• 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.

Are we missing female Lesser Kestrels? (1 Viewer)

RecoveringScot

Well-known member
From this summary, which includes the Noss bird in May, it appears that the last records of female Lesser Kestrel were in 1897 and 1903 (shot and dead respectively):

http://www.rarebirdalert.co.uk/v2/Content/WeeklyRoundup2017-22.aspx?s_id=947090391

That this should be so in a migratory species is rather odd, especially as the majority of the 20 accepted records are for easily identifiable males, and there is apparently only one record of a 'juvenile'.

This suggests to me that maybe female/juv Kestrels are not being examined ultra-closely, but that people may assume that that's what they are, not considering the rarer option. I know that when I first saw the photograph of the Noss bird (on 21st May in comfortable conditions at home with a cuppa and a fag) I *sensed* it was something different (wrong 'jizz'), but since I actually would have been unable off the top of my head to give any actual plumage characters in support, and even when I posted here the first responders, who were British, didn't seem terribly sure of the diagnostic features either (the pale claws one was the only real apparently solid datum, and perhaps the 'longer wings') perhaps this reflects a lack of expectation amongst the home birdwatchers? In the follow-up post two European members offered definite diagnostic points of difference visible on the Noss bird almost right away.

We get lots of female Red-footed Falcon, so isn't it likely that female LKs are in fact just as likely to be seen here, especially at late spring overshoot time, though as the species is declining, perhaps in slightly smaller numbers?
 
Last edited:
That this should be so in a migratory species is rather odd, especially as the majority of the 20 accepted records are for easily identifiable males, and there is apparently only one record of a 'juvenile'......

Even more odd giving that difficult to ID females and imms. outnumber the easy males - at least on breeding grounds....
 
Even more odd giving that difficult to ID females and imms. outnumber the easy males - at least on breeding grounds....

Quite. I wasn't sure of the relative numbers of the sexes (as I am in e.g. Hen Harrier). That females are more common in the breeding areas does make me rather puzzled overall.
 
Quite. I wasn't sure of the relative numbers of the sexes (as I am in e.g. Hen Harrier). That females are more common in the breeding areas does make me rather puzzled overall.

I can't back this up, though I'd be very surprised if there aren't various studies that discuss this,....entirely from personal impressions based on many visits to colonies...of course looking especially for the very showy males through obviously larger numbers of "boring" ones.
 
I can't back this up, though I'd be very surprised if there aren't various studies that discuss this,....entirely from personal impressions based on many visits to colonies...of course looking especially for the very showy males through obviously larger numbers of "boring" ones.

Personally I found the Noss bird anything but boring. I found it quite lovable. I was interested to read (though in Wikipedia so with some caution), that LKs are not closely-related to CKs but more to other falcon sub-groups. I must admit that, structurally, I had thought that might be the case.
 
Phil....entirely agree...that's why I put boring in italics ;)

When I've shown people LKs in breeding areas its often ..."ah OK, so I've seen LK now"....but only then when they get a view of an ad. male that folks get excited.
 
Last edited:
Of course, we are missing 'female type' Lesser Kestrels, it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. The difficulty is that, unlike an adult male, there are no tell tale features that make them at all easy to spot at longer range & then close in for confirmation. So not only is distinguishing them from Common Kestrel far more problematical but also, to confirm the ID, you have to get closer than most kestrels generally allow.
 
Of course, we are missing 'female type' Lesser Kestrels, it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. The difficulty is that, unlike an adult male, there are no tell tale features that make them at all easy to spot at longer range & then close in for confirmation. So not only is distinguishing them from Common Kestrel far more problematical but also, to confirm the ID, you have to get closer than most kestrels generally allow.

I slightly disagree. Every bird is different in distinct terms from similar birds of a different species. For instance it's relatively straighforward to distinguish House and Sand Martins by mode of flight and shape when light conditions mean the birds are effectively 'black' and in silhouette. Therefore the tubbier-bodied, relatively shorter-tailed (and thus proportionately broader-winged) Lesser Kestrel ought to be distinguishable at a distance by *its* mode of flight and shape, given a reasonably prolonged view. Also is the distribution of light and dark brown on the back precisely the same as on fem/juv Common Kestrel? If not this should flag up something 'odd' on a flying bird surely.

In a lot of cases it's not plumage details per se that attract one's attention with rarer species. Of one knows the commoner species reasonably well, there is often a characteristic quirk of behaviour ('jizz') that draws the attention. I wouldn't give up so easily.

I bet that LKs do not suddenly 'pitch forward and downwards' as Common Kestrels regulary do in straight-ahead ordinary flight (I hope people have noticed this). That might be an additional clue that we have something unusual.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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