Nálezy trubkonosých (Aves: Procellariiformes) v Česku

Mlíkovský J. / Nálezy trubkonosých v Česku

Records of petrels and allies (Aves: Procellariiformes) from Czechia Nálezy trubkonosých (Aves: Procellariiformes) v Česku Jiří Mlíkovský Department of Zoology, National Museum, Václavské náměstí 68, CZ-115 79 Praha 1, Czechia; e-mail: [email protected] Mlíkovský J. 2012: Records of petrels and allies (Aves: Procellariiformes) from Czechia. Sylvia 48: 134–145. Petrels and allies are marine birds which seldom stray inland. Here I present a review of these birds from Czechia, an inland country in Central Europe. Overall, I accepted records of three species: Calonectris diomedea ssp. (one record from 1936), Fulmarus glacialis auduboni (five records ranging from the 1890s to 1962) and Hydrobates pelagicus ssp. (seven records from 1863–2006). The alleged records of Puffinus puffinus and Macronectes giganteus were rejected. Buřňáci a ostatní trubkonosí jsou mořští ptáci, kteří se jen zřídkakdy zatoulají do vnitrozemí. V této práci jsem zrevidoval nálezy trubkonosých z území Česka. Celkem jsem akceptoval nálezy tří druhů: Calonectris diomedea ssp. (jeden nález z roku 1936), Fulmarus glacialis auduboni (pět nálezů z období 1890. let až 1962; tři údajné nálezy zamítnuty) a Hydrobates pelagicus (sedm nálezů z let 1863–2006). Údajné nálezy druhů Puffinus puffinus a Macronectes giganteus považuji za mylné. V prvním případě mohl mít autor spíše na mysli rybáka Gelochelidon nilotica, ve druhém případě zase pelikána Pelecanus sp. Tyto interpretace jsou však příliš nejisté, než aby mohly být považovány za platné faunistické nálezy. Keywords: avifauna, Calonectris, Czechia, taxonomy, Hydrobates, Puffinus, vagrants

Introduction Petrels and allies are marine birds, which occur inland only as vagrants. As expected, they are rare in Central Europe (Bauer & Glutz von Blotzheim 1966). In this paper I review the records of petrels and allies from the territory of Czechia, an inland country lying in the center of Europe. Previously, Hudec (1994) and Hudec et al. (1995) registered 14 alleged or genuine records of these birds from Czechia, to which I here add two more. The aim of the study is to 134

review the taxonomic identity of these birds and to discuss their geographic origin. Museum abbreviations are as follows: MZMB = Moravské zemské muzeum [Moravian museum], Brno, Czechia; NMP = Národní muzeum [National Museum], Praha, Czechia; SZMO = Slezské zemské muzeum [Silesian Museum], Opava, Czechia. Codes of map squares were taken from Pruner & Míka (1996). For the current distribution of the recorded species see e.g. Onley & Scofield (2007).

Sylvia 48 / 2012

Systematic part Calonectris diomedea (Scopoli, 1769) •• An unsexed specimen was shot by Dr. J. Pospíšil (from Olomouc) in Olomouc in mid May 1936. It was found only two days later on the banks of the Morava River, already in a deteriorated state, but the shooter took basic measurements of the bird and collected its bill (Musílek 1936: 55). The bill was examined by Musílek (1936) and Hořice (1942), but later was lost. The bill was pictured by Hořice (1942, pl. 1) and possibly also by Musílek (1936: 56, two unnumbered text-figures). Remarks: Musílek (1936) identified the bill as belonging to Puffinus kuhlii kuhlii (Boie, 1835), a form which is now known as Calonectris diomedea kuhlii (Boie). The C. diomedea complex consists of three forms (usually treated as subspecies), of which the small-bodied edwardsii Oustalet, 1883 is restricted to the Cape Verde Islands, kuhlii breeds only in the Mediterranean Sea, and the largest, nominotypical diomedea is widely distributed in the northern Atlantic Ocean and the westernmost Mediterranean Sea. In each of these forms, males have longer and more robust bills than females, although the ranges overlap; males of kuhlii have similar bills as females of diomedea (Murphy & Chapin 1929, Bourne 1954, Thibault et al. 1997, Thibault & Bregatgnolle 1998, Martinez-Abtain et al. 2002, Gómez-Díaz et al. 2006, 2009, Gómez-Díaz & González-Solís 2007). Musílek (1936) attributed the Olomouc specimen to kuhlii on the basis of bill length (51 mm from frontal feathers) alone and this identification was accepted by Hořice (1942) and Bauer & Glutz von Blotzheim (1966: 181). Černý

(in Hudec & Černý 1972: 190) attributed the bird to the nominotypical subspecies diomedea without explanation and this treatment was accepted by Hudec (1994: 212) and Hudec et al. (1995: 102). The bill length of the Olomouc specimen falls in the zone of overlap between female diomedea and male kuhlii (see above for citations). It is thus impossible to identify the specimen exactly and the specimen should be classified as Calonectris diomedea ssp. Fulmarus glacialis (Linnaeus, 1761) •• An adult female was mounted from a fresh skin by Mr. Mathiasek, a taxidermist in Písek, which makes it probable that the specimen was found or collected in Písek. Hořice noted on a label attached to the specimen that it was probably collected around the year 1890. Dalimil Vařečka (1867–1893), an ornithologist based in Písek, who personally knew Mathiasek and who prepared a faunistic check-list of birds of the Písek region, did not know this record (see Kněžourek 1895, Bureš et al. 1995). It is thus probable, that the specimen was not collected before 1893. On a later date, the specimen was deposited in the Lesnická škola (forestry school) in Písek (founded in 1885), where Josef Jirsík (1898– 1956) discovered it on an unknown date, probably between 1930 and 1945, because Hořice (1941– 1945), who obtained the specimen from the Písek school for his private collection, listed the specimen in the Additions to his hand-written Catalogue, whose introduction was signed by Hořice in April 1931. The specimen is now deposited in the National Museum in Praha (NMP P6V-001587), it was obtained together with the whole Hořice collection in 1945. Note: This specimen was omitted from standard 135


reviews of the Czech avifauna (Hudec & Černý 1972, Hudec 1994, Hudec et al. 1995). •• Prášek (1908) reported that the species was recorded in the Beskydy Mountains in spring (no year given). These mountains are currently divided between Czechia, Slovakia and Poland. There is no evidence as to the taxonomic identity of the bird; and there is no evidence that it was recorded in the territory of Czechia. The spring date would be surprising for a Fulmarus petrel. Prášek’s statement thus cannot be accepted as a record of Fulmarus glacialis from Czechia. •• An individual was observed and collected by an unknown person in the Vltava valley at the Heinrichsöd [= Hrdoňov] bridge near Friedberg [= Frymburk], square no. 7351 (Michel in Michel & Reiser 1924: 99). Julius Michel (in Michel & Reiser 1924) found the mounted specimen in the collection of the Frymburk school (where it was identified as a “Silbermöwe” [= Larus argentatus s.l.] according to Michel) on Easter [= 24 April] 1921 and purchased it for the collection of Karl-Georg Buquoy (1885-1952) at Nové Hrady. The specimen was destroyed there soon after 1945, when Buquoy’s property was seized by the Czechoslovak government (J. Hora, pers. communication). The date of collection is approximate: a Frymburk school teacher told Michel (from his [teacher’s] memory) that the specimen was probably collected in February or March between 1903 and 1906. •• An individual was found dead and collected by Mr. Nidrle at Dlouhá Ves near “Německý Brod” [= Havlíčkův Brod], square no. 6460 (Hořice 1942). On a later date, this mounted specimen was discovered (locality not known) by Bohumil Semrád (1903– 136

1980), who obtained it for his private collection (Hudeček et al. 2002: 46). The specimen was later obtained by Alfred Hořice (1865– 1945), who donated it to the NMP in 1945, where it is now deposited (NMP P6V-001586). The collection date is uncertain. Hořice (1942) stated that the bird was collected in late fall or more probably in early spring 1930. Hudeček et al. (2002: 46) indicated that it was collected in spring 1930 or in late spring 1929 without providing any support for these data. Hudec et al. (1995: 102) said that the specimen was collected between 1927 and 1930, likewise without any support. In absence of better evidence, Hořice’s original date (1930) should be used for this specimen. Photos: Hořice 1942, pl. 1, fig. 1 left, and fig. 2 above. •• An adult individual was said to have been collected by an unknown person in Mariánské Lázně on 24 January 1955 (Zdeněk Kux in Hudec & Černý 1972: 193, Kux in Hudec 1994: 210, Hanák 2003: 38). The specimen is deposited in MZMB (MZMB 8077), where I examined it in 2009. I found that the locality and date was written on the pedestal of the specimen by an unknown hand (presumably a volunteer; H. Sutorová, bird curator at the MZMB, pers. comm. in 2009; and probably after 1954 and before 1972, when this date was published for the first time). The original inscription on the pedestal reads "data neznámá" ("data unknown"). The specimen is thus of an unknown origin (H. Sutorová, pers. comm. in 2009, and my observations) and the alleged record of F. glacialis from Mariánské Lázně must be deleted from the Czech list. •• A freshly dead specimen was found by Mr. V. Kunc (from Praha-Pankrác) at Kytín, square no. 6151, on 18 February

Sylvia 48 / 2012

Fig. 1. Records of Fulmarus glacialis (■) and Calonectris diomedea (▲) in Czechia. Rejected records are not shown. 1 – Písek, 2 – Hrdoňov, 3 – Dlouhá Ves, 4 – Kytín, 5 – Houstoň, 6 – Olomouc. Obr. 1. Nálezy buřňáků Fulmarus glacialis (■) a Calonectris diomedea (▲) na území Česka. Zamítnuté nálezy nejsou ukázány. 1 – Písek, 2 – Hrdoňov, 3 – Dlouhá Ves, 4 – Kytín, 5 – Houstoň, 6 – Olomouc.

Fig. 2. Records of Hydrobates pelagicus (●) in Czechia. 1 – Ruda nad Moravou-Hostice, 2 – Žacléř, 3 – Zákupy, 4 – Rybník, 5 – Beroun-Závodí, 6 – Havlíčkův Brod-Březinka, 7 – Březina. Obr. 2. Nálezy buřňáčka Hydrobates pelagicus (●) na území Česka. 1 – Ruda nad MoravouHostice, 2 – Žacléř, 3 – Zákupy, 4 – Rybník, 5 – Beroun-Závodí, 6 – Havlíčkův Brod-Březinka, 7 – Březina.

137


1962, and presented by him to NMP (Jan Hanzák in Hudec & Černý 1972: 193), where it is still deposited (NMP P6V-004698). •• An exhausted individual was found by an unknown person in Hostouň near Kladno, square no. 5851, in late February 1962, of which Walter Černý (1905–1975) saw a figure and confirmed its taxonomic identity (see W. Černý in Hudec & Černý 1972: 193). The current whereabouts of this specimen are unknown. •• The OVMT possesses a specimen of F. glacialis allegedly collected in Bohemia, but without any closer data on its origin (Flasar 1974). Due to the absence of supporting information, this specimen cannot be accepted as a record of F. glacialis from Czechia. Remarks: Northern populations of North Atlantic F. glacialis tend to be longer-billed and are more dark-colored than southern Atlantic populations (Wynne-Edwards 1952, Salomonsen 1965, van Franeker & Wattel 1982, van Franeker 1995). While the variation in bill and wing dimensions seems to be clinal, plumage coloration indicates that two metapopulations exist in the North Atlantic which may be recognized as subspecies (Salomonsen 1965, Šuntov 1982, van Franeker 1995, Dickinson 2003, van Franeker & Luttik 2008): the light-colored F. g. auduboni (Bonaparte, 1857) in the south and the dark-colored nominotypical F. g. glacialis (Linnaeus, 1761) in the north. All known specimens of Fulmarus glacialis collected in Czechia are light-colored and all thus should be attributed to F. g. auduboni if the coloration is accepted as a diagnostic character (but see van Franeker & Luttik 2008). This is not surprising, because this southern form is more likely to straggle to inland Central Europe than the boreal F. g. glacialis. 138

Hydrobates pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) •• An individual was caught by hand of an unknown person at “Aloisthal bei Schönberg” [= Alojzov, now a part of Ruda nad Moravou-Hostice, square no. 6067] on 5 December 1863 at 8 a.m., died shortly thereafter and was subsequently donated by A. Pistel, a head of Alojzov ironworks, to Ludwig Heinrich Jeitteles (1830– 1883), a secondary school teacher in Olomouc, who in turn gave the stuffed bird to the MZMB (Jeitteles 1864: 88-89, Heinrich 1864: 88). The specimen was destroyed before 1883 (Tschusi 1883: 110, footnote). •• A dead specimen was found by a forester Heinrich Fürst in a forest at “Schatzlar” [= Žacléř; square no. 5361] in 1879 and deposited in the forestry school at “Weisswasser” [= Bělá pod Bezdězem], where it was examined by Michel (1892: 209). On a later date, the specimen was transferred to the forestry school at Zákupy, where Hořice (1942: 2) examined it, probably shortly before his paper was published, remarking that he found the specimen in a very bad state. The current whereabouts of the specimen are unknown; presumably it was destroyed. The Žacléř specimen was identified by Julius Michel and Alfred Hořice, both ornithologists of high reputation, and its taxonomic identity thus does not need to be doubted. Note that I took the date of collection and the surname and function of the collector from Kněžourek (1912: 576) and the collector's first name from Anonymous (1881: 439). •• An exhausted individual was found by students of the Zákupy forestry school at Zákupy, square no. 5353, in October 1912 and died immediately (Hořice 1942: 2). The specimen was

Sylvia 48 / 2012

••

••

••

••

obtained by Alfred Hořice (1885– 1945), who donated it to the NMP in 1945, where it is now deposited (NMP P6V-001592). A dead individual was found by an unknown person at Rybník near Moravská Třebová, square no. 6164, on 20 December 1929, and subsequently donated by Karel Podhajský (1871– 1930) to Alfred Hořice (Hořice 1942: 2), who in turn donated it to the NMP in 1945, where it is now deposited (NMP P6V-001591). An individual was found dead in a garden in Beroun-Závodí, square no. 6050, on 10 October 1952 by Mr. Marek, a student, and through mediation of Jaroslav Petrbok (1881– 1981) donated to the NMP (Hanzák 1953: 133), where it is now deposited (NMP P6V-002445). Photo: Hanzák 1953, pl. 14, fig. 41. An individual (identified by Semrád 1966 as an adult female) was found dead and frozen in ice covering the Sázava River at “Březinka” [= Havlíčkův Brod-Březinka], square nos. 6358/6359, in February 1953 (Hladík et al. 1959, Semrád 1966). An exact date of collection is unknown. Semrád (1966) remarked that the specimen was in a bad state, so it could have died earlier, perhaps even in late 1952. The place of this petrel’s death is also unknown, because Semrád (1966) stated that it was found in ice covering the Sázava River. Hence, the individual could have died upstream at the Sázava or one of its tributaries. The specimen was included in the collection of Bohumil Semrád (1903– 1980) in Havlíčkův Brod (Hudeček et al. 2002: 47) and later transferred to SZMO, where it is now deposited (SZMO 2649; Hanák 2003: 39). Photo: Semrád 1966, p.1. A dead individual was found floating

in the Žabakor pond near Březina, square no. 5456, on 26 October 2006 by Vojtěch Šťastný, a schoolboy (Jasso 2008, Vavřík & Faunistická komise ČSO 2010: FK 01/2007). The specimen was donated by the collector and his parents to the NMP, where it is now deposited (NMP P6V-103336). Photo: Jasso 2006, fig. 2; note that the photograph was taken by Pavel Kameník, a taxidermist at the NMP, not by Mlíkovský as is incorrectly given in the caption to the figure in Jasso (2008). Remarks: Hydrobates pelagicus has been traditionally considered a monotypic species (e.g. Bauer & Glutz von Blotzheim 1966, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Dickinson 2003, Onley & Scofield 2007), but Hémery & D’Elbée (1985) and Lalanne et al. (2001) indicated that birds breeding in the Mediterranean Sea differ from those breeding in the Atlantic in having longer wings and deeper mandibles and Cagnon et al. (2004) confirmed the differences between the Atlantic and Mediterranean populations using cytochrome b. Differences in migratory and molting patterns were also reported (Amengual et al. 1999, Arroyo et al. 2004). These authors thus suggested that two subspecies should be recognized in Hydrobates pelagicus, including H. p. pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) breeding in the Atlantic Ocean and H. p. melitensis (Schembri, 1843) breeding in the Mediterranean Sea. However, some authorities did not recognize these taxa (e.g. BirdLife International 2012). It is currently impossible to assign the Czech H. pelagicus to the Atlantic or Mediterranean form on morphological grounds. “Puffinus anglicus” •• Holewa (1900: 6) stated that Puffinus anglicus was rarely recorded in what 139


was then Austrian Silesia, without mentioning any details. Remarks: Hudec et al. (1966: 48, 1995: 102), Hudec & Černý (1972: 191) and Hudec (1994: 214) reported on these records under the name Puffinus puffinus (Linnaeus, 1766) without explanation. They presumably believed that Holewa’s anglicus is a misprint for anglorum, because Procellaria anglorum Temminck, 1820 is a junior synonym of Procellaria puffinus Brünnich, 1764 = Puffinus puffinus (Brünnich). No Puffinus spp. are known to have been recorded in Silesia (in the sense of the late 19th century) before 1900, which makes this interpretation less probable. However, Holewa’s anglicus allows for another interpretation. In his time, Sterna anglica Montagu, 1813 was a widely used name for the species now known as Gelochelidon nilotica (J.F. Gmelin, 1789). A specimen of this species was collected at Czarny Dunajec, now in Nowy Targ County, Lesser Poland, close to the eastern border of the then Silesia in May 1886 (Domaniewski 1927), although no such record was known for Silesia proper (Ržehak 1892, Kollibay 1906). Holewa might have heard of this record and might have mistakenly reported on it under the nonexistent name “Puffinus anglicus”. Nevertheless, even this interpretation is speculative. Holewa’s (1900) record of “Puffinus anglicus” thus cannot be used as a record of either Puffinus puffinus or Gelochelidon nilotica. “Procellaria gigantea” •• Zbořil (1920: 55) reported that a juvenile Procellaria gigantea [J.F. Gmelin, 1789] was caught at Hodonín. His report reads as follows (my translation): “It was caught and kept for fun for half a year by my supplier of Moravian fishes. It was still young, but it daily consumed an 140

astonishing amount of food, mainly fish, of course.” Remarks: Macronectes petrels are seabirds of southern oceans (Onley & Scofield 2007) and their occurrence in the interior of Europe is thus highly improbable. Zbořil (1920) presented no description of the bird, so its unambiguous identification is impossible. However, taking into account that the bird was presumably large (“giganteus”), fish-eating, non-marine (a bird from open seas would hardly survive inland for half a year due to aspergillosis and similar diseases) and unknown to inhabitants of Hodonín in the 1910s (which excludes herons and cormorants), one can speculate that the bird in question was a pelican (Pelecanus sp.). Nevertheless, this speculation is not sufficient for an addition of this record to the Czech list. Discussion Records of petrels and allies in Czechia seem to be non-randomly distributed in the period 1841–2010 (Fig. 3). These birds were regularly collected since the beginnings of regular ornithological work until the early 1960s, with last records from 1962. Then, a gap of almost 50 years occurred until a Hydrobates was collected in 2006. This gap cannot be explained by decreased ornithological activity; in fact, the ornithological activity was intensive in Czechia and four nationwide mapping actions (three in the breeding season and one in winter) were organized during this period. The absence of records of petrels and allies thus probably reflects a natural pattern, although its causes are not apparent. Note that the two records of Fulmarus glacialis from 1962 coincide with an influx of this species into Central Europe (Bauer & Glutz von Blotzheim 1966: 176).

Sylvia 48 / 2012

Number of records / počet pozorování

4 HP FG

3

CD

2

1

0

Fig. 3. Frequency of records (specimens collected) of petrels and allies in Czechia during 1841–2010. See text for individual records. Rejected records were not included. CD = Calonectris diomedea, FG = Fulmarus glacialis, HP = Hydrobates pelagicus. Obr. 3. Četnost výskytu (dle ulovených nebo nalezených jedinců) v Česku v letech 1841–2010. Pro jednotlivé nálezy viz text. Zamítnuté nálezy nebyly do grafu zahrnuty. CD = Calonectris diomedea, FG = Fulmarus glacialis, HP = Hydrobates pelagicus.

Number of records / počet záznamů

4 HP FG

3

CD

2

1

0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

month / měsíc

Fig. 4. Seasonal distribution of the records of petrels and allies in Czechia in 1841–2010. See text for individual records. Rejected records were not included. A Fulmarus glacialis record was dated “February or March”; here I assigned half of the value to each month. CD = Calonectris diomedea, FG = Fulmarus glacialis, HP = Hydrobates pelagicus. Obr. 4. Rozložení nálezů trubkonosých v Česku v letech 1841–2010 v průběhu roku. Pro jednotlivé nálezy viz text. Zamítnuté nálezy nebyly do grafu zahrnuty. Jeden nález buřňáka Fulmarus glacialis byl datován „únor nebo březen“; v tomto grafu jsem tedy každému z těchto měsíců přiřadil polovinu hodnoty. CD = Calonectris diomedea, FG = Fulmarus glacialis, HP = Hydrobates pelagicus.

141


Seasonal occurrence of petrels and allies in Czechia is non-random as well; moreover, the patterns seem to differ between species (Fig. 4). The occurrence of Fulmarus petrels is limited to winter months (January to February, possibly extending into March; see above for explanation). On the other hand, the occurrence of Hydrobates petrels is limited to autumn (October to December). An examination of Figs. 1 and 2 revealed that Fulmarus petrels and Hydrobates shearwaters were found in different habitats in Czechia, which might reflect their habitat preferences, although their natural habitats are absent from this region. Most Fulmarus petrels were recorded along the largest Bohemian rivers, while most Hydrobates shearwaters were found near the upper reaches of little rivers. It is noteworthy in this respect that there are five records of H. pelagicus from the southern (Czech) part of the mountain range separating Czechia from Poland (Fig. 2), while only one such record (at Wrocław on 4 November 1821) is available from its northern (Polish) part (Tomiałojć & Stawarczyk 2003). Habitat preferences of vagrant petrels and shearwaters were previously not studied to the best of my knowledge, although Krüger & Dierschke (2006, Fig. 3) observed that vagrant Oceanodroma leucorhoa (Vieillot, 1818) were mostly found along rivers in Germany. Conclusions A review of the records of petrels and allies from Czechia resulted in the following list of accepted records: •• Calonectris diomedea: one record from 1936. •• Fulmarus glacialis: five records from the 1890s, 1903-1906, ca. 1930, and 1962 (two); three records (one before 142

1900, one allegedly in 1955, one undated) were rejected. •• Hydrobates pelagicus: seven records from 1863, 1879, 1912, 1929, 1952, 1953 and 2006. The alleged records of “Puffinus puffinus” (before 1900) and “Macronectes giganteus” (presumably 1910s) were rejected. Acknowledgements I am obliged to Helena Sutorová (Moravian Museum, Brno) for permission to study specimens under her care and for advice on the MZMB bird collection. I thank Vojtěch Šťastný and his parents for the kind donation of the specimen P6V-103336 and David Heyrovský (Prague) for helpful comments on the manuscript. Preparation of this paper was supported by project no. 10/300/ PM/2012 of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic.

Literature Amengual J. F, Gargallo G., Suárez M., Bonnin J., González J. M., Rebassa M. & McMinn M. 1999: The Mediterranean Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis at Cabrera archipelago (Balearic Islands, Spain): breeding moult, biometry and evaluation of the population size by mark and recapture techniques. Ringing & Migration 19: 181–190. Anonymous. 1881: Verein zur Förderung der Interessen der land- und forstwirthschaftlichen Beamten. Centralblatt für das Gesammte Forstwesen 7: 439. Arroyo B., Mínguez E., Palomares L. & Pinilla J. 2004: The timing and pattern of moult of flight feathers of European Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus in Atlantic and Mediterranean breeding areas. Ardeola 51: 365–373. Bauer K. M. & Glutz von Blotzheim U. N. 1966: Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Vol. 1: Gaviiformes – Phoenicopteriformes.

Sylvia 48 / 2012

Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frank furt am Main. BirdLife International 2012: Hydrobates pelagicus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. http:// www.iucnredlist.org/. Viewed 17 August 2012. Bourne W. R. P. 1954: On the status and appearance of the races of Cory’s Shearwater Procellaria diomedea. Ibis 97: 145–149. Bureš J., Hlásek L., Pecl K., Šálek M. & Všetečka R. 1995: Ptactvo Písecka – Ornis kraje píseckého. ZO ČSOP 18/08, Písek. Cagnon C., Lauga B., Hémery G. & Mouchès C. 2004: Phylogeographic differentiation of storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) based on cytochrome b mitochondrial DNA variation. Marine Biology 145: 1257–1264. Dickinson E. C. (ed) 2003: The Howard and Moore Complete checklist of the birds of the world. 3rd rev. ed. Christopher Helm, London. Domaniewski J. von 1927: Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Tatravögel. Ornithologische Monatsberichte 35: 68–70. Flasar I. 1974: Sbírka ptáků a savců Oblastního vlastivědného muzea v Teplicích. Zprávy a studie Okresního vlastivědného muzea Teplice 10: 25–50. Franeker J. A. van 1995: Kleurfasen van de Noordse stormvogel Fulmarus glacialis in de Noordatlantische oceaan. Sula 9: 93– 105. Franeker J. A. van & Luttik R. 2008: Colour and size variation in the Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis on the Bear Island, Svalbard. Circumpolar Studies 4: 39–58. Franeker J. A. van & Wattel J. 1982: Geo graphical variation of the Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Atlantic. Ardea 70: 31–44. Gómez-Díaz E. & González-Solís J. 2007: Geographic assignment of seabirds to their origin: combining morphologic, genetic, and biochemical analyses. Ecological Applications17: 1484–1498. Gómez-Díaz E., González-Solís J., Peinado M. A. & Page R. D. M. 2006: Phylogeography of the Calonectris shearwaters using molecular and morphometric data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41: 322–332. Gómez-Díaz E., González-Solís J. & Peinado

M. A. 2009: Population structure in a highly pelagic seabird, the Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea: an examination of genetics, morphology and ecology. Marine Ecology Progress Series 382: 197–209. Hanák F. 2003: Katalog cizokrajných ptáků v moravskoslezských ornitologických sbírkách. Muzeum Komenského v Přerově, Přerov. Hanzák J. 1953: Nový nález buřňáčka malého (Hydrobates pelagicus [L.]) v Čechách. Sylvia 14: 133–134. Heinrich A. 1864: Ein seltener nach Mähren verschlagener Sturmvogel, Thalassidroma Leach, Procellaria, Linné. Mittheilungen der k.k. Mährisch-Schlesischen Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Ackerbaues in Brünn 1864: 88. Hémery G. & D’Elbée E. 1985: Discrimination morphologique des populations atlantique et méditerranéenne de Pétrel Tempête, Hydrobates pelagicus. In: Oiseaux marins nicheurs du Midi et de la Corse. Annales du Centre Régional Ornithologique de Provence 2: 63–67. Hladík B., Slavík B., Semrád B. & Kučera J. 1959: Ptáci střední části Českomoravské vysočiny. II. část. Vlastivědný sborník Vysočiny 3: 131–157. Holewa H. 1900: Die Vogelfauna in Schlesien. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der heimathlichen Vogelwelt. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn 38: 3–28 Hořice A. 1942: O nálezech buřňáků (Pro cellariidae) v našich zemích. Sylvia 7: 1–5. Hořice A. 1941–1945: Katalog sbírky ptactva českého sestavené MUDr Alfred. Hořicem v Mnich. Hradišti. Unpublished manuscript, deposited in the Department of Zoology, National Museum, Praha. Hudec K. (ed) 1994: Fauna ČR. Ptáci 1. Academia, Praha. Hudec K. & Černý W. (eds) 1972: Fauna ČSSR. Ptáci 1. Academia, Praha. Hudec K., Kondělka D. & Novotný I. 1966: Ptactvo Slezska. Slezské muzeum v Opavě, Opava. Hudec K., Chytil J., Šťastný K. & Bejček V. 1995: Ptáci České republiky. Sylvia 31: 97–149. Hudeček J., Hanák F. & Beneš B. 2002:

143


Ornitologická sbírka Bohumila Semráda. Zprávy MOS 60: 41–72. Jasso L. 2008: Buřňáček malý (Hydrobates pelagicus) opět nalezen v České republice. Sylvia 44: 69–71. Jeitteles L.H. [Jeittelles L.H.], 1864: [Ver schlagener Sturmvogel (Tha1assidroma pelagica) und Syrrhaptes paradoxus in Mähren]. Zoologischer Garten 5: 88–89. [Note that this paper was published untitled; the title was provided by Tschusi 1883: 110.] Jouanin C. & Mougin J.-L. 1979: Order Procellariiformes. In: Mayr E. & Cottrell G.W. (eds): Check-list of birds of the world. 2nd ed. Vol. 1: 48–121. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, MA. Kněžourek K. 1895: Ornis kraje píseckého z pozůstalosti Dal. Vařečky. Unpublished manuscript, Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno. [Dated June 1895] Kněžourek K. 1912: Velký přírodopis ptáků se zvláštním zřetelem ku ptactvu zemí českých a rakouských. Vol. 2. I. L. Kober, Praha. Kollibay P. 1906: Die Vögel der Preußischen Provinz Schlesien. Wilh. Gottl. Korn, Breslau. Krüger T. & Dierschke J. 2006 : Das Vorkom men des Wellenläufers Oceanodroma leucorhoa in Deutschland. Vogelwelt 127: 145–162. Lalanne Y., Hemery G., Cagnon C., D’Amico F., D’Elbée J., & Mouches C. 2001: Discrimination morphologique des sousespèces d’Océanite tempête: nouveaux résultats pour deux populations méditerranéennes. Alauda 69: 475–482. Martinez-Abrain A., Sanchez A. & Oro D. 2002: Atlantic Cory’s Shearwaters breeding in a colony of Mediterranean Cory’s Shearwaters. Waterbirds 25: 221–224. Michel J. 1892: Einige ornithologische ReiseErinnerungen. Schwalbe 16: 149–151, 163–164, 176–177, 187–188, 209–210. Michel J. & Reiser O. 1924: Zwei Fälle des Vorkommens des Eissturmvogels, Fulmarus glacialis, im Inneren des europäischen Festlandes. Journal für Ornithologie 72: 99–100. Murphy R. C. & Chapin J. P. 1929: A collection of birds from the Azores. American Museum Novitates 384: 1–23.

144

Musílek J. 1936: První zjištění buřňáka šedého Puffinus kuhlii (Boie) u nás. Sylvia 1: 55–57. Onley D. & Scofield P. 2007: Albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters of the world. Christopher Helm, London. Prášek J. 1908: Ornithologické poměry na Lašsku. In: 13. výroční zpráva c.k. čes. vyššího gymn. v Místku za škol. rok 1907– 1908. C.k. české vyšší gymnasium v Místku, Místek: 3–26. Pruner L. & Míka P. 1996: Seznam obcí a jejich částí v České republice s čísly mapových polí pro síťové mapování fauny. Klapalekiana 32 (Supplement): 1–115. Ržehak C. F. 1892: Systematisches Verzeichniss der bisher in Oesterr.-Schlesien beobachteten Vögel, nebst Bemerkungen über Zug, Brut und andere bemerkenswerthe Erscheinungen. Schwalbe 16: 4–6, 19–20. Salomonsen F. 1965: The geographical variation of the Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) and the zones of marine environment in the North Atlantic. Auk 82: 327–355. Semrád B. 1966: Pátý český doklad buřňáčka malého (Hydrobates pelagicus [L]). Zprávy MOS 1966: 1–2. Šuntov V. P. 1982: Otrâd Trubkonosye. In: Il’ičev V. D. & Flint V. E. (eds): Pticy SSSR: Istoriâ izučeniâ, gagary, poganki, trubkonosye. Nauka, Moskva: 352–427. Thibault J.C. & Bregatgnolle V. 1998: A Mediterranean breeding colony of Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea in which individuals show behavioural and biometric characters of the Atlantic subspecies. Ibis 140: 523–528. Thibault J. C., Bregatgnolle V. & Rabuñal J. L. 1997: Calonectris diomedea Cory’s Shearwater. BWP Update 1: 75–98. Tomiałojć L. & Stawarczyk T. 2003: Awifauna Polski. Rozmieszczenie, liczebność i zmiany. Vol. 1. Polskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Przyrody “pro Natura”, Wrocław. Tschusi zu Schmihoffen V. von 1883: Nachruf an Ludw. Heinrich Jeitteles. Schwalbe 7: 109–111. Vavřík M. & Faunistická komise ČSO 2010: Zpráva Faunistické komise ČSO za období 2004–2006. Sylvia 46: 195–211.

Sylvia 48 / 2012

Wynne-Edwards V. C. 1952: The geographical variation in the bill of the Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis). Scottish Naturalist 64: 84–101. Zbořil J. 1920: Ze zoogeografie moravské. Časopis Vlasteneckého spolku musejního v Olomouci 32: 53–55.

Došlo 20. srpna 2012, přijato 17. září 2012. Received 20 August 2012; accepted 17 September 2012. Editor: P. Adamík

145

Nálezy trubkonosých (Aves: Procellariiformes) v Česku

Recommend Documents