• 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.

Redpoll ID (1 Viewer)

Hannu, if I understand you right now, about the rump, I mean, not wide in the sense broad, but lenght. The "snowball" thing is meant to be that Arctic wear to whiter as getting older, and that birds in fresh, newly moulted plumage are darker, yellowish or brownish-yellowish, and younger birds often are darker than adults, and if they have a small rump patch, can be very similar to flammea. I also understand that, if the ground colour to flanks and belly are white, or with a slight buffish (beige) tone it´s said to be arctic.
JanJ
 
Goudvink said:
I think it is just the question how useful the "bill feature" is.
The Macmillan Birders Guide (Shirihai) state: "Altough extremes of the two species differ clearly, most individuals are intermediate in length and shape of bill, so this feature is of limited use".
And take a look at: http://web.telia.com/~u15702529/faltbestamning/nabben/mer_snosisknabbar.htm,
.....and you can see that the bill of Artic Redpoll is quit variable.
Click to expand...


How big samples Shirihai is based in his statement ? When I mentioned that Nikander's article, his article is based on studies of hundreds of live birds, both in the field and in the hand, skin collections at the University of Helsinki, hundreds of photographs and literature. It's true that it's possible to see Arctic Redpoll which has longer bill, but mainly those birds are spring or summer birds. I think that it's useful / better feature than that statement gives us to understand.
And in your mentioned link has not said when those pics are taken, so it's not so useful, even it shows the variation in the lenght and depth of bill !

I don't arque my point of view only one feature ! It's also true that this case (at least partly) in somehow incompatible. In spite of that this case reminds more Mealy than Arctic (In my mind). But if you have bigger show-ups, it will help slightly.
 
this is as confused as ever and caution expressed in the literature often seems to be ignored, possibly as many people don't have access to relevant BBs or Macmillan?

Arctic range is fully overlapped by 'Mealy' Redpoll
no sig. difference in habitat choice
Arctic often found in 'Mealy' Redpoll flocks
wide variation in both species leads to overlap in all characters
occasonal Mealy can have white ground colour to rump
occsional Mealy can show plain white undertail covs (saw one of these couple of years back
call diffs are extremely minor

the bird in question has a lot of Arctic characters

Shirihai states that extremes should not cause major problems but due to overlapping features some are best left unidentified

a split too far for me

Tim
 
JANJ said:
Hannu, if I understand you right now, about the rump, I mean, not wide in the sense broad, but lenght. The "snowball" thing is meant to be that Arctic wear to whiter as getting older, and that birds in fresh, newly moulted plumage are darker, yellowish or brownish-yellowish, and younger birds often are darker than adults, and if they have a small rump patch, can be very similar to flammea. I also understand that, if the ground colour to flanks and belly are white, or with a slight buffish (beige) tone it´s said to be arctic.
JanJ
Click to expand...

I meaned the lenght of the rump (long direction), Jan. So you think that both of those birds (pic 4) are Arctic, based on white ground colour to flanks and belly ?
Probably your mention 'slight buffish (beige) tone' is due to light 'incidence angle' ?
 
hannu said:
I meaned the lenght of the rump (long direction), Jan. So you think that both of those birds (pic 4) are Arctic, based on white ground colour to flanks and belly ?
?
Click to expand...

you can't do them that easily (unfortunately) or it would be a diagnostic
 
Tim Allwood said:
you can't do them that easily (unfortunately) or it would be a diagnostic
Click to expand...

Yes, but those which supported Arctic alternative, are mainly based their point of views the colour of rump and undertail coverts and also that ground colour of flanks and belly. I don't know, should I stop to comment these cases, because many things (shooting circumstances, our PC monitors, etc.) affect to the conclusions. ;)
 
I may accept this case as the Arctic, if the streaks of flanks were different (more finer and darker), the ground colour of face (+ ear coverts) and throat (+upper flanks) were buffish and the figures of the mantle and nape were finer. Also the size of bill disturb me somehow.
 
All,
Of course it isn´t this easy, and from photos, to make a positive ID of flammea/arctic, and it has been mentioned rightfully here. The bird, and it is only the one, has got the flammea characters, mentioned by Hannu and others, and the exilipes charakters also mentioned, and me mentioning 93,9% arctic was perhaps a bit hasty. So I´ll lower it to 50/50, that is to say, I can´t be sure of this one.
BTW Hannu, do you read Swedish? If you do, have you then seen the article that Goudvink refered to in #40? And no Hannu I don´t think, and meant both the birds in pic.4, not that easy.
JanJ

http://www.birding.se/birds/foto/snosiska.htm

1st cy female:http://www.praktejder.se/images/0411/Snosiska1MN-041106.htm
1st cy female:http://www.praktejder.se/images/0411/Snosiska1MN-041101.htm
Male:http://www.praktejder.se/images/0410/SnosiskaMN-041030.htm
Arctic:http://www.praktejder.se/images/2005/0511/SnosiskaMN-051108.htm
2nd cy female:http://www.birds.se/stefan/snsis.htm
1st cy:http://www.digiscoping.se/fotosida_rare/Snosiska.htm
All Arctic.

This one considered to be a 1st cy female exilipes Sweden Nov.
http://www.sofnet.org/file/Carhor01.jpg?Path=2&ID=1357&File=Carhor01.jpg
and tis one to, Sweden Nov.
http://www.sofnet.org/file/Carhor02.jpg?Path=2&ID=1357&File=Carhor02.jpg
1st cy male. Sweden Nov.
http://www.sofnet.org/file/sn%F6021102.jpg?Path=2&ID=1357&File=sn%F6021102.jpg
 
Last edited:
JANJ said:
All,
Of course it isn´t this easy, and from photos, to make a positive ID of flammea/arctic, and it has been mentioned rightfully here. The bird, and it is only the one, has got the flammea characters, mentioned by Hannu and others, and the exilipes charakters also mentioned, and me mentioning 93,9% arctic was perhaps a bit hasty. So I´ll lower it to 50/50, that is to say, I can´t be sure of this one.
BTW Hannu, do you read Swedish? If you do, have you then seen the article that Goudvink refered to in #40? And no Hannu I don´t think, and meant both the birds in pic.4, not that easy.
JanJ
Click to expand...

Jan, It was a joke that comment, that both of those birds are Arctic ! ;)
I do read Swedish with the help of dictionary and I have translated some Swedish Identification article to my own use, e.g. The identification of Lanceolated Warbler from Vår Fågelvärd.

Arctic Redpoll's ear-coverts showing sometimes faint greyish streaking, but this bird has clearly brownish streaked ear-coverts.

Thanx Jan from your links, I'll check them today !
 
hannu said:
Arctic Redpoll's ear-coverts showing sometimes faint greyish streaking, but this bird has clearly brownish streaked ear-coverts.


Of the links from JanJ, this one is particulalry interesting and shows just how variable the 'ground colour' of Arctic Redpoll is, partcularly the mantle and facial area.

1st cy female:http://www.praktejder.se/images/041...a1MN-041101.htm

I think this adds more weight to the argument that Goudvinks bird is an Arctic Redpoll as most of the points against it being an Arctic were centered around the facial pattern/ear coverts/mantle colour. Paul
Click to expand...
 
Fair Islander said:
hannu said:
Arctic Redpoll's ear-coverts showing sometimes faint greyish streaking, but this bird has clearly brownish streaked ear-coverts.


Of the links from JanJ, this one is particulalry interesting and shows just how variable the 'ground colour' of Arctic Redpoll is, partcularly the mantle and facial area.

1st cy female:http://www.praktejder.se/images/041...a1MN-041101.htm

I think this adds more weight to the argument that Goudvinks bird is an Arctic Redpoll as most of the points against it being an Arctic were centered around the facial pattern/ear coverts/mantle colour. Paul
Click to expand...

Arctic's colour of mantle can variate even near the Redpoll's brownish (usually with buffish tinge), but bird 's ground colour of head is buffish/ buffish-white colour as bird in Jan's link.
Click to expand...
 
I have looked through all Jan's mentioned fantastisk link and my point of view did NOT change about this bird. I'd say some kind of own conclusion from this case:

White colour in the rump (pic 1 & 2) is actually only feature which refer to Arctic Redpoll, but in my mind the colour of mantle is too brown for Arctic (pic 6).

Likewise brown colour in the ear-coverts is darker Mealy's brown without Arctic's typical buffish/yellowish tinge.

Vent seems to be white/whitish, but there may see at least in besides dark centre
feather in one picture (pic 3), which therefore does not rule out the possibility of Arctic yet.

Streaks in the flanks are too wide for typical Arctic (pic 4, 5 & 7).

Arctic's upper tail-coverts should be greyish brown centre and margins widely white/whitish, not dark brown with pale brownish margins (pic 6) as in the photo's bird.

Long bill refer more to Mealy too (pic 1, 3 & 6), so it's more common charasteristic to Mealy than Arctic.

The bird is difficult and it should study carefully from bigger photos , but I think in this case that bird is more Mealy than Arctic.

In post #38 I wrote : "Bird's unstreaked rump is not so wide as Jan supposed (even 20mm), because if it be so wide, it also show up in flank. "
I meaned in 'flank' = side profile.

I'll be back if I'll get some new ideas about this bird or if Goudvink will attach bigger and more focused pictures in his thread.

Jan, send that link to the Swedish article. I'll try to read it ! Thanx in advance.
 
Last edited:
why does it have to be one or the other?

most of those points above could fit either

it does seem more Arctic (whatever that means) to me but the creamy buff g. covs are a problem... perhaps it is one of the many unifdentifiable birds... at least without biometrics

our perception of what is and isn't exilipes/flammea is heavily influenced by what we've been calling these things for the last 20 years... the overlap in all characters tells me something...
 
hannu said:
I'll be back if I'll get some new ideas about this bird or if Goudvink will attach bigger and more focused pictures in his thread.
Click to expand...

Especially for Hannu, some biger pictures. See also next post.
 

Attachments

  • redpoll9.jpg
    redpoll9.jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 112
  • redpoll10.jpg
    redpoll10.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 110
  • redpoll11.JPG
    redpoll11.JPG
    62.2 KB · Views: 80
  • redpoll12.JPG
    redpoll12.JPG
    63 KB · Views: 94
  • redpoll13.jpg
    redpoll13.jpg
    92.6 KB · Views: 92
hannu said:
Which of those points could fit to Arctic as well as white rump ?
Click to expand...

Hi Hannu

well the undertail covs for a start (along with rump, the two most impt features)

how many flammea have you seen with undertail covs like this bird?
a) in real life
b) in photos?

i can go thru other less impt ones if you like?

tim

please bear in mind that although it has many Arctic characters i wouldn't id it from the pix
 
These enlarged pictures from Goudvink just confirm to me that this bird has absolutley nothing wrong with it for it to be claimed as an Arctic Redpoll. I have stated this from the very beginning in thread number 1 and have seen nothing since to make be doubt this. An enjoyable thread. Paul
 
Fair Islander said:
These enlarged pictures from Goudvink just confirm to me that this bird has absolutley nothing wrong with it for it to be claimed as an Arctic Redpoll. I have stated this from the very beginning in thread number 1 and have seen nothing since to make be doubt this. An enjoyable thread. Paul
Click to expand...

i wouldn't really argue with that Paul B :)

the case is set out in post 2 as u say

I'm just a little cautious i guess

there are some great papers in BB and Macmillan is certainly worth a read... there are still a lot of misconceptions about these 'species' ;)

Tim
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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

jock.h
Small grey bird, Flanders, a few miles east of Brussels
Replies
2
Views
232
jock.h
jock.h
T
Which Redpolls? Bedfordshire UK
Replies
2
Views
752
trivett
T
M
Id Help - Nimbokrang, West Papua - 23
Replies
2
Views
430
sicklebill
sicklebill
M
ID please photographed near Negril, Jamaica
Replies
7
Views
448
Larry Sweetland
Larry Sweetland
H
United Kingdom, Isle of Wight - Bird of prey ID
Replies
7
Views
514
TheBlackGrouse
TheBlackGrouse

Users who are viewing this thread

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