Woodchat.
> rn/us. Brisa. Om , tom. ii. p. 147.
Pomeramt, Sparr. Mus. Caris., fasc. i. tab. 1.
Collurio, var. y. ru/us, Gmcl. edit. Linn. Syst. Nat., tom. i. p.
ruficeps, Becbst. Orn. Tascheub., vol. i. p. 101.
ruficapillus, Baill. Orn. de la Savoye, tom. ü. p. 32.
«tonus ru/us, Bonap. Consp. Gen. Av., tom. . p. 362, Etineoa
— pomeranus, Cab. Mus. Hein., Theil i. p. 73.
W hy the Woodchat should not be as common in England as in the opposite countries of France and
Belgium, I cannot conjecture; yet it is n o t: neither does it, I believe, visit Denmark, Sweden, or Norway.
We may consequently infer that it is a much more southern species than its near ally, the Red-backed Shrike;
indeed, we know that it is particularly common in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and Asia Minor; but its range
over Africa appears to be less extensive than was formerly supposed. If it be necessary to state what claim
the Woodchat has to a place in the fauna of Great Britain, I may mention that Mr. Rodd, in his List of
Birds observed in Cornwall, states that “ an adult bird was caught in a boat, near Scilly; and that, in the
autumn of 1849, several examples o f the young of the year were captured on the Scilly Isles, apparently
driven there by a strong east wind which intercepted their migratory movement s o u th w a r d s th is , adds
Mr. Rodd, “ may be regarded as an important fact, as offering good grounds for believing that they were
bred in the British Isles.” The late Mr. Hoy mentions an instance of one being killed near Canterbury, and
another in the neighbourhood of Swaffham in Norfolk ; while a male and a female, forming part of the late
Rev . Francis Henson’s collection, were said to have been killed in Suffolk. Mr. Joseph Clarke, a gentleman
well versed in our native birds, informed M r. Yarrell that Mr. Adams, of Gorlestonc, in Norfolk, has in his
collection a Woodchat shot by himself; later still, Mr. Frederick Bond, of Kingsbury, bat yesterday (July
3<>, 1862) sent me the following note:*—“ The Woodchat has, to my knowledge, been several times found
in the Isle o f Wight. In the summer o f 1856 a pair made a nest there, but unfortunately it was taken
before the eggs were laid. In the September of the same year a fine young bird was shot by Mr. H. R ogers;
it is now in my possession. In the following year the old birds returned, and the same gentleman sent me
the nest and five eggs; he has since observed another nest and eggs, which are now in the collection of my
friend, the Rev. Mr. Braikenridge. I must mention that I requested Mr. Rogers iiot to shoot the old birds.”
The visits o f the Woodchat to England are few and far between; and neither in Scotland nor in
Ireland has it yet made its appearance; a t least, no instance of its capture has been recorded. Its trivial
name would indicate that the bird differs somewhat in its economy from the Red-backed Shrike; and
we find that such is the case; for, in his papers published in the ‘ Magazine of Natural History,’ the late
Mr Hoy says, “ It differs from JLauius Collurio in the choice o f situation for its nest, placing it invariably
on trees, and preferring the oak. The nest is fixed in the fork o f a projecting branch, and is composed,
on the outside, of sticks and wool, mixed with white moss from the bodies of the trees, and lined with fine
grass and wool. The eggs are four or five in numbei$rather smaller than those of the Red-backed Shrike,
and varying much in their markings^—the ground-colour being pale blue in some, in others a dirty white,
surrounded near the larger end with a zone o f rust-coloured spots ; in some, again, the markings and spots
are of a paler colour, and more dispersed over the egg. It is not a wild bird, often building close to
houses and public roads. It is abundant in some parts o f the Netherlands, and arrives and departs about
the same time as Lanins Collurio
Lord Lilford states that it is; “ very abundant in all the Ionian Islands, arriving about the end of April,
and breeding in the olive-groves.” (Ibis, vol. ii. p. 135.)
A fine nest o f this bird, brought by myself from Malta, was a thick-walled, cup-shaped structure, composed
o f the stems and flowering heads o f some creeping and odoriferous plants, and lined with a few extremely
fine roots.
The eggs are stone-white, with large blotches o f olive and grey, those of the latter colour appearing as
if beneath the surface of the shell; the spots, to ^ a r e not so much disposed in the form o f a zone as in
E . Collurio. I have two eggs in which the ground-cWbur is huffy, instead o f stone-white; and it is very
probable that they were o f a delicate salmon hue before they were blown, like those of E . Collurio.