Problems caused by endemics

Any experienced NZ birder can tell you of at least one occurrence in which they have seen a tui chase away another bird for no apparent reason.

They are bona fide bullies when it comes to how aggressive they are to other birds, despite not usually having anything to protect.

Because some people are quick to come to the conclusion that the aggression that such birds as eastern rosellas, mynas, and starlings show towards other birds means that they are effecting their numbers, I'm wondering if anyone has ever thought about this for tui, and considered studying whether or not their aggression has a more serious impact on other birds than previously thought?

This is an example of how an endemic species can be a notable problem to the natural or cultural environment. Though conservationists are more lenient regarding the killing and control of natives, such as black-backed gulls, spur-winged plovers, and shovelers, the possibility of endemic species being a problem is more-or-less a taboo subject to them. The weka is the only endemic species I know of which has been widely accepted among conservationists as being a 'troublemaker'.

There are examples of endemic birds apart from the tui causing problems to the natural or cultural environment. There is some evidence that native robins can cause tomtits to die out easily via competition, kereru are occasionally considered a pest to fruit crops, just as eastern rosellas are, and South Island pied oystercatchers have been accused of taking too many shellfish and being a major nuisance in other ways.

I am not suggesting that any of these species should be culled for their apparent negative impacts. Neither of the complaints about the oystercatchers are reason enough to cull them, and they were most likely being used as scapegoats for why there seemed to be fewer shellfish around.

As for the impacts that kereru and robins have, however, perhaps further investigation should be made (especially in the case of the robins).

Perhaps there will come a time when the weka is not the only endemic bird species that has been killed in defence of something or someone else.

My point is that it's time for it to be more widely acknowledged that, in one way or another, endemic birds can be pests too. The fact that they are found nowhere else on earth has nothing to do with their environmental impacts.

Hybrid partridges?

The red-legged partridge is a bird species in New Zealand that has been liberated a number of times, but has yet to become genuinely established in the wild. Despite this, it is still featured in field guides to NZ's birds.

Its close relative, the chukor/chukar partridge, is an uncommon established species in the South Island. It is closely-related and very similar-looking to the red-legged partridge. Both species are commonly kept in captivity here.

I have reason to believe that the red-legged partridges kept in New Zealand, however, are not genetically 'pure', and carry some chukor blood, due to the fact that first-generation hybrids between the two, at least, have been bred in captivity.

As previously stated, the red-legged partridge is very similar-looking to the chukor (though not as similar to the chukor as the rock partridge). They are most easily distinguished from chukors by their streaked necks; an obvious feature of their phenotype. Still, I am sure that even this could be 'missed', meaning that unintentional hybrids between chukors and red-legs could be bred in captivity.

What I don't know, however, is whether or not chukors and red-legs are fully interfertile. My assumption is that they are, meaning that first-generation hybrids and all of the following generations are fertile, meaning that it is possible for pure-looking red-legs and chukors to carry the blood of both species. It is possible, however, for closely-related species not be fully interfertile; an example of this is the two Aix ducks.

Another important part of my assumption that I know nothing about is what the first-generation hybrids look like. If they can't be told apart from 'pure' specimens of one of the two species, then the captive population of one of the two partridge species becoming genetically 'swamped' by the blood of the other species is practically inevitable.

If DNA testing is done and NZ's red-legged partridges are found to carry chukor blood, perhaps some will decide that they should not be treated as an actual species in New Zealand.

But then, perhaps not. After all, the wild Lady Amherst's pheasants of the UK are/were considered to be fully acceptable as a species, but I have yet to see a photo of one that does not show obvious signs of golden pheasant hybridisation.

'Let's not go bulbul bashing'.

In Texas, a small red-vented bulbul population has existed for about a decade.

Red-vented bulbuls are infamous for being an economic burden to the horticultural industry. In Oahu, Hawaii, for example, they have an annual economic impact of $300,000, and they are being closely monitored in Hawaii so that they do not become established on any of its other islands. They are also suspected to displace some native birds where they have been introduced, but this apparently hasn't been well-studied.

Despite this, however, there have yet to be any efforts to do away with the Texas population. Instead, the population is being studied, and they apparently haven't been found to be a threat to native species. It seems that the possibility of them becoming an economic burden there is being ignored.

New Zealand is no exception when it comes to viewing red-vented bulbuls as being an unwelcome and unwanted species; several small populations have arisen in New Zealand, all probably derived from released or ship-assisted birds; the first arose in the early 1950s and was quickly eradicated, just as the other populations have been. The most recent population arose in 2013 and was eradicated before the following year ended. It is the MPI that deals with them.

Note how they say that kereru are particularly vulnerable to the aggression of the species, which I suspect is an allusion to the fact that they are regularly chased off by tui.

If the MPI found out about the fact that there has been no attempt to eradicate the population in Texas, I imagine that they would either think that the Texan authorities are utter morons, or would contact them and urge them to do something about it. Or both.

To me, any addition to NZ's avifauna is welcome, as long as it doesn't have a serious impact on any native species. Trying to convince the MPI to leave red-vented bulbuls alone, should they be seen here again, however, is out of the question.

The only 'respected' introduction

The status of introduced birds, no matter where they're from, where they're imported to, and what they do to the environment, tends to be controversial.

Birders in some countries, such as Singapore and the USA, don't usually care much about them.

In New Zealand and Australia, however, the predominant attitude towards them is that they aren't needed, and whenever possible, they should be done away with.

Obviously, some introduced birds are rarer than others in New Zealand, but that doesn't often change peoples' opinions of them. Kookaburras are rare and localised here, but because all it takes is a flight to Australia's east coast to see plenty of them, it seems that few birders would care if they died out. Cockatoos and (especially) galahs are rare and localised as well, but they aren't of much interest to birders, because they're seen as being public aviary and zoo fodder. Rooks have nearly been eradicated here, but the idea of 'NZ - rooks = no corvids in NZ' doesn't seem to bother any birders.

There is one rare introduced bird in NZ, however, that seems to be exempt from the dislike directed at the rest of NZ's introduced species, common and rare; this being the cirl bunting. This is mainly because it is rare and hard to find, but the fact that it is now rare and relict in the UK and is apparently declining throughout its native range might have something to do with the 'respect' it receives as well.

It's good that at least one of NZ's scarce introduced birds is having its presence enjoyed while this is still possible.

Still, it's a shame that most of those who like it don't think much of the rest of them.

Extralimitals

To me, the rainbow bee-eater is a species that is confounding in the way that, despite being an annual summer migrant to southeast Australia, there has not been even one record of the species in New Zealand.

Because of that, this species could be called an 'extralimital' species for New Zealand.

Extralimital species are birds that are considered likely to eventually occur in a particular area, but have never been recorded there in the past. Some field guides include extralimital species for the areas that they cover, but to my knowledge, there has yet to be a NZ field guide to include them. Given the fact that the New Zealand region is made up of fairly isolated islands, however, I consider this to be sensible.

My opinion on extralimital birds is that, unless an extralimital bird regularly occurs literally only a few tens of kilometres away from a region that it seems it could eventually reach, it shouldn't be included in a field guide for that region.

Yes, there have been species that have occurred in an area a very short time after being featured as an extralimital in a field guide for that area, but that doesn't mean that including extralimital species in serious bird guides should be encouraged.

Mynas are not a pest in NZ.

Common mynas don't get a lot of love outside of their native range, and New Zealand is no exception.

Them being called 'pests' is common, particularly in Australia, where they are completely unwelcome and their eradication in the near future is highly desired.

I don't know much about what mynas do in Australia. There, they are mainly accused of competition and aggression towards native birds, and are also called a human health risk (which I doubt). Given the fact that Australia's climate is in favour of the spread of mynas (unlike most of New Zealand), and the fact that Australia's avifauna is very different from NZ's, and the fact that the forests of Australia are different from NZ's, mynas very well could be an actual ecological pest in Australia.

In New Zealand, though? In regards to ecological impacts, at least, I'm afraid not.

The only evidence that I have found regarding a major impact that mynas have on other bird species in NZ is in Ell's Encouraging Birds in the New Zealand Garden (1981), in a part about starlings which reads, 'An aggressive bird held in check in the northern part of New Zealand by its cousin the myna'. Even this statement, however, seems to be based on anecdotes.

The only case in which I consider it reasonable to consider mynas a pest in NZ is when they have been seen near the nesting sites of New Zealand fairy terns; they have been shot because of this. Mynas destroy the eggs and chicks of other birds, and those of the fairy tern are unlikely to be exceptions. Given how small the NZFT population is, I can understand that having mynas in the vicinity of where they nest is not a risk worth taking.

As for other native birds, mynas don't usually breed or reside in NZ forests, which means that most native birds are safe from them. The natives that I imagine would be most vulnerable to having their eggs and chicks destroyed by mynas are banded, North Island NZ, and black-fronted dotterels, and pipits, as they are all small ground-nesters, but I haven't found anything regarding whether or not mynas have ever been seen destroying the eggs and chicks of these species. I imagine that native forest birds which would be effected on a small scale would be silvereyes and grey warblers that nest in gardens; these would be easy targets for mynas, but mynas destroying the eggs and chicks of either of these species in gardens has a negligible effect on the populations of both, as most of them nest in forests. I also imagine that if mynas tried to destroy the eggs or chicks of kingfishers that have their nesting sites in rural areas, the kingfishers would kill them, so they're in no danger.

In conclusion, there's no good reason to consider mynas a major ecological pest in New Zealand, and therefore, no good reason to eradicate them from the country.

It would be nice if facts such as these could be more widely known and understood, but given the fact that 'introduced = bad' comes naturally to most kiwis, I don't think that that will happen any time soon.

More regarding NZ's grey partridge

While I was writing the initial post about the grey partridge in New Zealand, I vaguely recalled reading somewhere that sightings of the species had taken place in the North Island long after they had been introduced there (mostly in the 19th century), apart from the one recorded during the 1969-1976 bird distribution survey, and it seems that I've found the source for that text. Uncommon Birds in New Zealand (1975), from the Mobil New Zealand Nature Series, reads:

only recent reports from North Canterbury, Southland, Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay and Taranaki.

The use of the vague term 'recent' is not helpful, but provided that the authors of the book were not misinformed, this brings up a few questions; were the sightings that took place in those three North Island locations of birds that had only been recently released, or of birds that had been persisting since being introduced there in the 19th and early 20th centuries? If they had been recently released, were the releases by people in the North Island who had been breeding them, or were they authorised releases that simply aren't covered in the 2010 OSNZ Checklist? If the releases were by North Island breeders, would them being released be a part of why no grey partridges currently exist in captivity in New Zealand?

None of those questions are ever likely to be answered with certainty. What I can say, though, is that if those 'recent' North Island sightings had been of birds derived from the introductions that took place there before 1940, then this would make Robertson & Heather's field guide stating that the species persisted in Southland into the 1980s reasonable.

That doesn't meant that any exist there now, though.

Confiding nesting owl

In the second edition of M.F. Soper's New Zealand Birds (1976), the author writes more about the little owl than he does about any other introduced species, which I presume means that it was the only introduced species that he didn't dislike. Included in the text about the species is the following:

When first hatched the chicks are covered with a white down. For the first week or ten days the female is very reluctant to leave them and will allow an observer who wishes to find out how brooding is progressing to slip his hand underneath her and lift her off the nest. The owl does not like the treatment and will hiss and clatter her beak, but if one is gentle and unhurried she will not attack or fly away.

It would be interesting if other birders could try this so that whether or not most specimens are that calm could be revealed.

Another problem coloniser

The barn owl is a bird species that apparently colonised New Zealand some time around 2007, when a pair bred on private land in Northland and produced one chick; the chick survived and nearly fledged until it was found injured and subsequently taken into captivity, where it remains. The original pair of barn owls have allegedly produced other offspring since and formed a small population, but due to the fact that they are on private land and the land owner wants all but a few of the people who want to see them to keep their distance, this is difficult to determine.

Obviously, birds of prey are probably the most concerning birds when it comes to their ecological impact once they colonise a place where they did not previously exist.

This varies between species, however; for example, if the nankeen kestrel, a rare vagrant to NZ, became a coloniser, as has been long-anticipated, it is unlikely that it would have a significant impact on any of NZ's species that could serve as its prey. It shares habits with the harrier and NZ falcon; having a preference for open country like the harrier, and having a similar physiology to the NZ falcon. Therefore, it's nothing new to NZ's prey species.

The barn owl, however, is very different from the nankeen kestrel, and I have found enough to suggest that its presence here is something to be concerned about.

Denny's 'A Photographic Guide to the Birds of Hawaii', published in 2010, reads, 'The Barn Owl can be found throughout Hawaii. Sugar planters introduced it in the late 1950s in an effort to control rats in the fields. Rodents do make up a large part of its diet; but the Barn Owl also preys on birds and has been responsible for nesting failures of seabirds at Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge'.

So significant is this impact on Hawaii's native species that their eradication from the state is planned.

NZ's barn owls are likely to have a similar impact, should they spread, and there are going to be plenty of easy targets in store if they do. In my opinion, they need to be watched closely... Or would need to be, if they weren't on private land...

If NZ's barn owls had been introduced, I can guarantee that there would have been efforts to 'nip the bud' immediately, but that's just the omnipresent native-vs.-introduced double standard at work...

If NZ's barn owls do spread and become an ecological pest, it wouldn't be the first time a species of large owl became a problem after reaching a foreign land under its own steam. In the National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America (2011), a part about Bermuda reads, 'Surprising northern species that have occurred include Northern Hawk Owl, Snowy Owl, Bohemian Waxwing, White-winged Crossbill, and Pine Grosbeak. The single Snowy Owl (1987) took to predating the endangered Bermuda Petrels and had to be collected. (Sometimes conservationists have to make hard choices!)'.

I doubt that this has happened before

When driving around the pond at Queen Elizabeth Park in Masterton today, I saw what I thought was a paradise shelduck pair standing on its edge, and decided to take a closer look.

As for what they actually were?

Well...

An undesirable coloniser?

The Australian white ibis is a rare vagrant to New Zealand, with no confirmed reports since 1989. This, however, does not change the fact that, under the right conditions, a flock of them could eventually reach New Zealand and breed here.

The sacred ibis, a close relative of the white ibis that was formerly treated as being the same species (if I remember correctly), has gone feral in parts of Europe, most notably in France, and unlike most introduced bird species, it has certainly earned its title of being a major ecological pest.

This is because it predates on tern eggs and chicks, and terns being much smaller than ibises, they cannot effectively defend their nesting sites. A document that I no longer have access to described ibises being observed in the process of destroying every egg and chick at a single colony; if I remember correctly, the number of ibises involved was very small, and they finished off the eggs and chicks of the colony in a matter of hours.

That's just as bad as the damage dealt by mustelids and cats to tern colonies here, and similarly, the ibises are being culled there (in fact, I haven't found anything regarding whether or not any currently remain there).

New Zealand has two highly-threatened endemic terns; the black-fronted tern, and the NZ subspecies of the fairy tern.

I don't know whether or not the Australian white ibis predates on tern eggs and chicks, but the fact that it's very closely related to the sacred ibis alone is enough for me to assume that it does.

Obviously, what I'm saying is that Australian white ibises colonising New Zealand may be exactly what NZ's endemic terns don't need, especially when the threat presented by cats, mustelids, rats, etc. is still far from gone.

No, I am not saying that any Australian white ibises that reach NZ should be shot on sight, as in what happens to Canada geese and house crows in Australia.

What I am saying, though, is that this is a species that has the potential to have a major negative impact on at least two of NZ's endemic birds, and that this should be kept in mind.

It's a perfect example of how just because a new coloniser in New Zealand is good news for birders, it isn't necessarily good news for other birds.

The end of the crimson rosellas

Back when I started birding and saw the crimson rosella in Robertson & Heather's field guide, it was one of the birds that I was most looking forward to finding. Imagine my disappointment when I found out that this was no longer possible, as the last of the genuinely wild birds died out before the late 1990s.

There have been two instances of the crimson rosella occurring in the wild in NZ in small numbers. The first of these was in Otago. W. R. B. Oliver's New Zealand Birds, the second edition published in 1955, reads, 'About 1910 a small shipment of Eastern Rosellas, including a few Crimson Rosellas, that had been refused entry into New Zealand by the Customs Department, was released off Otago Heads by the ship which brought them as she was returning to Sydney. The two species crossed and now no pure birds of the crimson rosella remain in the Dunedin area'.

This probably means that all of Dunedin's eastern rosellas are technically hybrids, but because they breed 'true to type', they are considered to be pure eastern rosellas, phenotype-wise. It would be interesting if DNA testing could confirm this, but there's a good chance that any crimson rosella DNA that these birds carry is now dilute to the point of being undetectable.

The second instance of wild crimson rosellas occurring in New Zealand is a better-known population that arose in Wellington in the early 1960s, but was gone before the late 1990s (in the 1999-2004 survey of the bird distribution of New Zealand, only two crimson rosellas were recorded; neither of which were near where the Wellington birds were). Whether they ceased to exist by hybridising with eastern rosellas or simply dying out is difficult to determine.

Eastern rosellas certainly would have existed where crimson rosellas did while the Wellington population still existed, but I have found nothing in regards to whether the two species were seen interacting, or whether any hybrids were seen. Again, DNA testing could help determine whether or not Wellington's eastern rosellas carry crimson rosella blood.

Another possibility is that crimson rosellas ceased to exist in Wellington via being trapped and sold as aviary birds; after all, some Australians consider the crimson rosella to be their most beautiful-looking native parrot.

I would love if a new population could form somewhere as a result of some of them escaping from captivity, but I doubt that any other NZ birders would, and the DoC and/or MPI would probably want them gone ASAP.

The bobwhite quail in New Zealand

The bobwhite quail is similar to the grey partridge in the way that it is a gamebird that was introduced for hunting, but failed to establish. Its history in New Zealand, however, is quite different from that of the grey partridge.

The 2010 OSNZ checklist reads, 'Introduced and liberated throughout the North and South Islands (summer 1899-1900) with a second release on the east coast of the North Island (1902). Persisted in south Auckland until at least 1922 and possibly in the Wairoa area until 1970'. The rather vague description of their liberation doesn't say how many were released; if they had been released in low numbers, then perhaps this played a role in their not becoming established in the wild.

That aside, it seems that the population of bobwhite quails that was considered 'tick-able' is now long gone.

For some reason, in the NZ publication More Outdoor with rifle and shotgun, published in 1980, the following illustration is included, which clearly depicts a covey of bobwhite quails. The picture is unlabelled, however, and from what I can tell, there is no mention of the species in the book. This means that whether the illustration is meant to be of wild birds or domestic stock cannot be determined. Perhaps it was drawn by someone who was commissioned to illustrate quails, which were meant to be California quails, which are mentioned in the book, but was not told exactly which species of quail he was meant to draw.

Fortunately, unlike the grey partridge, bobwhite quails still exist in captivity in New Zealand, and apparently aren't rare. This means that more recent attempts at introducing them into the wild have been possible.

Morris & Ballance's Beautiful Birds of New Zealand, published in 2006, reads, 'A handful of people are now breeding and releasing bobwhite quail onto pasture around Timaru and Ashburton. The birds are reared in moveable coops. When the time comes the coops are moved to the release site and the doors are opened, allowing the birds to leave in their own time. They can continue to return to the coop, entering and leaving through a port in the roof to safely feed out of reach of predators'. Going by the lack of any records of wild birds seen in either area since that time, though, it seems that nothing ever became of this. Nowhere, however, does the text state that those who were breeding and releasing them actually intended for them to become established in the wild there.

Finally, the 2009 edition of Stuart Chambers' Birds of New Zealand Locality Guide states that some bobwhite quails were seen in Dargaville, Northland, in 2006. Perhaps these records refer to a genuine attempt at establishing the species in the wild there.

In my opinion, the bobwhite quail would certainly be a nice addition to the rural areas of NZ, but it seems that it isn't going to become an established species here any time soon.

A complete failure

When the revised version of Robertson & Heather's guide to New Zealand birds was finally released last year, some people disapproved of the fact that it retained the grey partridge in the field guide section, describing it as a 'Rare European Introduction', and including a range map which indicated that it could be found in the southern South Island.

And they had reason to, due to the fact that it has now been a great many years since a single one of them has graced New Zealand's countryside.

The introduction of the grey partridge in New Zealand, and its failure, is an interesting and unusual event in the history of New Zealand's avifauna that tends to go overlooked.

Included in the 2010 Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand is an account of its history; it was introduced in several places throughout the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and 'Some of these early introductions were briefly successful but all ultimately failed'. The text goes on to say that, beginning in 1961, there were a number of serious attempts to establish the species in the southern half of the South Island, and, 'Between 1964 and 1970, 11,000 grey partridges were released in North Canterbury alone'.

The handbook section of Robertson & Heather's revised guide reads, '... a few birds persisted in Southland until at least the 1980s'. Even this, however, is a baseless statement; in the 1969-1976 survey of the distribution of birds in New Zealand, there were only three grey partridge records; one in the North Island, and two in the South, with the last of these occurring in 1975. The North Island record during this time is unusual, given that there were no releases of the species there during or shortly before the survey was underway; my guess is that it was either a misidentified juvenile pheasant, an escapee from private hands, or the remnant of an unauthorised attempt at establishing the species in the North Island.

This brings the question of, what caused this species to die out so quickly?

I think that climate can be ruled out as being the primary cause for their failure at establishing. The climate of where they were released in the South Island would not have been much different from the climate of many of the places where they are found in their native range. I believe that, in most cases, it is unlikely for any large number of birds to quickly die out with an unsuitable climate as the primary cause; after all, the myna, a species that is intolerant to cold climates which has shown that it cannot breed south of Whanganui (or Foxton?), persisted in the South Island for at least a decade when it was introduced there in the 1870s.

Predation is an obvious possibility as to why they failed to establish as well. In regards to the predators that it would/could have encountered when it was introduced to New Zealand; cats, dogs, mustelids, falcons, and harriers would have been able to take the species at any stage of life; herons, rats, pukeko, and possibly little owls would have been able to take the eggs and chicks of the species, and mice and hedgehogs would have been able to take the eggs of the species. Weka would have been a threat to the species at all stages of life as well, but from what I can tell, the range of the weka and grey partridge when the more recent attempts at establishment were made would have overlapped either only slightly or not at all. Regardless, that is a considerable number of threats to the species, and yet, wouldn't such animals as foxes and martens, among others, be predators that the grey partridge would have been adapted to avoid in its native land, meaning that the predators in New Zealand wouldn't have been unusual to it? As well as this, the California quail was fairly widespread in parts of where the grey partridge would have been introduced to, meaning that they were able to survive such pressure from predation, despite having similar habits to the grey partridge, so surely the pressure from predation wouldn't have been so extreme as to be the main reason for why the species couldn't establish there?

Finally, what I think may be the most likely reason for their failure at establishing is changes in agricultural practices. In recent years, the grey partridge has sharply declined in parts of its native range due to agricultural practices changing where they live. It's fair to assume that such practices would have effected NZ's grey partridges as well, but I have no information about this at hand.

That's it, really. The grey partridge will probably never be seen in the wild here again, given that the importation of almost all birds into New Zealand is now illegal, and that there are apparently no grey partridges in captivity here. The grey partridge should be remembered as a member of the past of NZ's avifauna, but not its present.

Malmutts

Whilst out birding today, the pictured duck caught my eye among the other 'normal' ones, due to the very pale colouring of its face, which the photo doesn't show very well.

I have heard other people call unusual mallards that are either partly or entirely derived from domestic stock 'manky mallards' or 'motley mallards'. A name that I think should be used for the kind of duck pictured is 'malmutt'.

The 'malmutt' is New Zealand's mallard; having a wide range of appearances due to interbreeding between wild mallards, grey ducks, and in many cases, domestic mallards.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the bird pictured got its dark bill from the grey duck, its partially pale face from the domestic mallard, and the rest of its appearance from the wild mallard. As for what the truth is, why care?

In regard to the grey duck population now being entirely genetically 'polluted' by mallards, I don't think this matters much. Sure, it's sad to lose a duck that was clearly different from the mallard in several ways, but the fact that it interbred so extensively with the mallard, with no sign of a loss of fertility as each generation passed, to me means that the grey duck's position as a distinct species from the mallard should be reconsidered.

Whether the mallard's arrival in New Zealand was unnatural or not, the fact that the extensive hybridisation between the two ducks was possible in the first place means that some new decisions regarding the taxonomy of the mallard and its lookalikes (grey duck, American black duck, Hawaiian duck, etc.) should be made, without the sentimentalist mentality of them all being different species getting in the way.

No, I am not entirely against the 'pure-breeding' of different animals, and there are some birds that I don't want to see have their specific identity 'removed' via interbreeding, but this case is an exception.

An interesting exotic

Buttonquails are perhaps the most interesting case of convergent evolution in the avian world; despite not at all being closely related to them, they evolved to look and act very similarly to true quails. The only obvious anatomical difference that sets them apart from the true quails is their lack of a toe at the back of each foot.

Apparently, their similarity to true quails was so extreme that there were attempts to introduce one species, the painted buttonquail, to where it did not previously exist so that it could be hunted as game.

In New Zealand, it was released in Auckland and Canterbury in the 1800s, but, like so many other exotic species, failed to establish.

It was also introduced to Hawaii, as shown in the 1968 Audubon Illustrated Handbook of American Birds:

 

Not surprisingly, it doesn't exist there in the present day, either.

 

Had it survived and bred in the wilderness of New Zealand, I'm sure that it would have become a localised curiosity in the vein of the cirl bunting and kookaburra; perhaps fulfilling its intended purpose as a game bird if it became populous enough.

 

But, as ever, the days of when that could have become reality are now long gone.

The giant escapee

When my interest in the birds of North America was at its peak, I bought the then-new revised version of the Sibley guide to the birds of North America. This book has more escapee birds included in it than any other field guide I've found; everything from finches to flamingos. Among these escapees is a large number of escaped parrots, which finishes with this:

 

As it turns out, there was reason enough to include this species, as huge and expensive as it is, due to the fact that, like many other parrots, it has apparently been seen a number of times in Florida.

 

What does this have to do with New Zealand birds? Not much, though I did come across this news article detailing the time a bird of the same species decided to explore the neighbourhood in Timaru.

 

'Course, in this country, that's not something that you can expect to happen again. These birds pretty much never go for less than $10,000 in these parts, and I imagine that their owners keep them pretty well-guarded.

 

For now, the position of 'most commonly-seen escaped parrot in NZ' will stay with budgies and cockatiels.

 

Introduction

The primary purpose of this blog is to serve as a commentary blog for the birds of New Zealand, and the array of existing opinions in regards to them.

Just in case, here are some things that I believe are worth saying:

I am not in favour of the eradication of exotic species that do not have proven significant natural or economic impacts, and I strongly disagree with those who believe that exotic species that don't have significant negative natural or economic impacts should be removed on the basis that they 'don't belong', particularly in New Zealand.

I am in favour of the eradication of organisms of any kind that have been proven to have significant negative natural or economic impacts, even if this involves processes that will definitely cause suffering to these organisms, i.e. poisoning.