• 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.

2 Sea birds in Naples Florida (1 Viewer)

Deb335077

Well-known member
Any help with these will be appreciated
Thought it may be easier making each one bigger than previous
I know the quality isn't too good, but it was a distance
they were taken from a beach in Naples Florida
Thanks
Debbie
 

Attachments

  • DSC07404 EMAIL A.jpg
    DSC07404 EMAIL A.jpg
    136.2 KB · Views: 194
  • DSC07404 EMAIL B.jpg
    DSC07404 EMAIL B.jpg
    164.7 KB · Views: 204
The first pic shows a gull species, not to ID (by me), the second as Andrew mentioned an juv. Northern Gannet.
 
Last edited:
Second photo is definitely a sulid and not a gull. I'm leaning towards Juvenile Gannet as others have suggested. The other possibility would be Brown Booby, but underwing pattern seems to match Gannet better according to my Sibleys. And I think I see white uppertail coverts. However, in the other thread that showed a photo with these two birds together (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=157167), they seem similar in size, which would support the smaller Brown Booby.

Gannet would also be much more likely at this location and this time of year according to eBird.

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
I'm having a hard time seeing the second bird as anything but a laughing gull.

I can be convinced, but to me it doesn't appear to be large enough in proportions or in relation to the other bird on the water (see Deb's other Florida post for a picture of them together) to be a gannet/booby.
 
Last edited:
I'm having a hard time seeing the second bird as anything but a laughing gull.

I can be convinced, but to me it doesn't appear to be large enough in proportions or in relation to the other bird on the water (see Deb's other Florida post for a picture of them together) to be a gannet/booby.

It is without a doubt a sulid and not a gull. Just look at the massive bill, long narrow tail, and underparts pattern which is a perfect match for juvenile gannet. Size in photos is notoriously misleading; and even if accurate it would show a small sulid and not a gull of any type.

Best,
Jim
 
Look at the bill, body structure, and wings, guys. This ain't no gull. Agree on juv. Northern Gannet.

EDIT: lol, crosspost with Jim in the sulid reassurance.
 
It is without a doubt a sulid and not a gull. Just look at the massive bill, long narrow tail, and underparts pattern which is a perfect match for juvenile gannet. Size in photos is notoriously misleading; and even if accurate it would show a small sulid and not a gull of any type.

Best,
Jim

Alright then, I guess the photo was playing tricks on me. I'm used to gannets sticking out like (giant) sore thumbs next to gulls. Thanks for clarifying.
 
It is without a doubt a sulid and not a gull. Just look at the massive bill, long narrow tail, and underparts pattern which is a perfect match for juvenile gannet. Size in photos is notoriously misleading; and even if accurate it would show a small sulid and not a gull of any type.

Best,
Jim

No doubt about being a sulid - and I agree now that the Gannet diagnosis makes more sense (I had originally suggested Brown Bobby as the I.D., on another thread; but I had not even considered Gannet at the time, due to (mistaken, apparently) concerns about range.).

Still, I am surprised that everyone is so casually sure of this I.D. - the contrast between u/w covs. and the secondaries/primary bases looks much stronger than I would expect for a young Northern Gannet. In my experience, the underwing is more uniform, like this one. However, many of the other posters must have a lot more experience with the various Sula sp. than I do (being just a tiny bit landlocked here ;). Could this be a sort of transitional form?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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