[Gashead]

Is this a Siberian?
http://www.birdforum.net/bird_view.php?bid=7561

Or this?
http://www.pbase.com/clive_temple/image/39802358

[Jane Turner]

Hard to be sure, esp the second bird. Ad males are actually the hardest to prove, you need to see their underwing!

I didn't think Siberian Stonechat had been split though

[Gashead]

Originally Posted by Jane Turner

Hard to be sure, esp the second bird. Ad males are actually the hardest to prove, you need to see their underwing!

I didn't think Siberian Stonechat had been split though

The second had a very white rump, and has a wide white collar plus reddish only half way down breast. I thought the second was but not the first.

[Jane Turner]

The first was taken in the far East so is bound to be! As I said Ad males are actually tricky. Even rubicola can have a white rump. The orange rump on bird two looks good for maura or stejnegeri, you need to see the black auxilliaries to prove it though!

[njlarsen]

Siberian should be accepted as a species by both Clements and by Sibley and Monroe (1996) according to Avibase. I can't say anything for other authorities.

Niels

[Gashead]

Fat lot of good that is to me if no-one will confirm the second photo! LOL.

[cuckooroller]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Siberian should be accepted as a species by both Clements and by Sibley and Monroe (1996) according to Avibase. I can't say anything for other authorities.

Niels

Niels,
Basically true. The SM played around with the old Common Stonechat (S. torquata) in the 1996 version listing, among other things, the accepted only by them African Stonechat (S. axillaris), as well as this one. They then relumped it with the Common Stonechat. Now, they have again split the old S. torquata into the three Clement's accepted species, i.e., European Stonechat, Siberian Stonechat and African Stonechat. The other authoritative world list (Howard & Moore) does not presently recognize the taxonomic treatment afforded by both the current SM and Clement's. For HM, the three species are all treated in Common Stonechat (S. torquata). Their problem, however, is not so much whether or not they might believe that there should be splits, but rather they are still not certain that the taxonomic treatment of the subspecies associations to the three species is correct and are, therefore, awaiting further scientific corroboration to this effect.

[Jane Turner]

Where would indica variegata and armenica sit in that three way split? Not that I can see any white in the tail of the second bird!

[Jane Turner]

Originally Posted by Gashead

Fat lot of good that is to me if no-one will confirm the second photo! LOL.

A pic from underneath with the wings spread, or behind showing the rump and tail would help you!

[cuckooroller]

Originally Posted by Jane Turner

Where would indica variegata and armenica sit in that three way split? Not that I can see any white in the tail of the second bird!

Jane,
Here is the current SM and Clement's treatment.

[Jane Turner]

Thanks.

The bad news for Gashead is that you can't be sure that bird two is a Sibechat on that pic, it probably is, but if it were in the UK, BBRC would not accept it without a description of its underwing. A few male rubicola can match Sibechat on collar, extent and colour of belly patch and rump.

If it showed white in the tail it would be variegata or armenica and you would be ok!

[James Lowther]

Scientific name of stonechat in BOU list is still S. torquata i think, so i guess they haven't accepted the split yet.
james

[Gashead]

Originally Posted by Jane Turner

Thanks.

The bad news for Gashead is that you can't be sure that bird two is a Sibechat on that pic, it probably is, but if it were in the UK, BBRC would not accept it without a description of its underwing. A few male rubicola can match Sibechat on collar, extent and colour of belly patch and rump.

If it showed white in the tail it would be variegata or armenica and you would be ok!

It's staked out a grass heap for most of this winter so I'll have a look this weekend..........not sure I'm quick enough on the draw for a photo but I'll let you know.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by cuckooroller

Niels,
Basically true. The SM played around with the old Common Stonechat (S. torquata) in the 1996 version listing, among other things, the accepted only by them African Stonechat (S. axillaris), as well as this one. They then relumped it with the Common Stonechat. Now, they have again split the old S. torquata into the three Clement's accepted species, i.e., European Stonechat, Siberian Stonechat and African Stonechat. The other authoritative world list (Howard & Moore) does not presently recognize the taxonomic treatment afforded by both the current SM and Clement's. For HM, the three species are all treated in Common Stonechat (S. torquata). Their problem, however, is not so much whether or not they might believe that there should be splits, but rather they are still not certain that the taxonomic treatment of the subspecies associations to the three species is correct and are, therefore, awaiting further scientific corroboration to this effect.

I just checked the taxonimic recommendations as of December 2003 of the AERC (all Europe), where the stonechat is in the section on pending decisions. One problem at the time was that BOURC (the British participant) had not voted. In the arguments given, difficulties with the three-way split is listed. Steve's assertion that more data is needed from sub-species that have not been comprehensively studies is probably why the AERC still treats this as pending.

Niels

[Nutcracker]

All the BOU need do is read Urquhart's Stonechats (Helm 2002). All the very strong genetic evidence for the split (as already followed by S&M and Clements) is in there

-----

Going by the pics in Urquhart, the bird in the second link (Clive Temple pic) could well be S. maura armeniaca (which has little or no white in the tail according to Urquhart), and is also the race one might most expect to be wintering in the Gulf.

[Jane Turner]

Kuwaity had a lovely pic of a female Sibechat taken in Kuwait in a disappeared ID thread on Desert Wheatears.

We speculated long and hard on that one (it was more rusty than a classic maura type and I recall that there should always be some white in the tail in armeniaca . Perhaps though this is more recent information.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Nutcracker

All the BOU need do is read Urquhart's Stonechats (Helm 2002). All the very strong genetic evidence for the split (as already followed by S&M and Clements) is in there

I think that the AERC TAC argues that no-one knows yet if there should be a three, four, five, or six-way split, and also some of the subspecies now listed (by e.g., Clements) in maura have been very poorly studied.

Niels