• 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.

Sparrowhawk (1 Viewer)

you dudes

that's a peregrine!!!

can you not see the 'brown' is only central on the bird? In front and behind of the brown the bird is dark, as a Peregrine. This combined with pale cheeks, thin moustachial and not to mention the short tail and stockiness all point to Peregrine

Apparently a few very experienced birders and experts have seen this and i've shown a few people who know their stuff and everyone says Peregrine - once they realise what's going on with the branches...

just squint at it and you'll see what i mean

that's one dark bird...

Tim
 
Last edited:
I get the feel of a large, powerful falcon. Broadchested, thickset and with a shortish, square tail. The first species that came to mind on seeing the image was juvenile Saker, due to the head pattern and upperpart colouration but that would obviously be unlikely in northern Germany. The reddish tone underneath is wierd but perhaps due to the branches as Tim says. The head pattern, with a whitish cheek contrasting strongly with dark crown and nape and strong moustachial stripe, is at odds with Kestrel. The best candidate is Peregrine, maybe a calidus-type, who knows. As Stuart says, it's unusual to see one in a tree!

Rgds

Greg
 
Hmmm, I'll be honest and say i'm not sure. The head isn't 100% convincing for kestrel. I can also see Tim's argument that it's a bulky dark bird hidden behind a (mystery) red object. However, the 'experienced birders have seen it and all say it's a peregrine' argument is frankly, b*******. I don't need Dick Forsman to tell me whether a patch of red on a photo is caused by a branch in front of the bird or not. Seems equally plausible that the dark tramlines along the body are the artefacts caused by branches, in which case, not such a dark, compact bird after all?
But, I guess we'll never know.
 
James Lowther said:
However, the 'experienced birders have seen it and all say it's a peregrine' argument is frankly, b*******. I don't need Dick Forsman to tell me whether a patch of red on a photo is caused by a branch in front of the bird or not.

it's also a good pointer and wise to listen to quality observers....

i immediately thougt WHAT?! That's a Kes. And almost passed the thread by.. Then i noticed KMO called it a Peregrine and i had a proper look and lo and behold it is...

Tim
 
Tim,
if I were out birding with Klaus, Dick or even yourself and a falcon flew by which i thought was a kestrel, and you told me it was in fact a peregrine I would no doubt believe you. However, if Klaus, dick or yourself were to sit alongside me looking at the same blurry image and told me that the large reddish brown patch i could clearly see was in fact part of the tree, then id say you were entitled to your opinion, as am I. I would respectfully suggest that observation experience counts for relatively little in that case.
James
 
I am amazed that so many birdwatchers can say catergorically that this is a kestrel.
1 tail length indicates peregrine
2 body size and shape indicate peregrine
3 head shape and size indicate peregrine
4 the most important fact is the distinctive moustacial stripe and white cheek. I take it people think the moustacial strip and dark crown is caused by a branch and the white head is because its partial albinistic!

Also I take it people think its male. Well if you do you haven't had much experience sexing kestrels from this distance because the differnces arent as bold from distance. I go looking for peregrines in the peninnes and this image is so typical of what i see from a long distance away. The thing always stands out is the moustachial stripe
 
Last edited:
ok so a few experinced birders and experts have 'apparently' seen this record shot and reckon it's a Peregrine ... well I for one consider myself an experienced birder and see Peregrine more often than an awful lot of people and for the life of me there is absolutely nothing in this to indicate Peregrine to me ... looks fine structurally for Kestrel (albeit the bird is a little foreshortened in that pic it just looks like a mid-size falco), I struggle to see the chesnut colouration as anything other than plumage and in fact may be able to make out a 'scapular-line' and the dark areas front and rear simply appear to be shadow .. I also fail to see how a thin moustachial streak is a pointer toward Peregrine, their moustachial streaks are fairly fulsome (less so on young birds and the odd variant) and on this bird the moustachial even appears to 'wear thin' at the bottom end ! ...
 
Last edited:
I'm having real trouble believing in a perfectly bird-shaped orangy-brown blob perfectly obscuring the entire body. The head is behind some thin twigs and makes it too difficult to assess features there. Look around the feet and you will see a branch blending to make the body look bulkier. That is also where the black around the front comes from. This is quite a slim bird and I see no reason why it isn't a Kestrel.
 
brianhstone said:
I'm having real trouble believing in a perfectly bird-shaped orangy-brown blob perfectly obscuring the entire body. The head is behind some thin twigs and makes it too difficult to assess features there. Look around the feet and you will see a branch blending to make the body look bulkier. That is also where the black around the front comes from. This is quite a slim bird and I see no reason why it isn't a Kestrel.

With all these branches obscuring this and that anything could be behind it! When do kestrels have white heads!
Also I think that white area near its feet could be a further indicator of it being a peregrine
 
Tim Allwood said:
it's also a good pointer and wise to listen to quality observers....

i immediately thougt WHAT?! That's a Kes. And almost passed the thread by.. Then i noticed KMO called it a Peregrine and i had a proper look and lo and behold it is...

Tim

That pretty much sums-up my views, particularly after Tim highlighted the tree issue. If nothing else, the clean white cheek patch is pretty hard to square with the bird being a Kestrel. Unless it's an American Kestrel of course... (that's a joke by the way).

Stuart
 
Last edited:
It would be soooo nice if the people regularly sending in blurry pictures of birds would also give a DESCRIPTION.
What was colour of its back? Of its belly & breast? Of its head? What kind of markings did it have? How long was its tail, how long were its wings (relative to each other)? How were the markings in its face? We cannot judge this (well) from the picture!
 
no expert but...

kestrel . Brown upperparts and moustache (ok it's suppposed to be fainter than this), tail not actually visible as covered by primaries.... which makes it look like it has a black tail...
It's definitely rusty brown. It may have the moustache but it's totally the wrong colour for a peregrine. Sorry, but there is nothing whatsoever obscuring the body - if it's a clump of kestrel coloured leaves it's an amazing coincidence as they would be the only leaves on the entire tree. The shape - could be ruffling it's feathers against the cold? The back of the head is grey, the face is white. The moustache is unusually prominent, possibly assisted by a twig or something making it seem more distinct.
But the point is IT'S RED - BROWN. IT'S RED. BROWN. Peregrines, sparrowhawks, merlins, hobbies, and just about any other falcon do not have this diagnostic feature. Must be a kestrel.
 
Last edited:
jugglia said:
Could it be a lesser kestrel? Brown upperparts and moustache (ok it's suppposed to be fainter than this), tail not actually visible as covered by primaries.... which makes it look like it has a black tail...
It's definitely rusty brown. It may have the moustache but it's totally the wrong colour for a peregrine. Never seen a lesser kestrel so it's just a guess, but I would have to say kestrel or lesser kestrel... Please tell me I'm wrong or brilliant, whichever you think.

Wrong I'm afraid

experienced birders (apart from LB) are pretty happy with Peregrine

that tells me enough

how anyone can square the bulk, short tail, darkness, moustachial and white cheek with Kestrel is miles beyond me

Tim
 
how 'experienced birders' can convince themselves beyond doubt that the bird in question happened to pick the only kestrel-colored kestrel-shaped object in the entire tree to hide behind is beyond me, but then again what do I know??....;)

Could be a peregrine, could be a kestrel, we'll never know for sure, end of...
 
How are you measuring the experience of the others who think its a Kes Tim?

There's enough pale area around the head of a Kestrel to flare up on a poor shot like this. Its not at all dark (its brown with contrasting black primaries) or bulky (that is clearly a branch in the front) and the proportions are just fine for Kestrel. I see no reason to suppose it is anything other the most likely candidate.

Like Xenospiza, I'd like to hear again from the original observer about what they actually saw. We all know how difficult a photo can be and a poor one is even worse.
 
Well, I also consider myself to be an experienced birder (though I´d readily admit your general birding experience being greater, Tim)
... and I am not happy with this being a peregrine...
Still the picture does not tell me enough to be fully confident on this being a Kestrel, but it looks better for me than peregrine.

However, this is quite a blurry photograph and I cannot tell wether the the moustachial stripe is in fact a branch or where tail or wings really end.

Therefore I asked Dieter for some more information on this bird...If he has some more, we might come to a clearer result...otherwise we should perhaps leave this as a Falco spec.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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