• 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.

unidentified lbj from Hamden, CT 2/15/06 (1 Viewer)

Craig Houghton

Artist, Illustrator, and Beginning Birder
Hi all. Forgive me for asking about what is probably an easy identification for all you veterans, but I'm just not able to pin this.

I saw this bird today by the Mill River in Hamden Connecticut. The area has thickets and fairly open decidious wood with lower swampy areas bordering the Mill River.

The bird appeared to be about sparrow-sized. I apologize for the pictures all sharing more or less the same angle. He flew off as I tried to carefully make my way around to the front. I have some guesses, but without some obvious field markings or other give-aways, I'm struggling.

Thanks for looking!

Craig
 

Attachments

  • DSC01978.JPG
    DSC01978.JPG
    54.3 KB · Views: 219
  • DSC01979.JPG
    DSC01979.JPG
    60 KB · Views: 215
  • DSC01981.JPG
    DSC01981.JPG
    53.2 KB · Views: 229
  • DSC01982.JPG
    DSC01982.JPG
    42.6 KB · Views: 183
  • DSC01983.JPG
    DSC01983.JPG
    41.2 KB · Views: 253
Hi Craig,

It's a Hermit Thrush. It's the only catharus thrush you'll find in CT at this time of year. Nice pics as well. Hermit thrush are easily identified by their distinctly rufous tail and a good clue to ID is their habit of cocking and slowly lowering their tail when disturbed.

Luke
 
Hermit Thrush - tick it now while its easy (the only brown and white thrush to be seen at this time of year where you live).

Main identification points:
It's a thrush
It's February and you saw it in New England
Rufous tail
It's February and you saw it in New England
Complete white eyering
It's February and you saw it in New England
 
Haha, Terry's hit the nail on the head. If you live in New England in the winter and see what looks like a very brownish American Robin (say you don't get to see the belly, which is spotted unlike (adult) robins), it's a Hermit Thrush.
 
While I agree that this is a Hermit Thrush and it was seen in New England in the winter, you really shouldn't rule out all other thrushes immediately. Let the field marks tell you what you're looking at. This winter has been quite mild and birds that normally aren't seen until spring have been turning up (ie: Swainson's Thrush in western NY).
 
Defnitly a Hermit Thrush. As for the Swainson's Thrush in western NY, I will completely not believe that unless I see some photos. Even in "early" years Swainson's Thrushes do not show up until around April 20th at the earliest. I think there are only two winter records of Swainson's Thrush in NA in winter, and both of those are in the south.
 
Brown Creeper said:
Defnitly a Hermit Thrush. As for the Swainson's Thrush in western NY, I will completely not believe that unless I see some photos. Even in "early" years Swainson's Thrushes do not show up until around April 20th at the earliest. I think there are only two winter records of Swainson's Thrush in NA in winter, and both of those are in the south.
I can't vouch personally for this Swainson's Thrush since I didn't observe it, but the NY records committee has accepted one Swainson's Thrush in December (1978), so for one to be around in January in a mild winter wouldn't be completely out of the question.
 
I'm with lassa8 on this one -- field marks trump location and date, particularly in this record setting warm winter in North America. After all, aren't the most interesting birds for many birders the ones that shouldn't be there?

The bird is a hermit thrush because of the tail and eye ring, not because it is in New England in winter -- though those point should be taken as appropriately strongly reinforcing the primary ID through field marks.
 
To add my 2 cents on the further discussion. I think personally that it's useful to know that if you are seeing a catharus thrush in winter in the North East 999,999 times out of a 1,000,000 it is going to be a Hermit (so you can quickly check for the appropriate fieldmarks). Of course if there are identification marks that start to lead you towards another ID don't simply ignore them because I said it seems to be the wrong time of year ;)

Sightings in CT of any of the other catharus thrushes after the 3rd week of October or before the 3rd week of April are rare (although I did have a Swainson’s in early November this year). There are no winter records in recent years for any other over-wintering catharus thrushes here in CT (an excellent resource for CT birders is the COA Connecticut Warbler special issue 'Birds by the Season’)

Not knowing anything about the observer or circumstances of the December Swainson’s Thrush in NY I would add that 'reports' of out of season birds are very much one thing, well documented historical records with evidence or from respected observers are another thing altogether. Also I think there is a little over-hyping of the 'mild winter' we are having - It has been a pretty spectacular January in CT but again the birds that have been seen are just greater numbers and variety of half hardy species as well as some nice vagrants. Remember the birds we are talking about here disappear from our locality every year well before they get the chance to see how mild the late fall is, let alone how mild the late winter weather will turn out to be.

Luke
 
Last edited:
streatham said:
To add my 2 cents on the further discussion. I think personally that it's useful to know that if you are seeing a catharus thrush in winter in the North East 999,999 times out of a 1,000,000 it is going to be a Hermit

Exactly what I was saying - I don't mean completely ignore field marks - because any given bird on any given day - but keep in mind that it's most likely a Hermit Thrush, and if you're unsure, your first goal should be to rule Hermit out via field marks, not claim it as rare the minute you see one matching field mark to (e.g.) Swainson's Thrush or something.
 
Last edited:
I think others have reiterated the point I was trying to make earlier...I know full well that the chances of finding a Swainson's Thrush in New England in winter are very small, but I'd be a little upset with myself if I dismissed a rare bird as something more common because I didn't really look at the bird itself.
 
lassa8 said:
I think others have reiterated the point I was trying to make earlier...I know full well that the chances of finding a Swainson's Thrush in New England in winter are very small, but I'd be a little upset with myself if I dismissed a rare bird as something more common because I didn't really look at the bird itself.

Good point; it's often too easy to presume an ID, based on geographical likelihood, particularly in such a large and underwatched area.

How many of us really study the apparently common species we see on a regular basis?
 
Grousemore said:
How many of us really study the apparently common species we see on a regular basis?

Hopefully among the people who are studying the common birds quite closely are the beginners. To say that you can assume that any ___ in ____ area in ___ time of year is ____ is teaching the wrong thing, in my opinion. Learning what to see is the goal, not learning what to presume.

The likelihood presumption comes next in the ID process, and yes, it should be a very important part of anyone's analysis, particularly a beginner. But only after the seeing in the field, with eyes and mind wide open. In my opinion, anyway.

I think we all know that mistakes are made in the reporting of rare species by beginners. I find the flip side of that question to be quite interesting however: how many mistakes are made on the other side, on seeing rare species but not recognizing them, because of presumptions based on likelihoods?
 
Thayeri said:
I find the flip side of that question to be quite interesting however: how many mistakes are made on the other side, on seeing rare species but not recognizing them, because of presumptions based on likelihoods?

Exactly the point I was making.
 
I just checked back in on the thread after a couple of days away, and I'm rather glad to see a discussion here (I'm also very, very thankful for the assistance in the identification). This will be my first spring as a birder, and a discussion on whether or not to make certain assumptions, or to look just a bit closer, is particuarly timely. I'm likely to see a great many birds this season for the first time, and I'm probably just as likely to fail to notice certain nuances between similar species. Either way, unless I have a clear photograph, I have noticed a personal, and probably common, tendency to assume that between two species, an uncommon and a common, that the one I've found must certainly be the common (for the area/month). I imagine this can be almost as bad of a tendency as assuming it's the uncommon.

I'm delightfully new to birding, and this was my first thrush. Thanks everyone!

-Craig
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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