• 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.

Mealy Redpoll West Mids (2 Viewers)

Marcus Lawson; said:
As two BBRC members have already accepted it (see Surfbirds forum) then if you want it on your "official" list you may want to get down there. No-one is infallible though no matter how high your regard for them may be.
Good birding to all in 2008|:D|
Click to expand...

Arctic Redpoll is no longer a BBRC bird either. A cowardly decision if you ask me :)
 
dan pointon said:
Just been sent a PDF file re Redpoll identification, the stuff on UTC streaking is interesting...

''Both species have white undertail-coverts. On some exilipes, they are
entirely unmarked, but most show long, narrow, dark grey streaks on the
longest feathers. The longest undertail-coverts of C. f. flammea have broad,
dark, lanceolate central streaks, giving them the appearance of being
bordered with white, rather than white with a thin, dark central line.
Though an overlap in streak-width occurs, the extremes are diagnostic.

In Swedish Lapland, the streaks on the longest undertail-covert averaged a
maximum of 1.3 mm wide for 211 exilipes and 3.8 mm wide for 636 C.f.
flammea. Only five flammea possessed a streak less than 2 mm wide (Molau
1985). There must, however, be no doubt that it is the
longest undertail-covert that is being studied''

I'll go back and check the pics, but didn't the bird have quite a large, thick streak on the longest UTC??

D
Click to expand...

Dan,

Are we 100% also sure thats this is the largest undertail covert that is showing here, as this info is normally only of use when the bird is in the hand.

Reference is from BB 84:41-56. theres also a good paper in volume 93:68-84

I think an investment in the Birdguides British Birds Interactive is going to be needed soon. It's a shame Birding World aren't also doing this so we could get hold of old reference material from back copys.
 
According to Molau in his article 'Gråsiskkomplexet i Sverige' (1985) mentioned by Dan - it is the longest undertail coverts that Molau refers to. As all Redpoll taxa are extremely closely related genetically one could ask oneself the relevence in giving some of them species status. Identifying Arctic (exilipes) requires the abilities to age such suspected individuals both in the field and in the hand - which can be quite difficult in the field - except in adult males - if you don´t get a proper look at the tail - pointed tips in 1cy which is partly or completely moulted in 1cy. Greater covert moult limit is difficult to see sometimes.

JanJ
 
Just to take a different tangent. Much like the Crossbill group, the division between species and race lies in very cloudy water, and I wonder how long before all the Redpolls are considered for mass-lumping (showing a massive clinal variation across their entire range).
Click to expand...


Arctic and Common Redpolls apparently breed sympatrically across much of their range, build different nests and mate assortatively. So they are almost certainly good species.

As are the crossbills, now you mention it...
Summers, R. W., Dawson, R. J. and Phillips, R. E. . 2007. Assortative mating and patterns of inheritance indicate that the three crossbill taxa in Scotland are species. – J. Avian Biol. 38: 153– 162.
(and - hot off the press - so are the Common Crossbill vocal types...
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2008.0908-8857.04231.x)

I suspect in the case of both Crossbills and Redpolls, and probably many other "tricky" species, things would be much clearer if we looked at specimens in the full UV spectrum. Recent research has shown that most apparently sexually monomorphic species are actually dimorphic under UV (i.e. what the birds can see) - see this exellent recent paper in PNAS:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PNAS..10210942E

"
Human vision fails to distinguish widespread sexual dichromatism among sexually “monochromatic” birds
Eaton, Muir D.

Abstract
Historical scenarios of evolution of avian plumage coloration have been called into question with the discoveries that most birds can see UV light (which normal humans cannot), and that UV-reflecting plumages are widespread in birds. Several examples of sexual dichromatism not detectable with human visual capabilities suggest that our categorizations of plumages as sexually mono- or dichromatic might often be incorrect. Nonetheless, given the limited taxonomic scope of those examples, the vast majority of sexually monochromatic birds are still treated as such without question in avian research. Herein, I show that >90% of 139 species, in a broad sampling of presumed sexually monochromatic passerine birds, were actually sexually dichromatic from an avian visual perspective, based on comparisons of plumage reflectance data using a visual model of color discrimination thresholds. The taxonomic ubiquity of this result suggests that many existing interpretations of evolutionary patterns of sexual dichromatism in birds are erroneous. The visual model used herein provides a method for quantifying sexual dichromatism, revealing that most (58.7%) feather patches sampled lie along a continuum of dichromatism between avian and human discriminatory abilities and could represent unrecognized sexually selected signals. Sexual dichromatism in this study rarely resulted from intersexual differences in UV coloration alone, emphasizing the need for analysis of bird coloration in relation to the full extent of avian visual discriminatory abilities, including, but not limited to, UV-visual capabilities."

I wouldn't be surprised if Arctic and Common Redpolls looked pretty different under UV...
 
Last edited:
Roy,

I don't have references to hand, but recent research in USA into Crossbills has opened the possibilty of different forms, based just on vocalization (possibly upto 10 different forms!). Similar research under taken in Europe seems to suggest a similar situation. I don't, however, know the exact information. It seems to depend on whos research you read, and what parameters are being used to define a "species".
 
Jane Turner said:
Arctic Redpoll is no longer a BBRC bird either. A cowardly decision if you ask me :)
Click to expand...

Seems like I'm not the only one that had forgotten, the following is taken from another discussion group posted by a current BBRC member: "In the context of whether this will accepted by the BBRC, you might possibly be right (time will tell), "
 
gareth_blockley said:
Hi Max

I'll try to sum it up but Dave has been keeping track of this as well as Steve and Lee et al. The very pale bird presenet pre christmas is the same bird that is present now. It was originally ID'd as a pale Mealy, possible icelandic race, and is now being put out on news services as Arctic, though the debate is still on-going and will probably never settle.
There was the possibility of a second Mealy as Lee produced a set of shots which appeared to show a darker more streaked bird. Some say it was the same bird in different light etc and some say it was a second bird.
I would say the birds you have shots of are the Lessers and the Mealy/Arctic (http://www.max547.fotopic.net/c1434604.html). What you call it is up to you. I personally think even if any official bodies conclude the ID some will still question it as it is such an awkward bird that hasn't read the books on what it should look like!

HTH's

Gareth
Click to expand...

Thanks Gareth.

Max
 
'roy said:
Arctic and Common Redpolls apparently breed sympatrically across much of their range, build different nests and mate assortatively. So they are almost certainly good species.

Erm...references please..."apparently" in conjunction with "almost certainly"? To draw a Friday night parallel...I "apparently" had 4 pints so am "almost certainly" less tolerant than usual...
Click to expand...
 
I am no expert on Redpolls but, to me, this is a Mealy. The UTCs are not right for Arctic. Some of the photos showing hardly any streaking on the UTCs are, to my eyes, over-exposed thereby causing the white to 'burn out' all but the largest streaking. That, together with the extent of the flank streaking and light streaking on the rump mean that if I had to put money on this bird I would say it was a Mealy.
 
Some Photos here for all to peruse. First three are typical juv, mealies taken here in Sweden, fourth is a first winter male Mealy showing a very clean undertail, though buff tinged, this bird also sported a clean white rump. Note typical buffish tones on all of these individuals. The last picture is a first winter Arctic, probably a female, note reduced flank streaking on clean white flanks, muted sulphur tones on the breast, clean white undertail and very small straight edged bill. This bird displayed a gleaming white rump.

Have spent many hours studying these birds here and have to say the more I study them the bigger the headache gets. 1st Winter Mealy is an incredibly variable bird plumage wise. Have seen several birds here that I felt I just had to leave as unidentifiable despite good views.

With regard to the bird in question I would say it looks very cold plumaged with a good rump and undertail that does fall in the range of Exiples Arctic. Coud well be a male Arctic, though personally I could not rule out a pale Mealy Redpoll. The extent of the streaking on the lower flanks bothers me as does the large looking bill however and I am not sure if the bird is identifiable without trapping.
 

Attachments

  • a1.jpg
    a1.jpg
    71 KB · Views: 93
  • mealy pair.jpg
    mealy pair.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 112
  • mealy juv on deck.jpg
    mealy juv on deck.jpg
    130.1 KB · Views: 104
  • undertail.jpg
    undertail.jpg
    123.3 KB · Views: 122
  • 1Arctic.jpg
    1Arctic.jpg
    119 KB · Views: 149
Last edited:
Steve Seals 3 images surely show an Arctic Redpoll - small bill, small headed look, pure white-rump, clearly unmarked and overall frosty appearance with pale grey earcoverts and broad white wingbars.

I'm confused with the photos posted since some images clearly show different birds, how many birds i'm not sure..but the only images I feel confident about are the ones above.
I know some birds can be just plain tough, but if this is a Mealy, then the id. criteria just became somewhat redundant..
 
'roy said:
Arctic and Common Redpolls apparently breed sympatrically across much of their range, build different nests and mate assortatively. So they are almost certainly good species.

As are the crossbills, now you mention it...
Summers, R. W., Dawson, R. J. and Phillips, R. E. . 2007. Assortative mating and patterns of inheritance indicate that the three crossbill taxa in Scotland are species. – J. Avian Biol. 38: 153– 162.
(and - hot off the press - so are the Common Crossbill vocal types...
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2008.0908-8857.04231.x)

I suspect in the case of both Crossbills and Redpolls, and probably many other "tricky" species, things would be much clearer if we looked at specimens in the full UV spectrum. Recent research has shown that most apparently sexually monomorphic species are actually dimorphic under UV (i.e. what the birds can see) - see this exellent recent paper in PNAS:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PNAS..10210942E

"
Human vision fails to distinguish widespread sexual dichromatism among sexually “monochromatic” birds
Eaton, Muir D.

Abstract
Historical scenarios of evolution of avian plumage coloration have been called into question with the discoveries that most birds can see UV light (which normal humans cannot), and that UV-reflecting plumages are widespread in birds. Several examples of sexual dichromatism not detectable with human visual capabilities suggest that our categorizations of plumages as sexually mono- or dichromatic might often be incorrect. Nonetheless, given the limited taxonomic scope of those examples, the vast majority of sexually monochromatic birds are still treated as such without question in avian research. Herein, I show that >90% of 139 species, in a broad sampling of presumed sexually monochromatic passerine birds, were actually sexually dichromatic from an avian visual perspective, based on comparisons of plumage reflectance data using a visual model of color discrimination thresholds. The taxonomic ubiquity of this result suggests that many existing interpretations of evolutionary patterns of sexual dichromatism in birds are erroneous. The visual model used herein provides a method for quantifying sexual dichromatism, revealing that most (58.7%) feather patches sampled lie along a continuum of dichromatism between avian and human discriminatory abilities and could represent unrecognized sexually selected signals. Sexual dichromatism in this study rarely resulted from intersexual differences in UV coloration alone, emphasizing the need for analysis of bird coloration in relation to the full extent of avian visual discriminatory abilities, including, but not limited to, UV-visual capabilities."

I wouldn't be surprised if Arctic and Common Redpolls looked pretty different under UV...
Click to expand...

I love this theory 'roy. I'll never forget looking at some stick insects under UV and seeing large oval patches on their backs which would presumably make them stick out a mile to other stick insects, but not to birds...
Must be loads we are only just beginning to learn about with these things.

Here is an interesting thread only a few months old on a "north-western" redpoll. Mike's comments are interesting. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=101535

Considering that there was a large invasion of NW redpolls last autumn, then it stands to reason that they must be somewhere. Personally, thats what i think that this most likely is, and i say that from the viewpoint of thinking straightaway that it was an Arctic! There are just a few things that do not feel right about this bird, and while the ID features of islandica are not completely nailed down, i would say that this bird cannot be proven 100% as an Arctic. It may of course be a slightly different story in the flesh...

Anyone have a link to a good gallery of Iceland redpolls?
 
Just spent 4 hours from 9am looking for the bird!!!!!!! Just bound to be seen after I left at 1pm.

We did see 4 Redpolls together in the favoured nettles about 100 metres from the middle gate on the old road, one did seem paler than the other 3 but not startlingly so. That was at 9.30am approx. Then at 12.30pm 2 Lessers were feeding close by , again one was paler than the other and head on it looked very white.... certainly when compared to the other. Still dont think that was the bird tho.

By the way, it is £3.50 for day pass at Stonebridge Golf centre, plus a £33 deposit! (can do it by credit card... the deposit that is). You are handed an access key.

For anyone who intends to go, it is not signposted off A452, but once having got your access key you take the sign for 'services' off the A452. Having crossed the dual carriageway for the services you immediately turn right to a gate but do not park by the cottages there. The lorry park is only 100 metres on and if you come to it you have missed the turning for Marsh lane (that is very easy to do by the way). There are 3 gates, one at each end and one in the middle. The middle section is where the bird apparently occasionally favours - low down in the nettles. But I dont think it favoured the area today.

Shame I didnt have time to cehck out the main reserve. Superb views of Bullfinches tho! Small consolation I know!
 
Last edited:
Julian H said:
Steve Seals 3 images surely show an Arctic Redpoll - small bill, small headed look, pure white-rump, clearly unmarked and overall frosty appearance with pale grey earcoverts and broad white wingbars.

I'm confused with the photos posted since some images clearly show different birds, how many birds i'm not sure..but the only images I feel confident about are the ones above.
I know some birds can be just plain tough, but if this is a Mealy, then the id. criteria just became somewhat redundant..
Click to expand...

When it was being photographed by Lee there were at least 3 other observers present that had previously seen the bird, including the two finders. They all agreed it was the same bird, though there was some initial debate. The bill seems to be the same in the various images and it does remind me of what I saw on the first day - though it was amazing how different the undertail coverts could look from one minute to the next. The chance of one bird disappearing and another appearing (and so on) with (presumably) the same Lesser Redpolls during the course of a few hours observation, must be remote. I'm pretty sure that I've only seen one bird. Lee has seen it subsequently and is also sure it is the same bird.

When I first saw the bird (through Paul Johnson's scope) my first words were something like "Blimey, it looks like a Coues's Arctic!". Over the next few hours I got some rather good views and became increasingly convinced it was a Mealy. I'd seen quite a few Arctics with streaky undertail coverts (presumably 1st w) in the 95/96 influx, but none with undertail coverts like this bird. Most of the time the undertail coverts did look like they could belong to an Arctic, albeit rather blackish and very well marked. But from time to time there were some obvious wedge shaped streaks visible on the shorter feathers - a feature I have always associated with Mealy. My feeling at the time was, though this bird was Arctic-like, it was a poorly documented (though probably not particularly rare) Mealy plumage, rather than an odd-looking Arctic. The wedge-shaped streaks on the undertail coverts seem to confirm this.

There are fine streaks throughout the rump, though I do agree it looks unstreaked in many of the images.
 
Frenchy said:
Considering that there was a large invasion of NW redpolls last autumn, then it stands to reason that they must be somewhere. Personally, thats what i think that this most likely is, and i say that from the viewpoint of thinking straightaway that it was an Arctic! There are just a few things that do not feel right about this bird, and while the ID features of islandica are not completely nailed down, i would say that this bird cannot be proven 100% as an Arctic. It may of course be a slightly different story in the flesh...

Anyone have a link to a good gallery of Iceland redpolls?
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more Paul, I've spent most of the last hour searching for such photos (very boring at work at the mo!!) and the only ones I could find are on Mark Breaks website here
you may need to go to latest pics and then scroll down to 15th Sept. It looks like it's got a leg iron so maybe there are some in the hand shots somewhere?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Similar threads

V
Cockatoo/corella in the Netherlands (exotic)
Replies
2
Views
475
Butty
B
A
Intersex Teal?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tired
Tired
T
Scandinavian Rock pipit - Anthus petrosus littoralis
Replies
0
Views
452
Tystie24
T
O
West Rise wander
Replies
0
Views
415
Original PaulE
O
H
Another Warbler: Nashville Warbler? Clarksville, TN 24 Sept 21
Replies
5
Views
715
Vyom B. Vyas
Vyom B. Vyas

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top