Spottysandarticle

Geoff Burton

At about 7 a.m., whilst walking around the reservoir, I disturbed what appeared to be a Common Sandpiper from one of the inlets on the west side. Two things led me to give this bird more consideration. Firstly, as the bird flew across the inlet to the far side, it gave a “tweet-tweet” call quite unlike the normal calls of a Common Sandpiper. Secondly, the bird which had been hidden from me by the convex slope of the inlet, was flushed after other birds, Mallard, Teal and Snipe, had all flown out of the inlet. In my experience, Common Sandpipers usually fly early and not just to the other side of what was a fairly narrow inlet. It was worth a second look.

I walked round to the other side of the inlet and was able to approach within about 15 metres as it fed along the water's edge. It was still early in the morning and overcast and so the light was poor. The bird's bill appeared dark but darker at the tip. The wing coverts were well marked with light and dark edgings which contrasted with the plain mantle. The legs were yellow.

The bird was more approachable than Common Sandpipers typically are. As I tried to get nearer the bird walked ahead of me. Two Common Sandpipers in the next bay flew off before I could get anywhere near them giving the typical “chee-wee-wee” call whilst the putative Spotted Sandpiper, which was between me and the Common Sandpipers remained unmoved.

By this time, I felt sure that the bird was a juvenile Spotted Sandpiper because of the call, the wing coverts and the leg colour. I left the bird so that I could telephone other observers and took the opportunity to consult Wallace's British Birds article and the later one by Steve Madge. I then returned to the scene, relocated the bird at the same spot and put it through further tests.

Plumage and bare parts

The bill appeared dark from any distance but at close range, and in good light, the tip was darker still. Common Sandpipers seen at close range appeared to have all dark bills.

The supercillium was off-white. The Common Sandpiper's supercilium was whiter and more conspicuous.

The upper-parts were an even brown but distinctly greyer in tone than in Common Sandpiper. It could be picked out on this feature from Common and, with familiarity, even when it was alone giving the impression of less contrast between upper and under parts.

At close range the black-and-white barring on the wing coverts was a distinctive feature. The barring stretched from the shoulder all along the wing coverts. On this individual, the barring continued further back than on the Cornish individual photographed by the Bottomleys.

The chest patches were lees well masked than on the Common Sandpipers. A pure white gap in the middle went up to the chin.

The legs were a clear yellow which showed well in most lights whereas with Common Sandpipers it was always more difficult to see but they appeared dull greyish-green in colour.

A very good field character (brought out in the recent Madge article) was the length of the whitish wing bar . In the Spotted it was less extensive, not splitting the wing as in Common, as it did not extend along the back of the secondaries.

A further point, made by Madge and confirmed by this individual, was the shortness of the tail.

The Spotted was slightly but distinctly smaller than the two Common Sandpipers it was seen alongside. This was most noticeable when the birds were in flight. The general impression was of a more well-rounded bird, an effect enhanced by the shortness of the tail.

Call

The usual calls were either a single “weet” or double “weet-weet” but it was never heard to utter the typical “zwee-wee-wee” calls of Common Sandpiper. In quality, the call was not unlike that of Green Sandpiper, though rather quieter, and much more closely resembled this species than common. At one time, whilst watching this bird at close range, it called several times leading three bird-watchers, out of sight, to look for a distant Green Sandpiper they thought they heard calling!

Approachability

Although not phalarope-tame, it could be approached within about 15 metres, and when pressed, would often walk rather than fly away.

Photographs

Roy Coles took some photographs of the bird. Although taken in poor light, the photographs do show some of the characteristics. The barring on the wing-coverts shows up in even the darkest of them, the length of the tail is well illustrated and so is the generally well-rounded appearance.

Summary

A common-type sandpiper was seen but initially attracted attention due to its distinctive, more green sandpiper-like call. It allowed a much closer approach (down to 10-15 metres) than Common Sandpipers present, close enough o see all the features through binoculars. The most distinctive features were the obvious (at this range) patterning of the wing-coverts and the yellow legs. In flight it could be picked out confidently by the shorter wing-bars and, when with common sandpipers, its slightly smaller size. With familiarity, over its 11-day stay, it could easily be picked out by its greyer upperparts and plumper appearance. It remained very faithful to the particular corner of the reservoir where it was found whereas the common sandpipers wandered widely, often crossing from one side of the reservoir to the other.

History of the species in Kent

This was the third record for Kent after an adult, discovered in the Bexhill Museum in Sussex by Jeffery Harrison in the 1970s, apparently shot at Sheerness in July 1863 and another adult at Dungeness ARC pits on 28 May 1971. The only subsequent record was another adult at Aldington on 14-15 June 1994 which received “limited circulation” at the time. All these were in “spotted” summer plumage. The Bough Beech bird remains the only juvenile and the only freely twitchable individual in Kent. It is surely time for another.