• 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.

Crossbill, Glen Affric, Scotland (1 Viewer)

cranefan

Well-known member
I know that definitive ID is impossible without recordings, but I'd be interested to see what others' impressions are of this bird.

Photographed 29 May 2017, in Glen Affric, Highland, one of a group of 5-6 on a Scots pine. All images are of the same bird.

My impression is that the bill is a little thick for common, and that the location and habitat would be good for Scottish.

Thanks all!
 

Attachments

  • crossbill1.jpg
    crossbill1.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 117
  • crossbill2.jpg
    crossbill2.jpg
    35.4 KB · Views: 93
  • crossbill3.jpg
    crossbill3.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 75
  • crossbill4.jpg
    crossbill4.jpg
    47.3 KB · Views: 82
I don't see anything unusual or thick about the bill.

The angle of the second shot is deceiving but the others look just like the Crossbills I see in Russia.


A
 
Common for me too. Scots Pine cones are open now*, so not difficult for Commons to get out what few seeds might still be left in the cones (mostly shed by now!).

* (when damp, they partially re-close, but not firmly so)
 
I'm amazed you guys can ID a bird that needs a sonogram. Especially from an angle that makes the bill size difficult to ascertain.
 
I'm amazed you guys can ID a bird that needs a sonogram. Especially from an angle that makes the bill size difficult to ascertain.

The OP commented on, in his / her opinion, that the bill was possibly larger than would be expected on Common. I simply stated that it looks like the Russian birds I see which are clearly not Scottish Crossbills, I did not make a definite ID.

A
 
Thanks very much all, very interesting! Not a bird group I'm very familiar with so others' opinions are most appreciated.

Lovely birds in a lovely place whatever species they were.
 
Thanks very much all, very interesting! Not a bird group I'm very familiar with so others' opinions are most appreciated.

Lovely birds in a lovely place whatever species they were.

As you say almost impossible to be 100% without sonograph. You have to trust to your instinct and take a view based on location etc. Again not very scientific but in times when there are not large numbers of transient/migratory crossbills around the likelihood of Scottish crossbill increases in such locations. Unfortunately bill size is a possible aid to ID but not definitive as there is a large crossover (excuse the pun) variation in both species.

Still a stunning bird and delight to see in such surroundings. Cant wait for my next trip in July. I will take any crossbills I can get and not worry too much about the common/Scottish debate.
 
I'm amazed you guys can ID a bird that needs a sonogram. Especially from an angle that makes the bill size difficult to ascertain.
It's clearly not a Parrot Crossbill (bill too small) or a Two-barred Crossbill (no wing bars), so therefore, it's a Common Crossbill :t:




There has of course, been no proof of the existence of the so-called 'Scottish Crossbill' since 1870, so that can be ignored ;)
 
It's clearly not a Parrot Crossbill (bill too small) or a Two-barred Crossbill (no wing bars), so therefore, it's a Common Crossbill :t:




There has of course, been no proof of the existence of the so-called 'Scottish Crossbill' since 1870, so that can be ignored ;)

You smug prat. I don't need to explain call-types to you. Belief in their relevance to speciation or lack thereof is fair enough but to deny an intermediate sized bird with a distinct call never reliably observed outwith Scotland exists is idiocy. You continually mislead and use blah in these threads to sow confusion. Scottish Crossbill is real even if it isn't a species. And don't throw up the undocumented Northumberland record as there is no proof of it or indeed the call it made.
 
The OP commented on, in his / her opinion, that the bill was possibly larger than would be expected on Common. I simply stated that it looks like the Russian birds I see which are clearly not Scottish Crossbills, I did not make a definite ID.

A

Sorry Andy, you didn't. I read it as inferred when you hadn't.
 
Interesting ;). For the nothing it's worth, when I first looked at these images I thought the bill looked smaller than lots of birds I've happily identified in various places as Common Crossbill. On a more prolonged look, maybe it is largish.

On that other old chestnut :-O, I do find it amazing that it's still a species on all the main taxonomic lists. Surely if you were to split everything that's got better credentials for being a species than Scottish Crossbill, the world list would be twice it's current size.
 
You smug prat. I don't need to explain call-types to you. Belief in their relevance to speciation or lack thereof is fair enough but to deny an intermediate sized bird with a distinct call never reliably observed outwith Scotland exists is idiocy. You continually mislead and use blah in these threads to sow confusion. Scottish Crossbill is real even if it isn't a species. And don't throw up the undocumented Northumberland record as there is no proof of it or indeed the call it made.

OK so what was the call variant of the type specimen of Loxia scotica Hartert, 1904, collected in East Rossshire in 1870?

I think you'll find it wasn't recorded ;)

There is also no genetic evidence linking the type specimen with '3C' call birds, as opposed to any other crossbill call group, since the call groups are not genetically distinguishable.

Therefore, there is no proof whatsoever, that '3C' call birds are the same as Loxia scotica Hartert, 1904. It might be, but it just as likely might not be; there is no way of telling. To say that they definitively are the same is fraudulent. You can say (if you have the sonogram evidence) you've heard (and ± also seen) a '3C' crossbill, but you can't say you've heard / seen Loxia scotica.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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