-
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.
"Mystery grey shrike on the isle of Man" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CJW
- Start date
digi-birder
Well-known member
Just to add my two'pennorth - a late announcement on BirdGuides' Bird News Extra last night says "Some observers consider the identification as Steppe Grey Shrike unsound and that it may in fact be closer to one of the paler north african forms".
Like Kevin, I have never even seen the Great Grey Shrike, so I don't come from any position of knowledge here. I too am finding the thread fascinating.
Like Kevin, I have never even seen the Great Grey Shrike, so I don't come from any position of knowledge here. I too am finding the thread fascinating.
Manxman and all,
In an earlier post you refered to the fact that the bird has been heard singing and this seems to indicate it's a male. Acc. BWPC female Great Great shrikes also sing to some extent, this might apply to other grey shrikes also of course. BWPC also states that certain vocalisations by palldirostris are distinct so any recordings of the bird calling/ singing might prove valuable in the long run.
MV
In an earlier post you refered to the fact that the bird has been heard singing and this seems to indicate it's a male. Acc. BWPC female Great Great shrikes also sing to some extent, this might apply to other grey shrikes also of course. BWPC also states that certain vocalisations by palldirostris are distinct so any recordings of the bird calling/ singing might prove valuable in the long run.
MV
Colin
Axeman (Retired)
What a fascinating thread.
While you guys are sorting the id out, ( I do not have any expertise in this species, having only seen one twice ) I thought I would add some definitions to this listing business. But first, I assume that all concerned know of a discussion on this sub species, in British Birds 50: 246- 249 and British Birds 66 401 - 402. Apologises if you have already seen these references.
OK, some definitions
Great Britain - Great Britain is the largest island in Europe. "Great Britain" is the collective name for the three countries of England, Scotland and Wales. It also includes the small adjacent islands but it does not include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
United Kingdom - The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The official name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" came into use in 1922 after the constitution of the Irish Free State (1922-1937), the former name of the Republic of Ireland
British Isles - The expression "British Isles" is geographical and not political. They are a group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe consisting of Great Britain, the whole of Ireland, the Orkney and Shetland Islands, the Isle of Man, the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, the Scilly Islands, Lundy Island, the Channel Islands and many other smaller islands.
So, if you have a 'British' list which is using the adjective to refer to the term Great Britain, or if you have a UK list then you cannot tick this bird because the Isle of Man is not included in Great Britain or the United Kingdom. However, if your list is a British Isles list, then you can and also any bird anywhere in the whole of Ireland.
Colin
While you guys are sorting the id out, ( I do not have any expertise in this species, having only seen one twice ) I thought I would add some definitions to this listing business. But first, I assume that all concerned know of a discussion on this sub species, in British Birds 50: 246- 249 and British Birds 66 401 - 402. Apologises if you have already seen these references.
OK, some definitions
Great Britain - Great Britain is the largest island in Europe. "Great Britain" is the collective name for the three countries of England, Scotland and Wales. It also includes the small adjacent islands but it does not include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
United Kingdom - The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The official name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" came into use in 1922 after the constitution of the Irish Free State (1922-1937), the former name of the Republic of Ireland
British Isles - The expression "British Isles" is geographical and not political. They are a group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe consisting of Great Britain, the whole of Ireland, the Orkney and Shetland Islands, the Isle of Man, the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, the Scilly Islands, Lundy Island, the Channel Islands and many other smaller islands.
So, if you have a 'British' list which is using the adjective to refer to the term Great Britain, or if you have a UK list then you cannot tick this bird because the Isle of Man is not included in Great Britain or the United Kingdom. However, if your list is a British Isles list, then you can and also any bird anywhere in the whole of Ireland.
Colin
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
Opinions still vary as to the race of the bird. I've had a fascinating email today which included a wing formula calculated by someone I have been talking to. Here is the information:
"On the left wing 7=8, on the right wp = 8.... leans towards elegans, aucteri
The difference between 8 and 6 is less than 6 and 5..... leans towards elegans
The 6th looks un-emarginated but hard to be sure from the photo....leans towards pallidirsotris
Inner primaries are old and unmoulted...there might be something interesting in moult patterns yet.
I'm still favouring elegans/pallidirostris intergrade...which sort of blows the Steppe is a species argument out of the water"
I think we'll end up having to say it's a Southern Grey Shrike of indeterminate race.
"On the left wing 7=8, on the right wp = 8.... leans towards elegans, aucteri
The difference between 8 and 6 is less than 6 and 5..... leans towards elegans
The 6th looks un-emarginated but hard to be sure from the photo....leans towards pallidirsotris
Inner primaries are old and unmoulted...there might be something interesting in moult patterns yet.
I'm still favouring elegans/pallidirostris intergrade...which sort of blows the Steppe is a species argument out of the water"
I think we'll end up having to say it's a Southern Grey Shrike of indeterminate race.
Michael Frankis
conehead
Hi CJ,
An elegans/pallidirostris intergrade isn't a possibility, as their respective breeding ranges are over a thousand miles apart (Turkmenistan to southernmost Jordan; map in Lefranc & Worfolk), with race aucheri between them. An intergrade aucheri/pallidirostris is worth bearing in mind, though; Lefranc & Worfolk say they are common.
Guess someone's going to have to try and trap it and get a DNA sample.
Michael
An elegans/pallidirostris intergrade isn't a possibility, as their respective breeding ranges are over a thousand miles apart (Turkmenistan to southernmost Jordan; map in Lefranc & Worfolk), with race aucheri between them. An intergrade aucheri/pallidirostris is worth bearing in mind, though; Lefranc & Worfolk say they are common.
Guess someone's going to have to try and trap it and get a DNA sample.
Michael
Michael Frankis
conehead
And of course, whoever does try to ring it will have to be careful, or the shrike will get a human DNA sample - I gather shrikes in the hand enjoy shredding fingers :eek!:
Michael
Michael
Is it wise to try to calculate primary spacings and especially wing point from a bird with such worn primaries? While most primaries would be assumed to wear at a similar rate this can't be guaranteed and the primary likely to be subject to most wear is the outermost - the one which represents the wing point. I'd be struggling to make any judgements about the emarginations based on the images I've seen so far and again I'd be reluctant to place too much weight on emerginations on a bird which is so worn.
I'm not convinced that any of the published information on the distribution of the races, or their subspecific validity, can be relied on.
Next steps would seem to be more photo's, voice recording and a skin search, though I guess the IOM does not have an extensive collection of grey shrike skins. You could always visit a British Museum where I'm sure you'd happily contribute a small donation as you wont have been paying any taxes towards the upkeep of same.
MV
I'm not convinced that any of the published information on the distribution of the races, or their subspecific validity, can be relied on.
Next steps would seem to be more photo's, voice recording and a skin search, though I guess the IOM does not have an extensive collection of grey shrike skins. You could always visit a British Museum where I'm sure you'd happily contribute a small donation as you wont have been paying any taxes towards the upkeep of same.
MV
Manxman
Member
MV,
You really are showing your naiivety on the subject of wing formula and feather wear.
Just to clear up some points on CJW's post about the wing formula - unfortunately the person who had passed on the info had numbered the primaries descendantly and not ascendantly (the standard method). This maybe confused things slightly but bearing this fact in mind, it still provides a good description of the primary lengths.
MV, the outermost primary is definitely NOT the wing tip, most passerines have a rather small first (outermost) primary which is roughly equal in length to the alula (depending on the species - it can vary quite a lot - but you get the general picture).
Also the feathers would have to be EXTREMELY worn for emarginations (and notches) to be effected. Even in the most worn feathers I have seen on adult birds in advanced stages of moult, emarginations on the outer webs are still VERY obvious.
On the subject of DNA, it is doubtful that a sufficient databank of DNA samples of the Great/Southern groups exists. Collecting DNA on this bird would prove pointless if there is nothing to compare it with... Of course should the bird drop a feather then it would be preserved for future reference. Any millionaires want to sponsor me to collect DNA samples from all the known races of this group? Send me a pm........:t:
You really are showing your naiivety on the subject of wing formula and feather wear.
Just to clear up some points on CJW's post about the wing formula - unfortunately the person who had passed on the info had numbered the primaries descendantly and not ascendantly (the standard method). This maybe confused things slightly but bearing this fact in mind, it still provides a good description of the primary lengths.
MV, the outermost primary is definitely NOT the wing tip, most passerines have a rather small first (outermost) primary which is roughly equal in length to the alula (depending on the species - it can vary quite a lot - but you get the general picture).
Also the feathers would have to be EXTREMELY worn for emarginations (and notches) to be effected. Even in the most worn feathers I have seen on adult birds in advanced stages of moult, emarginations on the outer webs are still VERY obvious.
On the subject of DNA, it is doubtful that a sufficient databank of DNA samples of the Great/Southern groups exists. Collecting DNA on this bird would prove pointless if there is nothing to compare it with... Of course should the bird drop a feather then it would be preserved for future reference. Any millionaires want to sponsor me to collect DNA samples from all the known races of this group? Send me a pm........:t:
Last edited:
Manxman,
I acknowledge some potential ambiguity in my use of the word 'outermost' - what I was referring to was, as you must have realised, the longest, and therefore outermost visible on the folded wing. I'm aware that the actual outermost is often tiny (I'm an experienced ringer running a constant effort site) and that the sytem used here was descendant (contra Svenssons preference for ascendent numbering).
I stand by everything else I said about the position of the wingpoint and the primary spacings. regarding emarginations I'd agree that significant emarginations are retained for a long time but could we here be talking about the significance of the innermost emargination which might be marginal anyway. Notches don't come into this as the bird has not been trapped so that the inner webs cannot be seen, in any case these would be less subject to wear due to their concealed position.
Couldn't DNA be extracted fom (type-) specimens?
MV
I acknowledge some potential ambiguity in my use of the word 'outermost' - what I was referring to was, as you must have realised, the longest, and therefore outermost visible on the folded wing. I'm aware that the actual outermost is often tiny (I'm an experienced ringer running a constant effort site) and that the sytem used here was descendant (contra Svenssons preference for ascendent numbering).
I stand by everything else I said about the position of the wingpoint and the primary spacings. regarding emarginations I'd agree that significant emarginations are retained for a long time but could we here be talking about the significance of the innermost emargination which might be marginal anyway. Notches don't come into this as the bird has not been trapped so that the inner webs cannot be seen, in any case these would be less subject to wear due to their concealed position.
Couldn't DNA be extracted fom (type-) specimens?
MV
monkeyman
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
This is exactly what BirdForum is all about. we could do with more threads like this!
Although, I must say that it looked liked a GGS to me on first viewing, I will bow to to those assidouus enough to count the feathers! They are great photos and thankyou for sharing them with us.
Although, I must say that it looked liked a GGS to me on first viewing, I will bow to to those assidouus enough to count the feathers! They are great photos and thankyou for sharing them with us.
Paul Hackett
Well-known member
Visited the isle of Man today in an effort to see for myself this controversial bird
i have limited knowledge of shrikes into the detail discussed on this thread, but as other like minded people, have looked into my limited library of literature and the internet to no avail !
The bird unbelievably extended its right wing to its full position whilst i was filming, the result is the attached video-grab and is full size.
i am hoping this may shed some light on the subject
My thanks go to CJW who kindly picked me up at the airport and duly dropped me off, Manx hospitality at its best !!
thanks Chris
i have limited knowledge of shrikes into the detail discussed on this thread, but as other like minded people, have looked into my limited library of literature and the internet to no avail !
The bird unbelievably extended its right wing to its full position whilst i was filming, the result is the attached video-grab and is full size.
i am hoping this may shed some light on the subject
My thanks go to CJW who kindly picked me up at the airport and duly dropped me off, Manx hospitality at its best !!
thanks Chris
Attachments
Paul Hackett
Well-known member
Hi Paul,
Welcome to Bird Forums!Great shots(as usual),really show the wing pattern well.From these shots,I agree that the bird is a 1st-s(have seen 1st-s Woodchat).
CJW,if you want I could give you Killian Mullarney's e-mail address:I presume he'll have seen quite a few forms of "Southern Grey Shrike" on his travels...
Harry H
Welcome to Bird Forums!Great shots(as usual),really show the wing pattern well.From these shots,I agree that the bird is a 1st-s(have seen 1st-s Woodchat).
CJW,if you want I could give you Killian Mullarney's e-mail address:I presume he'll have seen quite a few forms of "Southern Grey Shrike" on his travels...
Harry H
Michael Frankis
conehead
Tricky conclusions from two great photos . . . !
On both the above photos, primary #2 is a bit shorter than #6 in length (ascendent numbering).
From Lefranc & Worfolk:
pallidirostris #2 = #5 or slightly longer
excubitor #2 shorter than #6
So it is excubitor on wing formula . . . unless this formula also applies to any Southern GS races
Michael
On both the above photos, primary #2 is a bit shorter than #6 in length (ascendent numbering).
From Lefranc & Worfolk:
pallidirostris #2 = #5 or slightly longer
excubitor #2 shorter than #6
So it is excubitor on wing formula . . . unless this formula also applies to any Southern GS races
Michael
