• 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.

Oldies, arctic redpoll ? (1 Viewer)

tarzzz

Well-known member
Sweden
állo.

Maybe i've already asked about this one. But, Arctic redpoll it is ?

Thanks.

//Ben
 

Attachments

  • shdopp.jpg
    shdopp.jpg
    223.5 KB · Views: 109
állo.

Maybe i've already asked about this one. But, Arctic redpoll it is ?

Thanks.

//Ben

I don't think mealy can be ruled out in this photo - need to see rump, and perhaps undertail. Bill is perhaps a little too big for arctic, too. It's rather buffy on the flanks but this could be light-dependent.
 
AHH! I would just putting it down as classic Arctic. I saw the under and upper coverts. It IS an Arctic Redpoll. The bill seems ok for Arctic I think.

//Ben

A few more of that bird.

//ben
 

Attachments

  • ss1.jpg
    ss1.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 84
  • ss2.jpg
    ss2.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:
If you'd seen the bird well and knew its identity why ask for an opinion on this thread? And why not post these pictures first, which are much better and make it look much more like an arctic?! The first pic actually gives a bit of a misleading impression - or is that the point you were trying to make, that birds can look different in different photos?

AHH! I would just putting it down as classic Arctic. I saw the under and upper coverts. It IS an Arctic Redpoll. The bill seems ok for Arctic I think.

//Ben

A few more of that bird.

//ben
 
If you'd seen the bird well and knew its identity why ask for an opinion on this thread? And why not post these pictures first, which are much better and make it look much more like an arctic?! The first pic actually gives a bit of a misleading impression - or is that the point you were trying to make, that birds can look different in different photos?

Irrerspective of Ben's intention...It may have been a case of his English being better than your Finnish? I originally interpreted the post as being old images being posted again..but on reflection..the images might be recent? and he was genuinely looking for confirmation.

Whatever...good shots!
 
Going back a long way. But the "pinched-in bill" was touted as a good ID feature of AR in the late 90s. When I saw the first photo, I got it from the bill (allied to other details overall...) Was I right in doing this? Using the bill feature as part of IDing this species? Or is this now in debate? Because I feel it is still a strong part of the "suite of features..."
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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