Article

Birds

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Birds

Scope and Historical Definition

The ornithological literature of the Straits Settlements and the Malay Peninsula, as preserved in the journals of the Straits Branch and its successors, constitutes a substantial body of systematic, taxonomic, and field-based documentation spanning more than seven decades. From the earliest comprehensive checklists of the 1880s through the subspecific revisions of the 1920s and the ethnographic and anatomical studies of the 1950s, the records reveal a discipline that evolved from broad faunal inventory to increasingly refined questions of population structure, morphological function, and local nomenclature. The geographic scope encompasses the Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Sumatra, and the island groups of the South China Sea, with the Federated Malay States Museums in Singapore and the Sarawak Museum serving as the principal repositories of type specimens and comparative series throughout the period.

The earliest systematic attempt to define the avifauna of a major biogeographic unit in the region was A.H. Everett’s 1889 checklist of the Bornean group of islands, which enumerated 570 species across Borneo, Palawan, the Sulu Islands, and intervening islets, delimited by a 100-fathom bathymetric boundary [1, pp. 86–90]. Everett’s work established the first coherent inventory of the region’s birds, identifying eleven genera peculiar to Borneo proper and approximately 140 species apparently confined to the group, while explicitly acknowledging the provisional character of the boundaries in the absence of faunal data for many small islands [1, pp. 86–90]. This foundational effort set the template for subsequent regional surveys, which progressively refined both the taxonomic framework and the geographic precision of the records.

Members & Sub-Topics

Taxonomic Description and Subspecific Revision

The dominant mode of ornithological publication in the period from the 1880s through the 1920s was the formal description of new taxa, typically based on specimens collected during expeditions to poorly known highland or island localities. R.B. Sharpe’s 1887 account of a collection from the Larut Range in Perak, assembled by L. Wray at approximately 4,400 feet elevation, formally described five new species—Artamides larutensis, Trochalopterum peninsulae, Pomatorhinus Wrayi, Corythocichla leucosticta, and Minla soror—and extended the known ranges of several species southward from Tenasserim or the Himalayas [2, pp. 125–141]. Wray’s accompanying field notes provided essential ecological context: the Larut Range was covered in dense unbroken forest from base to peak, received 200 to 250 inches of rainfall annually, and exhibited a clear altitudinal boundary below 3,000 feet where hill forms became scarce and low-country species reappeared [2, pp. 125–141].

The Korinchi expedition of 1914, conducted by C.B. Kloss and H.C. Robinson in West Sumatra, represented a more ambitious application of this taxonomic method. The resulting 1916 paper described 23 new taxa—mammals and birds collected between sea level and 10,000 feet on Korinchi Peak—of which seven were avian or chiropteran, including a new scops-owl (Pisorhina vandewateri), a new thrush (Turdus indrapurae), two new flycatchers, and a new sunbird (Dicaeum beccarii) [3, pp. 269–278]. The diagnoses were deliberately terse, providing type locality, collection date, a brief comparison to the nearest known relative, and a suite of external and cranial measurements, with the authors explicitly stating that full descriptions would follow in a separate publication [3, pp. 269–278].

By the 1920s, the emphasis had shifted from the description of new species to the revision of subspecific boundaries. Chasen and Kloss’s 1928 account of the Anamba Islands, South China Sea, exemplifies this transition. Building on Harry Oberholser’s 1917 monograph, they accepted 19 of the 22 Anamba subspecies Oberholser had proposed, rejected five as unsupported, and described two new subspecies of their own: Orthotomus atricularis major and Malacopteron magnirostris flavum [4, pp. 44]. A recurring theme in their analysis was that the Anamba races were characteristically larger than their mainland counterparts, with nine of the 19 accepted subspecies separable on size alone and a further nine combining size with faint colour differences [4, p. 44]. The authors also offered a critical discussion of the Redshank (Totanus totanus) racial complex, questioning the validity of the recently proposed terrignotae and arguing for the continued use of Oberholser’s eurhinus [4, pp. 50–51].

A parallel subspecific study was conducted by Robinson and Kloss on a large bird collection assembled by the Dutch planter van Heyst across the Deli, Serdang, Simeloengan, and Langkat districts of north-east Sumatra, spanning altitudes from sea level to 1,390 metres on the Karo Plateau [5, pp. 79–115]. The paper described 242 species, erected four new taxa, and recorded four species for the first time from Sumatra, while systematically comparing the north-east Sumatran populations with those of the Malay Peninsula, Borneo, and Java [5, pp. 79–115]. The authors’ primary task was subspecific determination: for each species they compared the north-east Sumatran specimens with series from the Federated Malay States Museums, the Sarawak Museum, and Javan collections, assigning them to existing races or proposing new ones where warranted [5, pp. 79–115]. Their work on the red-headed fruit dove (Macropygia ruficeps) was particularly significant, as they rejected Stuart Baker’s 1913 claim that observed differences between Javan, Bornean, Sumatran, and Malayan populations were merely those of age, demonstrating instead that the four populations were subspecifically distinct [5, pp. 77–78].

Kloss’s 1926 note on two neglected bird names, Eucichla guajana and Chloropsis cochinchinensis, illustrates a further dimension of taxonomic work: the restoration of valid names that had been subsumed or misapplied in earlier catalogues [6, pp. 161–163]. Kloss argued that Gmelin’s name cochinchinensis, long subsumed under C. chlorocephala or misapplied to the Javanese C. nigricollis following Sharpe’s Catalogue, actually referred to the northern leafbird, basing his case on the original D’Aubenton figure and on Montbeillard’s text describing a yellow gorget that “diminishes on the breast” rather than expanding as in nigricollis [6, p. 162]. He concluded that cochinchinensis must be restored as the valid specific name for four subspecies spanning the Brahmaputra to Annam, the Malay Peninsula, Java, and Borneo [6, p. 163].

Field Observation, Migration, and Ethnographic Record

Alongside the taxonomic literature, a parallel tradition of field observation documented the phenology, migration, and behaviour of birds in the region. H.R. Kelham’s 1883 ornithological notes, drawn on observations made between 1877 and 1880 across the Straits Settlements and the western Malay states of Perak, Larut, and Province Wellesley, constitute a systematic account of bird species encountered during military postings, combining precise morphological descriptions with detailed notes on migration timing, breeding phenology, and local Malay hunting practices [7, pp. 171–205]. A recurring theme was the north-east monsoon as the principal driver of shorebird migration: great flocks of Golden Plover, Sand-Plover, Curlew, and Whimbrel arrived from October through March, while the Pintail Snipe arrived in force from late August to early April, with Province Wellesley identified as the peninsula’s premier snipe-ground [7, pp. 177–183]. Kelham recorded bags of 35 to 56 couple per day in exceptionally good seasons [7, pp. 180–183].

For resident and semi-resident species, Kelham documented breeding seasons with notable precision. Jungle-fowl bred from March to July in Perak; the Whistling Teal paired and retired to jungle creeks by June, with young birds reported by natives in January or February, suggesting a breeding window from August or September through the rainy season [7, pp. 172]. The Whistling Teal was described as “the Duck of the Malayan Peninsula,” collecting in hundreds on Perak jheels from February to April, departing by mid-June, and returning a few months later [7, pp. 198–200]. The article also preserved valuable ethnographic detail on Malay hunting methods: in Province Wellesley, Malays decoyed Jungle-fowl by imitating the cock’s crow; in Perak, they employed caged female Bustard-Quail as live decoys fitted with a spring-net mechanism that triggered when a wild bird broke a thread stretched across the cage bars [7, pp. 172].

The Batu Lawi expedition of 1911, a 40-day overland and river journey to Mount Batu Lawi in the upper Limbang district of Sarawak, produced a taxonomic list of avian specimens collected during transit through the upper Limbang, Madihit, and Baram river systems [8, pp. 74–77]. The expedition’s primary objective was to reach and survey a peak of some 6,400 feet whose existence had been confirmed only indirectly by earlier travellers; the party reached the mountain’s southern slopes at 5,660 feet but was unable to scale the higher peak [8, p. 40]. Despite the constraints of terrain, persistent rain, and cold temperatures dropping to 62°F at altitude, the collections were described as “surprisingly rich in new and rare species,” indicating the poorly known nature of the region’s fauna [8, p. 56]. A rare Oriole (Oriolus hosei) was shot by one of the collectors on 24 May at approximately 3,900 feet altitude [8, p. 34].

Shorter field notes also contributed to the record. H.N. Ridley’s 1905 observation on the nesting behaviour of the Little Grey Woodpecker in the Straits Settlements noted that the species must nest frequently given its commonness, and that he had often observed it making holes in trees as if to nest; on one occasion he identified a bird that appeared to roost regularly in a hole it had made in a dead bough in the Gardens, visible every evening at the mouth of the hole, yet despite this being the breeding season, he found neither eggs nor young birds in the nest [9, p. 227].

Comparative Anatomy and Local Nomenclature

The later decades of the period saw the emergence of studies that moved beyond taxonomy and field observation into comparative anatomy and linguistic documentation. F.N. Chasen’s 1923 article on the heel-pad in certain Malaysian birds examined a thickened, sometimes tuberculated pad on the metatarsal joint of nestling birds, arguing that the structure was a morphological consequence of the plantigrade posture adopted by altricial nestlings whose ankle joints were not yet functionable [10, pp. 237–246]. Drawing on specimens from the Raffles Museum in Singapore, Chasen documented the persistence of well-developed pads in adult Barbets and their early shedding in Woodpeckers, while also cataloguing incipient pads in a wide range of other families [10, pp. 237–246]. His central argument was that the heel-pad was not primarily a locomotory aid nor merely a protective cushion, but rather a direct consequence of the plantigrade condition in which altricial nestlings rest; he demonstrated that in ripe embryos and newly hatched Passerines, the ankle joint was not functionable—the tarsus sprang back when forced into a right angle with the crus—making the plantigrade posture inevitable rather than a result of mere physical weakness [10, pp. 241]. In a nestling Scops lempiji about eight days old, kept in captivity, Chasen observed the bird spending most of its time resting on smooth, flattened, hard pads with feet and toes held in the air, confirming the cushion function [10, pp. 245–246].

E.J.H. Berwick’s 1953 survey of Malay bird names in Kelantan represented a different but complementary dimension of ornithological documentation. Serving as Agricultural Officer for Kelantan and Trengganu from August 1950 to May 1951, Berwick compiled a field survey of Malay bird names in common use in Kelantan, providing Latin identifications alongside local terms for approximately 100 species across 25 taxonomic groups [11, pp. 140–144]. The article documented significant regional divergence from West Coast and Pahang nomenclature: the generic term bangau was rarely heard in Kelantan, replaced by kutu or kutor for egrets and bangar for the Pond Heron; the general hawk term lang was locally pronounced and written lam in Jawi; and pikau was never heard for partridges, being replaced by puyoh [11, pp. 140–144]. The article also recorded folk etymologies, such as the tern name burong chamar being recognised by fishermen as a corruption of burong Che Amal, a figure in local folklore [11, p. 140]. Berwick explicitly noted that his list was “far from complete,” positioning it as a contribution to cumulative knowledge rather than a definitive taxonomy [11, pp. 140–144].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on birds reveals a clear trajectory from broad faunal inventory through taxonomic description to increasingly specialised questions of population structure, morphological function, and local nomenclature. The 1880s were dominated by the establishment of baseline checklists and the formal description of new species from highland localities: Everett’s 570-species list for the Bornean group [1], Sharpe’s five new species from the Larut Range [2], and Kelham’s phenological and ethnographic field notes [7] collectively defined the scope and methods of the discipline in its formative period. The 1910s and 1920s saw a shift toward subspecific revision and comparative population studies, as exemplified by the Korinchi expedition [3], the van Heyst collection from north-east Sumatra [5], and the Anamba Islands study [4], all of which drew on the comparative series held in the Federated Malay States Museums and the Sarawak Museum. The 1920s also witnessed the emergence of anatomical and functional studies, with Chasen’s heel-pad paper [10] extending Gyldenstolpe’s European-centric survey to the region’s rich Piciform and Coraciiform fauna. By the 1950s, the focus had broadened to include linguistic and ethnographic documentation, as in Berwick’s Kelantan bird names [11], reflecting a maturing discipline that recognised the value of local knowledge as a component of ornithological record. Throughout this period, the type specimens deposited in the Federated Malay States Museums in Singapore and the Sarawak Museum provided the material foundation for successive generations of taxonomic work, and the journals of the Straits Branch and its successors served as the principal medium through which these findings were communicated to the international ornithological community.

Description

MBRAS Sources

Description

References

  1. A.H. Everett (1889). A list of the birds of the Bornean group of islands JSBRAS 20: 91–212.
  2. R. B. Sharpe (1887). Birds from Perak JSBRAS 19: 125–141. Read on JSTOR
  3. C.B. Kloss and H.C. Robinson (1916). Preliminary diagnoses of some new species and subspecies of mammals and birds obtained in Korinchi, West Sumatra, Feb-June 1914 JSBRAS 73: 269–278. Read on JSTOR
  4. F.N. Chasen and C.B. Kloss (1928). On a collection of birds from the Anamba Islands, South China Sea JMBRAS 6(3): 43–63. Read on JSTOR
  5. C.B. Kloss et al. (1920). On a collection of birds from N.E JSBRAS 81: 79–115. Read on JSTOR
  6. C.B. Kloss (1926). Two neglected bird names: Eucichla guajana (P.L.S. Mull.) and Chloropsis cochinchinensis (GM.) Records of the Raffles Museum, No. 17 JMBRAS 4(1): 161–163. Read on JSTOR
  7. H.R. Kelham (1883). Ornithological notes made in the Straits Settlements and the western states of the Malay Peninsula JSBRAS 12: 171–205.
  8. J.C. Moulton (1912). Birds taken on the Batu Lawi expedition JSBRAS 63: 74–77.
  9. H.N. Ridley (1905). Nesting of the little grey woodpecker JSBRAS 44: 226–227. Read on JSTOR
  10. F.N. Chasen (1923). On the heel-pad in certain Malaysian birds JMBRAS 1(1): 237–246.
  11. E.J.H. Berwick (1953). Some Kelantan bird names JMBRAS 26(1): 140–144.