• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Curlew sp. at Minsmere (3 Viewers)

Tommy Frandsen said:
I will just said, that I'M not the photographer of the pix, that I put online.
Whey was sent out one EBN.
From EBN:
Pictures of the Minsmere curlew sp. can also be found on the following link



http://www.vzwlagare.be/vwgforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1152&whichpage=32


Pictures are taken by Frederik Willemyns.


Greatings,

Peter Collaerts

As an amateur in comparison to most of the contributors to this thread (and purely for selfish reasons in not having to go all the way back to Suffolk to re-make notes) could someone offer an opinion that the pics on this link are of the same bird as the Surfbird pics for 3/10/04.

Much obliged :h?:
 
Bluetail said:
With respect, Ian, this just isn't true. Read the BB article I cited in post 158 and my comments there. On the Druridge bird the first half of the bill was straight and the distal half downcurved. The basal (straight) half was tapered; the distal half parallel. This was considered entirely consistent with SBC. Above all, though, the bill looked straighter overall than Eurasian Curlew because the downcurvature was not so marked. This was also entirely consistent with SBC.

Possibly, I don't claim to be an expert on this but we clearly have what appears to be two different birds. I thought there was a possibility of a juvenile whimbrel (or hybrid) and I feel more confident in offering this for discussion now that it seems there might be two birds. In any case, the bird imaged last week did not appear to have a fine enough bill at the tip and this was dismissed as indicating a female. Personally, I am not altogether convinced by this idea but it makes more sense if there are two birds present. BTW, I am not arguing against an SBC because I really want it to be just that but it is interesting to discuss all the various possibilities even if I don't ( :C )get to see the bird.
 
Interesting article in Ibis 146:165 (abstract below) suggesting slender-billed curlews may ahve been regular winters in Holland in the early 20th century. Therefore Suffolk may be almost part of normal winter range?

" In modern ornithology, the use of oral traditions as sources for fact-finding about birds is rare. Nevertheless, when it comes to reconstructing the abundance, distribution and life-history of extinct or nearly extinct bird species, anecdote and 'oral' history may be an important source of information (e.g. Jukema & Piersma 2002). The Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris, which is now classified as of 'critical' conservation status (BirdLife International 2000) and as Europe's rarest bird species, is a case in point (e.g. Danilenko et al. 1996, Baccetti 2001). From unspecified breeding areas in central or south-west Siberia, Slender-billed Curlews migrate west- and south-westwards to coastal wintering areas in the Middle East and the Mediterranean (Gretton 1991, Piersma et al. 1996). In this contribution we summarize and interpret the spoken account of Pieter Mulder (1921-1999) as it was related to us in February 1999. Pieter Mulder's story suggests that Slender-billed Curlews (1) may have been regular winter visitors to the Zuiderzee area before closure with a dam (the 'Afsluitdijk') in 1932, and (2) may be unique among shorebirds in possessing patches of fat-producing powder feathers."
 
Bluetail said:
Read the BB article I cited in post 158 and my comments there.

Thanks for that, I have just finished having a look at the article and I may have uncovered something that I cannot confirm but may have helped with the confusion. I have a feeling that some images on the Internet have inadvertently reproduced the Druiridge bird by mistake and this has added to the problems. As far as I can ascertain there are not two birds present at Minsmere and there is are strong reasons for believing the bird is an SBC. Therefore, I withdraw my earlier comments because there may be a different reason for the discrepancies.

One bit of news I can give you is that it will not be possible to track the bird and the only justification for capture would be to obtain feather samples. Personal comment: it is unlikely the bird will now be captured because the DNA information could be obtained by the methods Bluetail has mentioned. There is a study underway on the skins and it should be possible to locate where this bird came from if we can get a faeces or feather sample.

Ian
 
I dont think there is really any doubts that only one bird has been present since the original postings of photos on surfbirds by Brian Small.

He has now watched the bird for 24 hours in total, and has visited during both the week and weekend. I think you'll find the effects of 'different birds' is a combination of varying optics/cameras/lights and angles the photos were taken at.

Too clear up another point, the bird has spotting (dark spots on white background), on both its left and right flanks, although they are more widespread on its left side.

Also, Brian Small has described the call - and it does fit a SBC.

Futher (very useful comments) can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uk400club (although you will need to register to read them).
 
yes Mark

there's only been one bird.....if some folk have seen something else then i don't know what was going on.

the pic in the Frandsen series is a fantastic example of how birds can look very very different in photographs - a little bugbear of mine as many of you will know! This shows it very well indeed!!!
 
Have you seen the latest shot of 'it' on Birdguides? Just one question....which bird is it meant to be?
 
Having just got back from the SBC I have to say (and please no one take offence) not everyone who sees this bird is actually seeing the bird in question. All morning RBA pagers were putting out that the bird was on the levels, of the birders I spoke to none had actually seen it except a couple of people who were looking at a young male EC, and I think this may be where the confusion is arising. a female type SBC would be near to the same size as a small male EC hense size comparisons being a bit useless in these instances.

When the bird was located (on the stubble field) it was very clearly different, the bill was straighter with a down curve occuring nearer the tip (which incedently I thought looked very thin), there was some spotting on the upper flanks of the left hand side of the bird (not as noticable on the right, possibly still moulting???). It fed in a much more "bums in the air" fashion, was a lighter colour than the accompanying EC, had paler undewings and in my oppinion looked quite good.

I will say this there were birders there who thought that the first bird of the day looked a better candidate (but it really ws an EC).

Don't trust the photos, see the bird before yourself then make up your mind.
 
Hi David

it's surely the same bird - it's in the same sequence so i presume it is the bird that's in all the other shots and it looks like it in other respects - amazing how photos can distort reality....
 
I think this has surely shown how different photos from different angles under different light can show the same bird very diiferently )if that makes sense - just back from pub so perhaps not). Fairly sure all observers have been looking at the smae bird just have got different impressions due to fairly sterotypical ideas of what slender-billed curlews should look like
 
To add to the debate

A number of videograbs taken Sunday morning between 0900 and 10.00

resized from 640 pix to 350 pix and sharpened only

no levels or colour added

Paul Hackett
 

Attachments

  • Dsc02388web350.jpg
    Dsc02388web350.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 221
  • Dsc02415web350.jpg
    Dsc02415web350.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 231
  • Dsc02404web350.jpg
    Dsc02404web350.jpg
    51.5 KB · Views: 248
  • Dsc02387web350.jpg
    Dsc02387web350.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 197
More pictures to add

Rgds

Paul Hackett
 

Attachments

  • Dsc02365web300.jpg
    Dsc02365web300.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 198
  • Dsc02363web350.jpg
    Dsc02363web350.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 196
  • Dsc02361web350.jpg
    Dsc02361web350.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 168
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top