• 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.

Larus canus or L. cachinnans? Kiev, Ukraine (1 Viewer)

khustochka

Well-known member
Is this Larus canus or L. cachinnans? Picture taken a few days ago, Kiev, Ukraine
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9137_gull.jpg
    IMG_9137_gull.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 186
Hello all.

canus or cachinnans? A very good question, although some might think this an odd comparison - but canus signals cachinnans due to dark eye and rather similar pattern on outer primaries (p10 & p9). However, in this flying gull all the cachinnans features are visible. So the gull is not a Common Gull.
A quick look at the primary pattern on the underwing in Cristans Common Gull and this one:

http://www.tarsiger.com/images/masa/Larcan55.jpg

shows that on p10, 9 and to a lesser extent also p8 there´smore black compared to cachinnans. Mirror on p10 & 9 are rather similar, with a dark subterminal band on p10 in canus, which is sometimes lacking, as it can be present in cachinnans.
The structure and bill size is much better for cachinnans, probably a female (smaller -billed compared to a male.

JanJ
 
Last edited:
hello khustochka,

definitely a caspian gull (larus cachinnans). among the argentatus relatives adult caspian gull is most likely to show a dark subterminal mark on bill. surely common gull (canus) does have such a mark as well. this bird has the structure of a large white headed gull with a proportionally smaller head and heavier body. bill is seen from below thus giving the slim appearance. primary pattern, as said above, is spot on for cachinnans, not so for canus or michahellis.

regards
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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