• 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.

Unusual pipit, bad photo: Leyte, Philippines (1 Viewer)

Valéry Schollaert

Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Hi all,

Paddyfield Pipit is abundant around my house in Ormoc, and I see it on a daily basis in all birding activities, including along the shore. I'm therefore very familiar with the local sub-species.

Today, I've heard a unusual call, short, more "abrupt" than Paddyfield Pipit, that I didn't identified at first. The bird was flying from above the see and stopped in front of me, but too far hence the heavily cropped photo.

The bird was "too" thin, like migrants in Middle East after desert crossing when they lost weight and energy reserves and urgently need to feed themselves. This was giving a different shape than normal Paddyfield. However, bill was also very thin and long, tail looked also very long, and back looked much darker and plainer than regular Paddyfield Pipit (taking in account the backlit).

The bird didn't stay and behave like going on migrating. The behaviour is strange enough, AFAIK, Paddyfield Pipit is sedentary here.

I'm not saying this is another species or a rare vagrant. I'm trying to understand, can it be another sub-species of Paddyfield from abroad? Can it be another species I didn't think about? Can we have a local Paddyfield with unusual colour, shape and call, moving from an island to another?

Thanks for any comment about that!
 

Attachments

  • anthussp.JPG
    anthussp.JPG
    934 KB · Views: 163
Could it be a Richard's Pipit? I cannot recall the status on the Philippines.

cheers, alan

Thanks Alan! That is an option indeed, the call might match as far I recall! Isn't the beak too thin? Just wondering.

It is an extreme vagrant with a handful of records, none on Leyte (but that means nothing, there's virtually no regular birdwatcher here - I know one only). This is the only other large pipit listed in the Philippines.
 
How about the face pattern?
Paddyfield is very common in the Philippines
Richard's is probably very rare

Yes Desmond, I said that above indeed.

Paddyfield Pipit is abundant around my house in Ormoc
It is an extreme vagrant with a handful of records, none on Leyte

How about the face pattern?

Much white on face with this black line on lores is typical 1st winter pattern as far as I can see online, what confirmed the slightly streaked flanks, another detail in favour of Richard's P. against P. P.
 
How about the face pattern?
Paddyfield is very common in the Philippines
Richard's is probably very rare

I too was worried about the face pattern... should the lores be paler for Richard’s Pipit? Martin Garner’s Winter challenge series book has a Richard’s Pipit picture for February with a strong malar stripe masking the lores... similar to this bird.

Ian
 
I can see how some features on the photo (eg plain mantle) suggest Richard's Pipit. But for me this bird doesn't look quite right for Richard's Pipit either - as mentioned above it's very slim with a very strong head pattern, the mantle looks even plainer than Richard's and the flanks look quite dark. I think a lot of this is affected by the strong backlighting, making it difficult to judge plumage accurately from the photo.

Call is useful for separating Richard's and Paddyfield. The call is described as "a unusual call, short, more "abrupt" than Paddyfield Pipit". The typical call of Paddyfield should sound shorter than Richard's ('chep' compared to 'schreep'). So the description doesn't seem quite right for Richard's.

Given that Richard's is described above as being very rare in the Philippines, I'd be reluctant to say this is one based on this evidence. It may be one, but personally I'd say it's perhaps best left as unconfirmed.
 
I can see how some features on the photo (eg plain mantle) suggest Richard's Pipit. But for me this bird doesn't look quite right for Richard's Pipit either - as mentioned above it's very slim with a very strong head pattern, the mantle looks even plainer than Richard's and the flanks look quite dark. I think a lot of this is affected by the strong backlighting, making it difficult to judge plumage accurately from the photo.

Call is useful for separating Richard's and Paddyfield. The call is described as "a unusual call, short, more "abrupt" than Paddyfield Pipit". The typical call of Paddyfield should sound shorter than Richard's ('chep' compared to 'schreep'). So the description doesn't seem quite right for Richard's.

Given that Richard's is described above as being very rare in the Philippines, I'd be reluctant to say this is one based on this evidence. It may be one, but personally I'd say it's perhaps best left as unconfirmed.

I'm familiar with some calls of Richard's Pipit and this is one of the reason for which I didn't identify as such directly: calls were not matching. However, now I browsed Xeno-Canto at Anthus richardi and I heard identical calls to my birds. I posted here NOT thinking it would be ended with something else than wierd Paddyfield Pipit, now I'm totally convinced this is a Richard's Pipit indeed. 3:)

Other birders commented privately that is an "obvious" Richard's Pipit.
 
Hi Valéry,
this is a Paddyfield Pipit, not a Richard's.
The left hindclaw of the bird is visible (encircled in attachment here); it is shorter than the rear toe and is clearly curved.
I have brightened your picture and even then a thin but well-defined dark loral stripe is visible, being most prominent just in front of the eye, as is typical of Paddyfield. It is just as prominent as the dark moustachial stripe, so not a photographic effect.
On the other hand, the dark malar stripe is very thin, broken, and does not end in a solid dark malar patch, unlike Richard's. The red arrow in attachment indicates the general area where one would expect the dark malar patch of a Richard's.
The bill of this bird is extremely thin for a Richard's (even for the form 'sinensis'), the mantle looks too plain and the tail a bit short (Richard's has longer tail than Paddyfield).
 

Attachments

  • anthussp_Philippines.JPG
    anthussp_Philippines.JPG
    158.3 KB · Views: 87
Hi Valéry,
this is a Paddyfield Pipit, not a Richard's.
The left hindclaw of the bird is visible (encircled in attachment here); it is shorter than the rear toe and is clearly curved.
I have brightened your picture and even then a thin but well-defined dark loral stripe is visible, being most prominent just in front of the eye, as is typical of Paddyfield. It is just as prominent as the dark moustachial stripe, so not a photographic effect.
On the other hand, the dark malar stripe is very thin, broken, and does not end in a solid dark malar patch, unlike Richard's. The red arrow in attachment indicates the general area where one would expect the dark malar patch of a Richard's.
The bill of this bird is extremely thin for a Richard's (even for the form 'sinensis'), the mantle looks too plain and the tail a bit short (Richard's has longer tail than Paddyfield).

Nice analysis, thanks! For the black lores, there's some 1st winter Richard's having that. For the rest, I think it is quite convincing but I remain with my original questions - when I didn't even considered Richard's. This bird is, as explained, quite different of local Paddyfield; in addition, the call was different and since other's suggested Richard's I browsed xeno-canto and found similar calls in Richard's. Any idea of explanation?

I'm not saying this is another species or a rare vagrant. I'm trying to understand, can it be another sub-species of Paddyfield from abroad? Can it be another species I didn't think about? Can we have a local Paddyfield with unusual colour, shape and call, moving from an island to another?
 
Last edited:
I learned from living in England that pipits don't always make traditional calls. I've heard some odd flight calls from meadow pipits, and on close examination, they were just mipit after all. Similar case with rock pipit, although they are usually quite consistent.
 
When confronted with something unusual in the field, it is easy to try and rationalize it into a different species, especially later, at home!
In any case, the presence of a well-defined dark loral stripe makes it difficult to claim this bird as a Richard's Pipit.
Given that we would be dealing with a rarity here, the question is not "could this be a Richard's Pipit" but rather "can someone prove that this is a Richard's Pipit". Without more photographs or a sound recording I fear that this is an impossible task. The single photograph suggests Paddyfield Pipit, and the call you describe as shorter than Paddyfield - yet the typical call of Richard's is far more drawn-out. I would be interested in a link to the specific calls on Xeno-Canto that you refer to.
 
When confronted with something unusual in the field, it is easy to try and rationalize it into a different species, especially later, at home!
In any case, the presence of a well-defined dark loral stripe makes it difficult to claim this bird as a Richard's Pipit.
Given that we would be dealing with a rarity here, the question is not "could this be a Richard's Pipit" but rather "can someone prove that this is a Richard's Pipit". Without more photographs or a sound recording I fear that this is an impossible task. The single photograph suggests Paddyfield Pipit, and the call you describe as shorter than Paddyfield - yet the typical call of Richard's is far more drawn-out. I would be interested in a link to the specific calls on Xeno-Canto that you refer to.

I hope you understand the idea of Richard's Pipit is not coming from me, I'm very sure this is not a regular Paddyfield, and it was in the move so "it is easy to try and rationalize it into a different species" is not at all my case. As said in first post, trying to understand. Some members convinced me later on it was Richard's, now back to Anthus sp.

So, the call was like this; not the regular Richard's (with which I'm familiar), but exactly this.
https://www.xeno-canto.org/335836

Now, you say the bill is to thin for Richard's and I AGREE, it is one of the reason for which I didn't consider Richard's... but it is much longer and thinner than all Paddyfield Pipits I see here, and I see them a lot. This is a major problem. I joined a photo of a regular Paddyfield and I added the beak of our bird to compare; another photo (but very similar) of the same bird may be showing better the slightly streaked flanks (as far as I recall, never I saw that on Paddyfield).


To summarized, this bird was not ID as Richard's in the field but very unusual for Paddyfield P. because
- Obviously moving (he disappeared above the sea towards Bohol)
- Darker and plainer back than usual P. P.
- Very different call (not the usual call of Richard's -that I know well- neither)
- Much longer and thinner bill
- Different shape, as explained above, such an exhausted long-distance migrant (I think it is visible on the photos)
 

Attachments

  • Anthus_sp2.JPG
    Anthus_sp2.JPG
    785.7 KB · Views: 25
  • anthussp3.JPG
    anthussp3.JPG
    167.5 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:


Thanks for the links (cannot open them all though, I got a limited internet in the Philippines). Most are not A. r. lugubris from the Philippines though. One option is that my bird is actually belonging to another P. P. subspecies that is vagrant/migrant here.

Thus the mystery is still total. EVEN if it can be proven the bird is a Paddyfield, why so different from HUNDREDS of others I see all the time here? Why coming from the sea, stop and travel again? I think you are experienced, when you are in your local patch and see something dramatically different in all behaviour, call and plumage, you know there must be an explanation...
 
Last edited:
Thus the mystery is still total. EVEN if it can be proven the bird is a Paddyfield, why so different from HUNDREDS of others I see all the time here? .

Smiths analysis is spot-on, and little I can add to it. What I would say is, it's not for an observer to prove the bird being a Paddyfield Pipit, that is the default, common species, it is to prove that the bird is not a Paddyfield Pipit.

James
 
Smiths analysis is spot-on, and little I can add to it. What I would say is, it's not for an observer to prove the bird being a Paddyfield Pipit, that is the default, common species, it is to prove that the bird is not a Paddyfield Pipit.

James

Well, let's make it simple, I came here saying: this bird is probably a Paddyfield Pipit BUT please help me to find out why different colour (mainly darker, backlit taken in account), different shape, very different call and migrating behaviour?

Replying "it is a Paddyfield" is just not replying the question; I know this is identification forum, but identification is not only a name of a species, it is much richer.
 
Well, let's make it simple, I came here saying: this bird is probably a Paddyfield Pipit BUT please help me to find out why different colour (mainly darker, backlit taken in account), different shape, very different call and migrating behaviour?

Replying "it is a Paddyfield" is just not replying the question; I know this is identification forum, but identification is not only a name of a species, it is much richer.

I totally agree, Valéry, and I make a particular point of making sure I go through the ID features with each of my answers - there is nothing worse than just stating the birds name without helping and educating the requester. On this though, I felt I didn't need to, as Smiths outlined the reasons beautifully, and correct (as I mentioned), so no need for me to copy-and-paste. I'm just trying to help but turning the question around, which I find is a regular problem with people trying to identify species, when reaching for a rarer species without positively excluding the more likely species initially. It's all in good faith,

James
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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