• 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.

Peregrine or Hobby ? You Decide. (1 Viewer)

Tim, are you simply about point-scoring mate?

You maintain what you want, you were pretty damn forthright yourself about the Kessie being a Peregrine where you not?

Sorry if I still see a Hobby in the first photograph, you and I and many others will have to disagree ... I made my ID on the sole pic of the bird perched in a conifer and to me it doesn't quite look right even compared to the new pics, to you it does, hurrah for you!

and no I don't think the Kes pic was all that shocking, not great I grant you yet still identifiably a Kestrel as opposed to a Peregrine and a bunch of leaves.... as for the Mistle Thrush ID I've explained why I thought it was a Fieldfare, what more do you want me to say ... and what relevence does it have to the current debate?

Unless of course your implying somehow that I'm a s**t birder ...
well, that I ain't, but neither am I Charlie Big Potatoes ...
 
Last edited:
London Birder said:
Tim, are you simply about point-scoring mate?
.
Click to expand...

yes I am

we do a lot of it on here - it's not serious

I was wrong about the Kes. I can live with it. I have very thick skin and expected a lot of ribbing. If i still said it was a Peregrine I'd expect to be run out of town with my bins shoved up my **** courtesy of Sean

this is a Peregrine

Tim
 
Tim Allwood said:
yes I am

we do a lot of it on here - it's not serious

I was wrong about the Kes. I can live with it. I have very thick skin and expected a lot of ribbing. If i still said it was a Peregrine I'd expect to be run out of town with my bins shoved up my **** courtesy of Sean

this is a Peregrine

Tim
Click to expand...


well, frankly you may be about purile point-scoring (seriously or otherwise), I'd rather debate as well as I can on any given matter, however perfect or imperfect that may be and however right or wrong I turn out to be, I'll always put my hand up if shown to be wrong as I'd expect any right-minded birder to do ... as for your assertions in the Sparrowhawk thread, well, you should've been run out of town with a Televid shoved up it never mind a your bins, I seem to remember you saying something like 'if it's good enough for them then it's good enough for me' (not verbatim) ... well, good for sunbeam, I plough my own field and my birding shoulders are as wide as yours ....

the Mistle Thrush/Fieldfare stuff is getting a little tired but hey if it adds another point to you, good on ya ...
 
The Raptor said:
A Hobby has dark streaked underparts while a Peregrines is barred. So the picture to me shows a Hobby.
Click to expand...


The bird is a juvenile and thus has the streaked underparts that would be expected on a juvenile Peregrine.

martin
 
no, that's the correct 'apprehension' ... I'm not 100% convinced it's anything other than a Hobby ... would you like me to say I was if I'm not ?

Tim, I've gone through my reasoning as best as I can as a reasonably intelligent long-standing birder and have at least tried to demonstrate that ... and I can only assume you've read my reasons for thinking it's a Hobby ... now if me, you and and every so-called 'expert', dude, robin-stroker or full-on twitcher disagree about each others conclusions may I suggest you get over it, move on, and accept there is disagreement, thats life ... and for certain that's birding ...
 
Guys,

the bird was ringed! It's a Peregrine......time to put the thread to rest!

Save some for the next dodgy photo...won't be too long I'm sure! ;)
 
Thanks Lou for chasing down further evidence!


London Birder said:
sorry Lou, try as I might I see the first bird as significantly lighter-weighted (scuse the phrase), paler cheeked and I'm not sure the the head pattern does actually match
Click to expand...

Hi LB, I know you are happy to disagree on the ID of the first photo and you seem to suspect the '2 bird theory'. To my eyes, the pale areas on the head on the first pic appear 'over-exposed' which maybe due to normal adjustment in PS to get more brightness and contrast overall. This will make the cheek (and other similarly exposed pale areas) appear whiter than the other shots and some lose of definition - leading to the appearance of very slight differences in the head pattern.

Cheers Mark.
 
author's statement

forwarded:

Hello Lou,

Would you be so kind to send this mail to the thread?

And I always thought the Dutch were stubborn............. or is it only the
Londoners? Of course it would be a nasty trick to send (on purpose) some
pics of another bird and it should be very stupid of me not noticing that
another bird (Hobby) took the place of the Peregrine when trying to make
some photographs.Well, in birding I don't like nasty tricks and I'm not
stupid. So it's the same bird and hereby I send another pic of this bird on
the same branch in the same tree (look at the marking on the back of the
head: never shown by Hobby's!).
But what wonders me even more is that this discussion took so long. Already
the first response in the thread (Bolton B.) mentioned the fine breast
streaking and this is the best clue to identify this bird (based on the
first pic!). Hobby's NEVER show such breast streaking: it is ALWAYS much
bolder! So the discussion could (should....) have ended there already.

Kind regards,

Frank
 

Attachments

  • SlechtvalkD0804.jpg
    SlechtvalkD0804.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 185
lou salomon said:
forwarded:

Hello Lou,

Would you be so kind to send this mail to the thread?

And I always thought the Dutch were stubborn............. or is it only the
Londoners? Of course it would be a nasty trick to send (on purpose) some
pics of another bird and it should be very stupid of me not noticing that
another bird (Hobby) took the place of the Peregrine when trying to make
some photographs.Well, in birding I don't like nasty tricks and I'm not
stupid. So it's the same bird and hereby I send another pic of this bird on
the same branch in the same tree (look at the marking on the back of the
head: never shown by Hobby's!).
But what wonders me even more is that this discussion took so long. Already
the first response in the thread (Bolton B.) mentioned the fine breast
streaking and this is the best clue to identify this bird (based on the
first pic!). Hobby's NEVER show such breast streaking: it is ALWAYS much
bolder! So the discussion could (should....) have ended there already.

Kind regards,

Frank
Click to expand...


well now I have to accept my eyes where decieving me, and happily so ...

Lou, if you don't mind, I would like to you to pass this on to the photographer please > ... no one has accused you of playing nasty tricks and nor has anyone accused you of being stupid, those are your overly dramatic words, I believed I was looking at a picture of a Hobby and assumed that a pic of one had been posted amongst pics in a Peregrine spread BY ACCIDENT, the words 'nasty' and 'stupid' never came into it and weren't levelled at you by me or any other poster (that I can remember) who perceived your shot as being of a Hobby ... for evidence of that re-read the thread
 
Last edited:
London Birder said:
well now I have to accept my eyes where decieving me, and happily so ...

Lou, if you don't mind, I would like to you to pass this on to the photographer please > ... no one has accused you of playing nasty tricks and nor has anyone accused you of being stupid, those are your overly dramatic words, I believed I was looking at a picture of a Hobby and assumed that a pic of one had been posted amongst pics in a Peregrine spread BY ACCIDENT, the words 'nasty' and 'stupid' never came into it and weren't levelled at you by me or any other poster (that I can remember) who perceived your shot as being of a Hobby ... for evidence of that re-read the thread
Click to expand...

okidoki. never mind. :loveme:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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

jforgham
Peregrine to be aged
Replies
1
Views
379
Butty
B
S
Peregrine falcon? (Romania)
Replies
3
Views
522
siposi
S
D
UK Bird of Prey help
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Daz001
D
Henry_Flower
Peregrine? Spreewald, Germany
Replies
3
Views
376
Henry_Flower
Henry_Flower
P
Hobby or Peregrine? Paris, France, 12 May
Replies
14
Views
749
Essex Tern
Essex Tern

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top