Possible/probable Little Shearwater

[Harry Hussey]

Hi all,
Almost certainly had a Little Shearwater today from Galley Head,Co.Cork(picked up by Kevin Cronin at 9:15am and seen by 4 more observers,myself included).The bird was at moderate distance,and some features(the white face,the underwing pattern)could not be made out with certainty.
Nevertheless,what we did see is the following:
-size much smaller than Manx,with which it associated
-completely different flight,giving a slightly Common Sand-like impression(wings bowed in flight,bursts of quick stiff flaps interspersed with glides and half-hearted banking)
It was able to keep pace with the Manx,so the flight wasn't that slow,despite looking weaker(the odd "fluttery" Manx would fly much more slowly)
-2 of us(not me)saw a pale panel on the upperwing fleetingly
-wings more rounded,"paddle-shaped"
-more rounded compact "stubby" body,with short tail and rounded head(not as long at the front as Manx)
Utterly distinctive,NOT a Manxie and NOT an auk....
Could anyone with experience of Little and/or Audubon's please give their opinions on this?My gut feeling is that it was a Little,presumably baroli(but can the white face of this form be hard to see at a distance?Killian Mullarney(pers.comm.)has implied that this is usually obvious,but then our bird was often "half-banking",thus making this feature hard to evaluate),but I concede that other small shearwaters may be difficult to rule out.
I must add that all of us who were there have seen thousands of Manx in Ireland.
Harry H

[CJW]

I too have seen thousands of Manx, Harry (as you'd expect), and your description certainly reminds me of the Little Shearwater I had off Cornwall in the 80's. You'll never get it past a rarities committee without head and underparts descriptions though - despite the characteristic jizz you so clearly describe.
Well done and nevermind.....

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Harry,

Good one!

The common sandpiper-like flight sounds good - noticed that on the one I saw in Biscay. Ditto the pale secondaries.

Michael

[Darrell Clegg]

Hi Harry, the rounder wings are a good ID feature, and one which is possibly not stressed enough in the guides - they really do give the bird an altogether different profile and flight. One other feature I've noticed on Little Shearwater is the habit of sticking their head up in the air as they are flying along which gives them a faintly comical appearance.
The upper wing pattern is obvious - if you get a good view - but the paler head, with the white going over the eye, should be noticable. Having said that all the Little Shearwaters I've seen have been fairly close (up to 800m) so I don't know about what can be seen on more distant birds.
I do know that I've never seen anything remotely resembling a Little Shear in Britain, and were I to do so would probably get so excited I'd forget to check most of the crucial features!!

Well done - you lucky ******!

Darrell

[Harry Hussey]

Hi all,
I agree that it has no chance of getting past the IRBC without all of the relevant features being seen,but having said that we're happy enough at this stage that it was a Little Shearwater,and I'm almost certainly going to put it on my list as such!
Sorry about being away,have been VERY busy lately with the amount of rare birds around....;-)
Harry H

[Jane Turner]

Little Shearwaters as Darrell says...look about at they fly, something that Yelkouan's do to...and that's not mentioned in any guide. Perhaps its something to do with their feeding habits, who knows. I've found the white face hard to see on distant Little's...that were def Little's when close up.

I'm collecting unsubmittable views of Little Shearwater. One day I WILL see a good claimable one from a British headland

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Jane,
Nice to hear that the white face isn't always obvious at mid to long range:everything else about our bird fitted baroli Little,except for our inability to see that feature.
Have heard recently that Yelkouan also lift their heads up as in Little,but haven't noticed that behaviour in the(admittedly few)Yelkouans that I've seen(in Bulgaria).
Harry H

[Tim Allwood]

sounds ok and good enough to satisfy yourself H but prob not for IRBC as you say.
like Michael we had two on 97 Biscay Ferry (along with over 100 Sabs, and 1000s each of Cory's and Greats etc) but they were very close to the boat and the eye feature showed up well and the flight action was obvious too - never seen one at distance! We stayed on deck seven hours in a gale and pouring rain and saw sod all. My mate kept wanting to pack it in for a beer and I kept on 'two more minutes - something will turn up, and it did. Attached is my crappy sketch

[Michael Frankis]

Have heard recently that Yelkouan also lift their heads up as in Little,but haven't noticed that behaviour in the(admittedly few)Yelkouans that I've seen(in Bulgaria).
Harry H
Hi Harry,

I never saw that either on the Yelkouans I had going past Istanbul

Michael

[Jane Turner]

Maybe they weren't hungry!

[Jasonbirder]

Extreme jealousy....Liitle Shear (along with Fea`s) definately high on my most wanted....

A bit suprised (and disturbed) to hear you`d never get it past a Rarities Commitee without a detailed plumage/facial pattern description....to me being able to add that except under extremely good conditions sounds more "stringy" than just being honest and submitting the features you can actually see!
How are you expected to see anything more than very general plumage colour/pattern under normal seawatching conditions?
ID on seawatch is all down to shape, flight action & structure with a few general plumage pointers...

[Jane Turner]

Its like that with a few seabirds. I actually think Softies are one of the easier rare seabirds to get accepted (no offence Michael). I have a recurring nightmare about knowing I've seen a Maderian Petrel (I must have seen 3000+ Leaches' Petrels and was struck by how different Maderian was when I finally saw one) and not being able to claim enough without liberal use of imagination.

[Tim Allwood]

Yeah, it's a fact of life that the committees have to be extremely rigourous when judging records. I suppose it's like principles of law in that exceptions can't be made as it then becomes impossible to judge where to draw the line. Even very experienced seawatchers have to submit records with the same thoroughness as others. Perhaps lots of good Little's dont get thru but bad ones will get stopped and that's the point I guess.
Little Shear is still a very rare bird and one that it's difficult to get a lot of experience with. Sure I've seen a couple - but close up from a boat. From a headland etc etc it becomes a different story and we might still have a bit to learn about the id of Little's. If the BBRC BOURC etc get it wrong in the first place think of all the agro in having to reassess lots and lots of claims. And if BBRC etc implied that Littles were actually not that difficult and you don't need to see the white around the eye etc you can bet yer bottom dollar there'd be a rapid increase in the amount of records!

If you can't see certain features on certain rare seabirds and therefore make a positive id there's always the chance it could be something much rarer than you think of course.......

[Jasonbirder]

Not implying that they should be less rigorous in their acceptance criteria (and am aware that Little is an extremely rare seabird...) but that given the likely observation scenarios - surely more weight should be place on structure/jizz/flight action/general apperarance than the minutia of plumage details that realistically will not be seen except under the most benign conditions?
I know its a difficult judgement to make....but if multiple observers who are extremely familiar with Manx Shearwaters under a wide variety of conditions make an honest submission like the above then by what criteria is the record being rejected?

Observer competancy? No
Honesty? No
Have all confusion species been eliminated? Sounds like it...
Does the description accurately fit Little Shearwater? Yes

So being rejected on the somewhat pedantic basis that the desription is not feather by feather detailed....something that cannot be expected in real world conditions.

Acceptance under those circumstances would not open the floodgates for a plethora of stringy Little Shearwater submissions as few would meet the criteria of multiple competent observers being in accordance on ID.

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Tim,
I agree that any easing in standards may lead to a veritable deluge of spurious claims of Little Shearwater,but we firmly believe that this bird is in the "lots of good Littles don't get through" camp!;)
Really don't think that it was Audubon's,either:any photos that I've seen of these convey an impression of a longer bird with obvious dark undertail coverts/vent(bird was white in this area).
It'll just have to remain undocumented,BUT firmly on my own list(and those of the other observers)!
Harry H

[Harry Hussey]

Not implying that they should be less rigorous in their acceptance criteria (and am aware that Little is an extremely rare seabird...) but that given the likely observation scenarios - surely more weight should be place on structure/jizz/flight action/general apperarance than the minutia of plumage details that realistically will not be seen except under the most benign conditions?
I know its a difficult judgement to make....but if multiple observers who are extremely familiar with Manx Shearwaters under a wide variety of conditions make an honest submission like the above then by what criteria is the record being rejected?
We are all very familiar with Manxie,as well we should be!

Observer competancy? No
You don't know any of us....;)
Honesty? No
Have all confusion species been eliminated? Sounds like it...
Does the description accurately fit Little Shearwater? Yes
Thanks for accepting the record,Jason!

So being rejected on the somewhat pedantic basis that the desription is not feather by feather detailed....something that cannot be expected in real world conditions.

Acceptance under those circumstances would not open the floodgates for a plethora of stringy Little Shearwater submissions as few would meet the criteria of multiple competent observers being in accordance on ID.

Thanks for the vote of confidence,but rarities committees(in theory at least) should be impartial,and not treat our(in some ways)inadequate submission more favourably than a similar submission made by observers of unknown competence!
Harry H

[Jasonbirder]

Surely observer competancy and familiarity with species/potential confusion species is one of the criteria that the rarities should base their acceptance on?

[Tim Allwood]

.....and they do Jason.
Not trying to sound pretencious (prob cant even spell it right!) but we're having a birder's curry tomorrow and a member of the rarites committee will be there so I'll politely badger him for the reasons behind Little Shear rec rejections etc

How's that for service?
always a pleasure, never a chore etc etc etc!!!

[Jasonbirder]

If a Lamb Curry is made from Lamb and a Prawn Curry made from prawns, what a Birder`s Curry made from ?

[Tim Allwood]

now u know why there aren't any young birders around Jason...........

[Michael Frankis]

That depends on whether they're vegetarians or humanitarians . . .

:king:

[Bluetail]

we're having a birder's curry tomorrow and a member of the rarites committee will be there so I'll politely badger him for the reasons behind Little Shear rec rejections etc
Do keep us posted, Tim. I'd be fascinated to hear the inside view.

Jason

[Tim Allwood]

sure thing Jason
will prob be Sat evening though before I get chance to post as I hope to be out birding all day Sat!

[Jane Turner]

Of course if that technology in those combinedbinoculars/digicameras ever makes it into scopes, it will be so much easier. they are always recording the last 30 seconds, so all you have to do is press a button to keep what you saw.

[Tim Allwood]

Hi Jason, Jason, Jane and H.

well, after a tasty curry and drunken evening B (: I can fill you in a bit about the assessment of Little Shear recs.

Of the Little Shear recs that get rejected (and remember there still aren't many sent is - it is a very rare bird - most are from observations made before the observers have got their eye in and when there isn't lots of other stuff is passing through. So if you've got lots of things moving and have been there a while you stand a much better chance. :t:
Seeing the white around the eye is not a particularly supportive feature and may induce some scepticism as it is difficult to observe on anything other than fairly close birds.

So overall, having been there a while and having hopefully observed reasonable numbers of other species means perception of size and flight action is much more reliable. The detailed plumage features are not that important and not actually expected if the bird is over a few hundred metres away. So don't be tempted to embellish your sighting a tad..... :scribe:

Bear in mind too that this is not a statement of BBRC policy just the results of a drunken discussion over a Lamb Makhani 8-P

[Michael Frankis]

. . . . So put your notes in Harry!

Of course the BBRC will have no juristiction over yours, but I'd guess the IRBC will be taking much the same line.

Michael

[Bluetail]

Thanks Tim. That all sounds a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic approach to me. I agree, Harry ought to give it a go.

Jason

[Tim Allwood]

yep Jason
good luck H.

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Jason, Jason, Jane and H.

well, after a tasty curry and drunken evening B (: I can fill you in a bit about the assessment of Little Shear recs.

[QUOTE]Of the Little Shear recs that get rejected (and remember there still aren't many sent is - it is a very rare bird - most are from observations made before the observers have got their eye in and when there isn't lots of other stuff is passing through. So if you've got lots of things moving and have been there a while you stand a much better chance. :t:
Well,we had been seawatching for about 2-3 hours before we saw our Little Shearwater,and definitely had our "eyes in"!
Seeing the white around the eye is not a particularly supportive feature and may induce some scepticism as it is difficult to observe on anything other than fairly close birds.
That's good to hear,our bird wasn't that close.
So overall, having been there a while and having hopefully observed reasonable numbers of other species means perception of size and flight action is much more reliable. The detailed plumage features are not that important and not actually expected if the bird is over a few hundred metres away. So don't be tempted to embellish your sighting a tad..... :scribe:
Perish the thought!;)Still in two minds as to whether or not I should submit the sighting,not least because I wasn't the one that found it!

Bear in mind too that this is not a statement of BBRC policy just the results of a drunken discussion over a Lamb Makhani
In vino veritas...?
Harry H

[logos]

Hi Harry,

Perhaps you might like to consoder submitting the bird as a fluttering shearwater sp. In my experience, both from boats and when seawatching from land, the white face of baroli is normally pretty obvious at a distance - or at least the head looks strangely big and pale. In any case some Manxies do show a white face so it is not everything...

However, there is apparently a specimen record of elegans Little Shear. from Scotland so white-faced baroli is not necessarily the only form that could occur.

Personally I'm sure your bird was no Manxie and therefore must have been something very good. It should be recorded as such even if it can't be accepted as anything specific.

There are some interesting pictures of distant baroli Little Shears here, the almost Redshank like trailing edge pattern is visible on some but I find that this is not always obvious in the field, perhaps due to wear etc...:

http://www.cursorius.com/mac_seabirds.html

Spud.

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Harry,

Perhaps you might like to consoder submitting the bird as a fluttering shearwater sp. In my experience, both from boats and when seawatching from land, the white face of baroli is normally pretty obvious at a distance - or at least the head looks strangely big and pale. In any case some Manxies do show a white face so it is not everything...

However, there is apparently a specimen record of elegans Little Shear. from Scotland so white-faced baroli is not necessarily the only form that could occur.
Spud,the problem is that the IRBC doesn't have,as far as I'm aware,a "small shearwater"/"fluttering shearwater sp."/"Little/Audubon's" category,so the bird would have to be submitted as a baroli Little(the only taxon recorded here with certainty) and would surely be rejected?

Personally I'm sure your bird was no Manxie and therefore must have been something very good. It should be recorded as such even if it can't be accepted as anything specific.
Brings to mind the Dungeness "Herald Petrel" and a "Softie" that a friend of mine submitted which was rejected only because the views obtained failed to rule out other species of Pterodroma....

There are some interesting pictures of distant baroli Little Shears here, the almost Redshank like trailing edge pattern is visible on some but I find that this is not always obvious in the field, perhaps due to wear etc...:

http://www.cursorius.com/mac_seabirds.html
I didn't see the pale panel,but the two observers with the best scopes did!

Harry H