• 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.

shorebird in flight, San Francisco Bay, CA (1 Viewer)

djleahy

Well-known member
I am puzzling over this shot of a bird in flight I took today at Hayward Regional Shoreline, on the east side of the southern San Francisco Bay. I didn't see it before taking off. There were a lot of dowitchers around, which are the usual white-rumped suspects here, but this guy's tail is not a dowitcher tail.

It seems to match Ruddy Turnstone, which seems a bit odd, as this was a fairly muddy, rock-free environment (San Lorenzo Creek), and I didn't see any Turnstones walking around today. There are Ruddy Turnstones at Hayward, though. What do you all think? All comments appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9406_crop.jpg
    IMG_9406_crop.jpg
    89 KB · Views: 80
Last edited:
Good guess. Black Turnstone shows a similar pattern without the rusty coloration. Hard to tell what color this bird is, but turnstone is a good probability.
 
Good guess. Black Turnstone shows a similar pattern without the rusty coloration. Hard to tell what color this bird is, but turnstone is a good probability.

Black Turnstones are more common here, but I was thinking that this bird appears to show too much brown to be a Black Turnstone. Of course, I'm also hoping to have found the slightly more exotic bird. :)
 
I think those scapulars are so dark with very little fringing on some that it must be Black Turnstone? There are quite a lot of pale fringes on the coverts but this fits with some Black Turnstone photos I've seen as well as being at the darker end of Ruddy. I'm saying Black on account of the scaps anyway

Jan
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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