approach those of      Spanish Sparrow
the latter. The habitat preferences of the two    Passer hispaniolensis
species vary sharply interspecifically from one
part of their range to another. The species’      Natural Range: SW Europe, N Africa, W Asia
range in Australia remains largely unchanged        Minor and the Balkans; Levant, Cyprus
(Barrett et al. ).                              and E Turkey to S Kazakhstan, Xinjiang
                                                    and Afghanistan. Some winter in NE
Impact: Tree Sparrows in Australia are spread-      Africa and SW Asia.
ing much more slowly than House Sparrows,         Naturalised Range: Asia: Kuwait. Atlantic
and are probably suffering from interspecific        Ocean: Cape Verde Is; ?Canary Is.
competition with their larger and more
aggressive congeners; in general, domesticus is   K
closely associated with man, while montanus is    A small colony of this species has bred
more usually found in suburban and rural          annually at the Mohammed Al-Ajmi Farm at
areas. The interaction of both species with       Abdali, and occasionally at other places, since
native birds is uncertain.                        before  (Gregory ).
   In suburban localities both species are
significant pests of horticultural crops: in       C I
rural districts both compete for food with        Spanish Sparrows arrived in the Canaries
domestic poultry and eat large quantities of      (possibly as ship-borne stowaways) in the
growing and stored grain (Frith ).            early nineteenth century. From  to 
                                                  they were restricted to Fuerteventura and
C I                                    Lanzarote, from where they spread to Gran
In , Tree Sparrows were found to be           Canaria before ; they arrived on Tenerife
breeding on Gran Canaria (Ivanov & Sum-           between  and  – perhaps as a
mers-Smith ). These birds may have been       deliberate introduction around  (Lack &
natural immigrants from Iberia (E. F. J. Garcia   Southern ). By the early twentieth
pers. comm. ) or perhaps arrived by           century they were abundant in Santa Cruz
human agency (Trujillo Ramirez ).             on La Palma, and by  had spread to
                                                  Gomera (Cullen et al. ). They occur
C I                                  today on all the islands except La Graciosa
Barrett et al. () refer to a record of this   (Martí & del Moral ). Martí & del Moral
species on Christmas Island.                       imply natural colonisation of the
                                                  archipelago.
Mariana and Marshall Islands;
Federated States of Micronesia                    Impact: On some islands in the Canaries
Tree Sparrows, probably of the form saturatus     Spanish Sparrows have driven the indigenous
(Summers-Smith ), introduced to the           Rock Sparrow Petronia p. petronia from
Mariana Islands were reported by Ralph &          settled areas. They are also a pest of growing
Sakai () to be common on Saipan and           crops, but are regarded by the human inhabit-
Rota and uncommon on Guam. Pratt et al.           ants as a culinary delicacy.
(: ) said they were ‘Introduced (proba-
bly [by the Japanese] in the s) to the        C V I
Mariana Is. (common on Guam; uncommon             Spanish Sparrows were first recorded in the
Saipan, Tinian, Rota) and Kwajalein (Mar-         Cape Verde Islands (São Nicolau and São
shall Is.) … and after  to Yap [Federated     Thiago) in . By  they had apparently
States of Micronesia]’. Clements ()           spread from here to Brava, Fogo, Boa Vista
records them as common but local in most          and Maio (Fea –; Alexander ).
urban localities.                                 They may have arrived naturally but possibly
                                                  by ship. They are now established on all the
                                                               Ploceidae (Weavers and allies) 

inhabited islands except perhaps Santa Luzia       and Costa et al. () believed that their
(Hazevoet ).                                   principal limiting factor is the extent of culti-
                                                   vation of this crop; they point out, however,
                                                   that large-scale rice cultivation occurs in the
                                                   Ribatejo Valley to the north, where the species
                                                   could expand its range.
        PLOCEIDAE                                     Village Weavers are recorded by Vowles &
    (WEAVERS AND ALLIES)                           Vowles () as breeding in the Arade River
                                                   valley in the Algarve in extreme southern
Village Weaver                                     Portugal.
Ploceus cucullatus                                    Costa et al. () and Langley () list
                                                   P. cucullatus as an uncommon but increasing
Natural Range: Africa S of about oN apart        breeding species in Portugal.
  from E Ethiopia, E Somalia, N Angola,
  Namibia, W Botswana and W South                  W I
  Africa.                                          Exactly when Village Weavers of the
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?France; ?Ger-          nominate subspecies were introduced to
  many; ?Italy; ?Spain; Portugal. North            Hispaniola is uncertain, but they may have
  America: West Indies. South America:             been imported as cage-birds by Spanish
  ?Venezuela. Atlantic Ocean: ?Canary Is.;         slavers from West Africa at any time after .
  ?Cape Verde Is. Indian Ocean: Mascarene Is.      According to the historian Moreau de Saint-
                                                   Méry (Description de la Partie Française de
F; G; S                             Saint-Dominique, –. Vol I: ; Vol II:
Breeding attempts by Village Weavers in
France have been recorded at Lake Saclay near
Paris by Le Maréchal () and elsewhere
(and in Germany) by Pezzo & Morellini
(), and also in Spain, where breeding has
occurred in the Llobregat delta, southwest of
Barcelona (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral
, Guerrero et al. ), but the species’
establishment is unconfirmed (Lahti ).

I
Breeding by Village Weavers has been
attempted in Trentino in northern Italy (Frap-
porti ), and occurred in  in Bonifaca
di Maccarese west of Rome (Biondi et al.
). Pezzo & Morellini () reported a
breeding attempt at Montepulciano Lake in
Sienna in central Italy, where they suggest the
species may be becoming established.

P
In  three male Village Weavers were seen
in the Barroca Marsh east of Lisbon, where
breeding was strongly suspected (Leitão &
Costa ), and in the following year a small
colony of five nests was discovered; in this area
the species is currently confined to rice-fields,                    Village Weaver
   Naturalised Birds of the World

: quoted by Wetmore & Swales ),           material (Fitzwater , Barré & Benito-
some had previously been imported from           Espinal , Raffaele et al. ).
Senegal and elsewhere in West Africa to the
town of Cap Française in Haiti, where Fitzwa-    V
ter () said a large colony had become        In recent years Village Weavers have been
established in  near Tron Caiman.            found breeding near Lake Maracaibo, km
   In  a small population of Weavers was     south of the Dominican Republic and
discovered at Cul-de-Sac in Haiti, and by        ,km east southeast of Martinique (R. Re-
about  the species had become a local        stall pers. comm. to Lahti ). Whether
resident in various parts of Haiti, especially   the species is established in Venezuela is
near Port d’Estere; a few years later a small    unknown.
breeding colony was found north of Trouin
(Wetmore & Lincoln ). The species            C I
remained at low densities and maintained its     Singing males were recorded on Tenerife in
restricted distribution on Haiti (Lahti )     and  but the species is probably not
until the early s, when the pop-             established there (J. Clavell in Martí & del
ulation increased dramatically and the birds     Moral ).
began to spread east into the Dominican
Republic.                                        C V I
   Although P. cucullatus has occurred on        Bannerman & Bannerman () say that
Martinique in the Lesser Antilles since before   Village Weavers of the nominate subspecies
, breeding was not confirmed until        were introduced to Praia on São Thiago
(Pinchon & Benito-Espinal ), and a few       before , but later apparently died out. A
years later the species was well established     breeding attempt on São Vicente in  by a
around Prêcheur (Barré & Benito-Espinal          small number of birds (<) was recorded by
).                                           Hazevoet (), but reproduction was not
   Bond (: ) described the range of the   confirmed.
Village Weaver as ’… in Haiti in particular
the Cul-de-Sac plain, including Port-au-         M I
Prince. Has in recent years become               In about  Village Weavers from South
widespread in Hispaniola … and [on] Saona        Africa (P. c. spilonotus) were released at Cap
Island’ off the southeast coast of the Domini-    Malheureux on Mauritius, from where they
can Republic. Raffaele et al. (), who say     dispersed rather slowly (Carié ). By
the species was introduced during the early      the s they were found to be increasing
colonial era and was first recorded on Haiti in   (Newton ), and they are now very widely
, say it is now widespread and common        distributed below about m (Cheke ),
on Hispaniola and Saona Island. On Mar-          especially in the lowlands, but do not
tinique, where the same authors say it was       occur in forests, tree plantations or
introduced in the s, they recorded it as     on most off-lying islets (Hawkins & Safford in
locally very common in the north of the          prep.).
island. The AOU () adds Catalina Island         Although not appearing in the literature
(near Saona) to the species’ range in            before Guérin (–), some Village
the West Indies. Lahti () considered         Weavers are known to have escaped from a
that the population on Hispaniola is             cage on a vessel loading sugar cane at Bois
declining.                                       Rouge on Réunion, a plantation owned by
                                                 Adrien Bellier (Albany , A. Barau pers.
Impact: The population explosion on Haiti        comm. to Cheke ). This could only have
in the s resulted in massive depredations    occurred during the brief period when there
of the rice crop of up to % and many           was a jetty there around  (A. Barau pers.
trees were killed by defoliation for nesting     comm. to Cheke ). Staub () and Barré
                                                             Ploceidae (Weavers and allies) 

& Barau () recorded them as common in         Lesser Masked Weaver
lowland areas. Today they occur in the low-       Ploceus intermedius
lands in coastal regions, inland savannas and
sugar cane plantations, locally ascending to      Natural Range: Sub-Saharan Africa from S
higher elevations such as Plaine des Cafres,        Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia to N Angola
but absent from forests and montane heath           and Mozambique.
(Barré et al. , Hawkins & Safford in           Naturalised Range: Asia: Japan; UAE.
prep.). See also Simberloff (), Moulton et
al.  and Jones ().                        J
                                                  This species is listed by the OSJ () as a
Impact: By the s on Mauritius (Benedict       resident breeder in Chiba, east of Tokyo, in
) and the early s on Réunion (Lahti       central Honshu, where it frequents open
), Village Weavers had become a serious       woodland, cultivated fields, and parks.
agricultural pest, especially of seed crops.
Barré & Barau () regarded the species as      U A E
the worst avian pest on Mauritius.                A breeding colony of around  (in )
   The disappearance from Mauritius shortly       Lesser Masked Weavers has been established in
after  of the Yellow-crowned or Cape          Al Jazeerah Park, Sharjah, following a mass
Canary Serinus canicollis could have been due     release in about  (Richardson ). Jen-
at least in part to competition from Village      nings () confirms breeding near Dubai.
Weavers (C. Jones ).
   Peters () suggested that Village
Weavers of the nominate subspecies probably
occurred on São Tomé in the Gulf of               Streaked Weaver
Guinea as a result of human intervention, and     Ploceus manyar
Christy & Clarke () said that P.c.nigriceps
(Angola, Zambia, Namibia, Botswana and            Natural Range: Pakistan to Thailand and S
Zimbabwe) had probably been introduced              Vietnam. Also Sri Lanka, Java, Bali and
quite recently. Dickinson (), however,          Bawean.
lists only one weaver, the endemic Giant          Naturalised Range: Asia: Bahrain; ?Saudi
Weaver P. grandis on São Tomé.                      Arabia; ?UAE.

                                                  B
                                                  ‘Present in small flocks all year round in a
Golden-backed Weaver                              reedbed at Janabiyah where they must breed’
Ploceus jacksoni                                  (Hirschfeld & King : ).

Natural Range: SE Sudan, W and S Kenya,           S A; U A
  Uganda, and N and C Tanzania.                   E
Naturalised Range: Asia: UAE.                     Jennings () records breeding by this
                                                  species in Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) and in the
U A E                              United Arab Emirates (Dubai and Abu
This species was first recorded at Khalidiya       Dhabi).
Spit in Abu Dhabi in about  and in the
following year at Zabeel Fish Ponds, Dubai. It
has since bred annually at these two sites,
where the populations number up to  pairs       Red Fody
and around  individuals respectively (Anon      Foudia madagascariensis
, Jennings ).
                                                  Natural Range: Madagascar, and satellite
   Naturalised Birds of the World

  islands of Nosy Be, Île Sainte Marie and             By the s ‘red linnets’ were abundant
  Juan de Nova.                                     on St Helena, and flocks of over  were
Naturalised Range: Asia: Bahrain. Atlantic          frequently seen at a time when wheat was
  Ocean: St Helena I. Indian Ocean: Agaléga         being widely cultivated (Melliss ). The
  Is; Chagos Archipelago; Comoros Is; ?Îles         population had become markedly reduced by
  Glorieuses; Mascarene Is; Seychelles Is.          the early twentieth century, partly due to the
                                                    capture and sale of birds as pets (Rowlands et
B                                             al. ). The numbers had recovered some-
Red Fodies, believed to be descended from           what by the middle s (Van Bruggen ),
released cage-birds, have been recorded since       and since the late s have gradually
around  in Manama, Bahrain, where the           increased (Rowlands et al. ). St Helena
population now numbers some  pairs               and the Chagos Archipelago are the only
(Anon , Jennings ).                         islands on which Red Fodies occur outside the
                                                    Malagasy region (Hawkins & Safford in
S H I                                    prep.). See also McCulloch ().
The reference to a flock of ‘canaries’ from
Madagascar in  by Gosse () may have         Impact: Haydock () reported Red Fodies
referred to this species, as may another to ‘rose   to be an agricultural pest on St Helena.
linnets’ in  by Forbes (). Baker (),
however, says that the species had been intro-      C A
duced not long after his visit. It is believed      Red Fodies were first reported on Diego
that, as in the case of Geopelia striata, Red       Garcia in  (Finsch ), when they were
Fodies were imported to St Helena on French         said to be abundant. Bourne () found
ships homeward bound from Mauritius                 them on Île du Coin and Perhos Banhos in
(Rowlands et al. ).                             , and Hutson () said they were well
                                                    established on Diego Garcia but scarce on
                                                    Perhos Banhos and Salomon, and that a few
                                                    occurred on Île Grande Barbe. Chagos (and St
                                                    Helena) are the only islands outside the Mala-
                                                    gasy region on which F. madagascariensis is
                                                    established (Hawkins & Safford in prep.).

                                                    C I
                                                    Red Fodies were first seen on Mohéli in 
                                                    and Mayotte in  (Milne-Edwards &
                                                    Oustalet ), from where they dispersed to
                                                    Grande Comore and Anjouan probably after
                                                    . Benson () believed that they could
                                                    have arrived as natural colonists from Mada-
                                                    gascar. Today they occur over most of all four
                                                    islands (but not above ,m on Anjouan)
                                                    apart from in closed forest, and on
                                                    satellite islets of Mohéli and Mayotte
                                                    (Hawkins & Safford in prep.). See also Sin-
                                                    clair & Langrand ().

                                                    Î G
                                                    Benson et al. () suggested that Red Fodies
                                                    may have arrived in the Îles Glorieuses as
                   Red Fody                         natural colonists from Madagascar rather than
                                                                Ploceidae (Weavers and allies) 

as an introduction, where Probst et al. ()      of native forest in the s, may be con-
and Hawkins & Safford (in prep.) record             tributing to the decline of the endemic
them on Grande Glorieuse.                           Rodrigues Fody F. flavicans (Moreau ),
                                                    classified as Vulnerable by the World
M I                                   Conservation Union.
According to de Querhoënt (; quoted by
Cheke ), Red Fodies were already abun-          S I
dant on the island of Mauritius, where              Red Fodies were introduced to Mahé around
Moreau () said they had been established        or before  (Newton ), although it has
from before , having presumably been            been suggested that they may have colonised
imported as cage-birds on slaving vessels, per-     the Seychelles naturally before  (see
haps in the s (Cheke ). Simberloff           Skerrett et al. ). From Mahé they spread
() and Moulton et al. () say that the       naturally (or were introduced) to Praslin
date of introduction was .                      before  (probably in ), Frégate before
   Although it is possible that F. madagas-         , Cousin between  and the late s,
cariensis may have been introduced to               and Cousine in  (Crook ). Today,
Réunion as early as the s (Cheke ),         Red Fodies are abundant and widespread,
the earliest reference to the species on            especially in settled areas, on all but the small-
the island seems to be by Maillard ().          est granitic islands, but less ubiquitous on
Simberloff () and Moulton et al. ()          coralline islands such as Bird, Denis, Platte,
say the species was introduced in .             Rémire, D’Arros and St Joseph (Skerrett et al.
   Red Fodies were first recorded on Ro-             , Hawkins & Safford in prep.). It is said
drigues in  (the date given for their arrival   that they were originally released by a farmer
by Simberloff ) by Bertuchi (), where        on the land of a disputatious neighbour as an
Cheke () believed they may have arrived         act of retribution.
– years earlier (i.e. c.–), while            Moreau () and Penny () say the
Moreau () and Showler () suggest an         Red Fody has been introduced to, or has
introduction after .                            colonised naturally from other islands, most
   Today, Red Fodies are widely distributed in      of the cultivated Amirantes, where it was first
a variety of habitats (Jones ) on all three     recorded on Desroches in , and the Far-
islands (on Réunion up to ,m) and on            quhar Group. Prys-Jones et al. () observed
                                                                       ˆ
numerous offshore islets such as Flat Island,        the release of – Red Fodies on Assump-
Mauritius (Hawkins & Safford in prep.).              tion Island in , and Roberts () saw
   According to Long (), this species may       – there in . In , C. J. Feare (pers.
have been introduced to the Cargados Carajos        comm. ) found this species on Cerf, Provi-
islands or have colonised them naturally from       dence and St Pierre in the Providence Group.
Madagascar.                                            Guého & Staub () recorded the
                                                    relatively recent introduction of F. madagas-
Impact: As early as the s de Querhoënt          cariensis to the Agalégas, where it now occurs
() was referring to damage to crops caused      on Île du Nord and Île du Sud (Cheke &
by F. madagascariensis on Mauritius.                Lawley , Hawkins & Safford in prep.).
   Carié () and Newton () could find
no evidence of competition between Red              Impact: On some islands F. madagascariensis
Fodies and the endemic Mauritius Fody F.            has largely displaced an earlier introduction,
rubra, classified as Critically Endangered by        the Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild (Penny
the World Conservation Union. However,              ). Crook (), however, considered that
Temple et al. () believed that there could      competition with the rare Seychelles Fody F.
be some seasonal rivalry for food.                  sechellarum had played no part in the contrac-
   On Rodrigues, competition from Red               tion in range of this endemic species, since
Fodies, coupled with widespread destruction         each occupies a separate ecological niche.
   Naturalised Birds of the World

Competition between Red Fodies and the also        were observed in Rio Piedras, San Juan.
introduced Red-crested Cardinal Paroaria           Moreno () believed the source of these
coronata has resulted in the elimination of the    birds was Senegal (E. f. franciscanus).
latter species on the Agalégas (Guého & Staub         Raffaele et al. (: ) say of this species
).                                             that it was:

                                                      Introduced to Puerto Rico probably in
                                                      the s, it is uncommon locally from
Northern Red Bishop                                   San Juan to Arecibo. The species is rare
(Orange Bishop)                                       elsewhere in the lowlands. First recorded
                                                      on Martinique in , Orange Bishop
Euplectes franciscanus                                now breeds there and on Guadeloupe. It
(Formerly considered as conspecific with E.            is uncommon and local on both islands,
orix, the Southern Red Bishop, but now                though flocks of – birds are
regarded as a separate species: AOU ,             sometimes observed. The species was
Dickinson ).                                      recently reported for the first time from
                                                      Jamaica and St Croix in the Virgin
Natural Range: From Senegal to Ethiopia,              Islands. Introduction of this species in the
                                                      West Indies was likely the result of pet
  Uganda, Somalia and NW Kenya.
                                                      birds escaping or being released.
Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Portugal. North
  America: ?USA; West Indies.
                                                   Impact: Raffaele () said that on Puerto
P                                           Rico E. franciscanus causes some damage to
Individuals of this species were seen by Leitão    rice seedlings.
& Costa () in  and  at Barroca
Marsh and at Zambujal, Sado Estuary, and a
few are seen throughout the year at Barrinha
de Esmoriz, where Costa et al. () believed     Yellow-crowned Bishop
that breeding had probably occurred.               (Golden Bishop)
                                                   Euplectes afer
U S
Johnston & Garrett () say that this            Natural Range: Senegal to Sudan, Ethiopia,
species is frequently seen in rank and weedy         Uganda, and Kenya south to Tanzania,
areas of the Los Angeles basin in southern           Zaire, Angola, Zambia, and South
California, and has been documented as               Africa.
breeding along the Los Angeles River in Los        Naturalised Range: Europe: ?Italy; Portugal;
Angeles County in  (Garrett unpublished          Spain. Asia: ?Japan. North America: West
data).                                               Indies.

W I                                        I
In  Barré & Benito-Espinal () saw a        Biondi et al. () recorded probable breed-
group of four males at Carère on the island of     ing of this species in  in Vasche di
Martinique, where they believed the species        Maccarese on the coast west of Rome.
was established and spreading in the vicinity
of Duclos. Bon-Saint-Côme () reported a        P; S
flock of about  near Lareinty and several pairs   In the early s Yellow-crowned Bishops
at Gaigneron.                                      were found to be breeding at Barroca Marsh,
   Raffaele & Kepler () say that this           east of Lisbon (Leitão ), where the species
species (under the name E. orix) was first          is now established and is expanding its
noted on Puerto Rico in , when six birds       range in a habitat of rice-paddies with
                                     Estrildidae (Waxbills, Grass Finches, Munias and Allies)   

ditches bordered by thick vegetation (Costa               ESTRILDIDAE
et al. ). E. afer has also been recorded at     (WAXBILLS, GRASS FINCHES,
Barrinha de Esmoriz (Jão Loureiro pers.
comm. to Costa et al. ); in the Mondego            MUNIAS AND ALLIES)
Valley (C. Pachec pers. comm. to Costa et al.
); and in the Algarve in the Arade River        Red-cheeked Cordon-bleu
valley, where breeding was reported by Vowles       Uraeginthus bengalus
& Vowles () in the Vilamoura area
(Ministro et al. ), and in the rice-paddies     Natural Range: Senegal to Ethiopia, Uganda
at Lagoa where it also probably breeds (Costa         and Kenya, S through Tanzania to S Zaire
et al. ).                                         and N Zambia.
   According to Langley (), this species        Naturalised Range: Atlantic Ocean: ?Canary
(probably an immigrant from Portugal) is              Is. Pacific Ocean: Hawaiian Is.
becoming established in Spain. A population
of – pairs is established in the rice fields   C I
and reedbeds of the lower Guadalquivir valley,      This species is recorded frequently in
Sevilla, and probable breeding is reported          Fuerteventura, where a pair bred successfully
from northern Huelva province and the Miño          in  (J. Clavell in Martí & del Moral
estuary in Pontevedra (Martí and del Moral          ).
). Flocks of up to  have been reported
from the island of Mallorca, where the              H I
species has bred and may also be becoming           In  some Red-cheeked Cordon-bleus were
established.                                        released or escaped on Oahu (Donaghho
                                                    ), where between  and  were counted
J                                               at Diamond Head in – (Pyle ).
Brazil () says that this species has bred in    Zeillemaker & Scott () recorded them as
the wild in Chiba, Kanagawa and Hyogo               rare and local in dry lowland areas on Oahu,
Prefectures; whether it is established is           where Pyle () considered them to be
uncertain.                                          apparently established and breeding. Subse-
                                                    quently, Red-cheeked Cordon-bleus were
W I                                         released on the northern slopes of Hualalai on
Yellow-crowned Bishops (said by Moreno              Hawaii (Berger (), where Scott et al.
() to be of the nominate subspecies,            () found them in very low densities below
which occurs throughout much of sub-Saha-           ,m on the Puu Waawa Ranch. Pratt et al.
ran Africa) were first observed on Puerto Rico,      () said the species was established on Puu
in Cartagena Lagoon, in  (Raffaele &             Waawa and possibly in the Kapiolani Park
Kepler ).                                       on Oahu. Pratt () and the AOU
   Raffaele et al. (: ) say of this species   () record Red-cheeked Cordon-bleus as
that it was:                                        occurring in very small numbers locally only
                                                    in the Puanahulu area on Hawaii.
   Recently introduced, it is uncommon and
   very local on Puerto Rico in marshes
   around San Juan, at Cartagena Lagoon
   and east of Ponce and introduced to              Blue-breasted Cordon-bleu
   Jamaica at Caymanas Pond and near                (Blue Waxbill)
   Hellshire sewage ponds … It was first
   reported from Puerto Rico in the s           Uraeginthus angolensis
   and from Jamaica in . Both introduc-         Natural Range: Zaire, Angola, Zambia, Zim-
   tions likely resulted from the escaping or
                                                      babwe, Botswana, Malawi, E and S Tanz-
   release of caged pets.
                                                      ania; Transvaal and Natal, South Africa.
   Naturalised Birds of the World