[nfbirder]

So this bird is most assuredly NOT the bird from the other thread, as it's wings are obviously longer and/or more slender.

Unfortunately, these pictures are even worse than the other ones. Any guesses, no matter how lightly supported, are appreciated.

[kuzeycem]

This one is Sooty, the otehr pictures were Cory's Shearwater, I think.

[nfbirder]

Also, this bird lacks the "nub" on the edge of the tail.

[nfbirder]

Originally Posted by kuzeycem

This one is Sooty

Okay, some far out things have been said about these pictures but this is where I have to draw the line. Surely these birds are not of the same species?

[chris butterworth]

Originally Posted by nfbirder

Okay, some far out things have been said about these pictures but this is where I have to draw the line. Surely these birds are not of the same species?

Left hand bird is Calonectris ? sp while the right hand one is a Sooty. The jizz, particularly the 'skinny' bill on the Sooty is particularly obvious ( as are the slender wings and lack of observable feet extending beyond the tail ). I'd bet your soul on the other being a Cory's ( albeit showing so many features of other species ). It goes to show how a picture can 'freeze' an optical effect that you wouldn't notice in the field.

Chris

[Stuart Darbyshire]

Originally Posted by chris butterworth

Left hand bird is Calonectris ? sp while the right hand one is a Sooty. The jizz, particularly the 'skinny' bill on the Sooty is particularly obvious ( as are the slender wings and lack of observable feet extending beyond the tail ). I'd bet your soul on the other being a Cory's ( albeit showing so many features of other species ). It goes to show how a picture can 'freeze' an optical effect that you wouldn't notice in the field.

Chris

perhaps you want to look at this thread Chris

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=232781

[chris butterworth]

Originally Posted by Stuart Darbyshire

perhaps you want to look at this thread Chris

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=232781

I did - and, contrary to popular opinion ( that's really unusual for me ) I still stand by the above post

Chris

[Jane Turner]

This one is a Sooty looking like a Sooty throughout. The other one is a chameleon Sooty.

[Jane Turner]

Originally Posted by nfbirder

Okay, some far out things have been said about these pictures but this is where I have to draw the line. Surely these birds are not of the same species?

But if you pick a different pair to compare, there is no difference

[Hotspur]

Im with Jane - both Sooty Shearwaters.

[Dave B]

Originally Posted by nfbirder

Okay, some far out things have been said about these pictures but this is where I have to draw the line. Surely these birds are not of the same species?

Out of interest, what makes you say that nfb?

Dave

[nfbirder]

There is something about the gestalt of the bird that strikes me as very different, although to Jane's point it might be a product of angle, etc. I felt the pictures I compared showed this best.

Of course, I'm very likely the least experienced birder posting to these threads of mine, so...y'know. :)

[Jane Turner]

The thing to remember is just how different that other bird managed to look in the photos that you took of it. Two where the structure looked heavier, one where it appears to have a clean white throat and supercilium, two with huge contrast to the upper parts, one with an apparently 90% white underwing with a narrow sharply demarcated sharp edge and 4 where it looks like a perfectly normal sooty! (all in 6 or so photos!)

There is more apparent variation in the appearance of the previous bird than there is between them

[RobHynson]

I'd vote for Sooty Shearwater for both this bird and the one in the other thread. Most of the anomolies seen can be put down to lighting. White throat patch, extreemly pale underwing etc. We see 10's of thousands of Short-tailed Shearwaters and smaller numbers of Sooty Shearwaters of the NSW coast from Oct-Dec and in certain lighting you can get some odd looking birds at times.

Cheers,

Rob

[jurek]

Don't these two threads mean: put more weight in description and less in photo "documentation" of seabirds than it is usually done, because poor photos are very prone to artifacts of lighting and camera?

In Poland there was just a lively discussion of Sooty Shearwater (potentially 5th or so for the country) which on a photo appeared to have white flanks, although observers swore it was dark.

best,

[Jane Turner]

Certainly of dark ones! And I've said several times now, the most distressing thing is that the first photo of the 1st bird,looks on the face of it to be an excellent photograph, showing detail within feathers.

[nfbirder]

Originally Posted by jurek

Don't these two threads mean: put more weight in description and less in photo "documentation" of seabirds than it is usually done, because poor photos are very prone to artifacts of lighting and camera?

I assume that this is valid in a general sense, but not in my case. I (along with many other people) am unable to produce mental images. The only "memory" I have of a bird is a sort of vague intellectual understanding of what that bird looked like, unaccompanied by any sort of actual "picture". For me, photos (even poor ones, as in these threads) are very important and sometimes absolutely necessary...like when an unfamiliar shearwater comes tearing up beside me, hangs a right, and is gone forever, all in the span of a few seconds. My unaided recollection of this bird would've been utterly useless.