-
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.
4 british birds (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peter 255
- Start date
dan pointon
Can't Stop
J Moss said:
Jane mentions many of the important points in an above post. In addition to plumage features this the bird has the general build of a sylvia warbler, and is in typical habitat, and to me appears to be behaving as Whitethroats and other sylvias do, flicking about through the vegetation. Nightingales are much more skulking, retiring birds, and as I think was mentioned before wouldn't give themselves up so easily, indeed even when singing they're still a nightmare to clap eyes on! Compare the bird in the shot with this bird ringed at Portland earlier in the year http://www.btinternet.com/~portlandbirdobs/latest_aug2006.htm
Go to August 22nd to see the bird, and you'll see the much dirtier, greyer breast, generally dark russety colour, and the extra rufous tones on the tail region. You can also see the 'plumpness' of this bird, in comparison the slimmer Whitethroat in the pic for ID.
Agreed the pic isn't the best quality and as a result detailed ID isn't possible, but compare with other pics of Nightingale and you should be able to see the difference.
Cheers
D
dan pointon
Can't Stop
J Moss said:
You could well have a good point here; that was the reason for my uncertainty in the previous post, anyone else got any views on this?
Dunno mate, still far from convinced. I think the bird appers as it is due to the bright sunlight, in favour of Nightingale, IMO. Also, there aren't any plumage features on this bird, especially regarding wing markings, that favour Whitethroat above Nightingale.
Also, you cant ID a bird based on habitat. Nightingales aren't completely restricted to dence hedgerows, and there is more than likely to be more suitable habitat nearby. Its just getting some sun, or something!
You cant really judge behaviour from one still image either. For all we know, this bird may have just popped up from foraging in the undergrowth for worms, etc. The errect tail is very much in favour of Nightingale as well.
Size/plumpness is difficult to judge at this angle also.
Sorry to disagree with you mate, but its gotta be done!
Jason
Also, you cant ID a bird based on habitat. Nightingales aren't completely restricted to dence hedgerows, and there is more than likely to be more suitable habitat nearby. Its just getting some sun, or something!
You cant really judge behaviour from one still image either. For all we know, this bird may have just popped up from foraging in the undergrowth for worms, etc. The errect tail is very much in favour of Nightingale as well.
Size/plumpness is difficult to judge at this angle also.
Sorry to disagree with you mate, but its gotta be done!
Jason
dan pointon said:
Rob Smallwood
Well-known member
J Moss said:
Jason,
I think Jane has done a pretty good job of making the case for Whitethroat, and whilst I totally agee that you can't use the habitat as a clincher, you equally can't use the posture in one shot either.
I can see why a case could be made for Nightingale, especially as the picture superficially fits the pictures in some guides, but I have to say that it looks like no Nightingale I have ever seen.
Pictures can be deceptive, and I think that is what is happening here - perhaps the poster has another shot of the bird that might help (as might date and location of the photo).
dan pointon
Can't Stop
J Moss said:
Hey J,
Indeed I agree you can't positively ID on habitat or posture from one pic, what I was saying is in terms of plumage Jane has it nailed, and then both habitat and posture are both normal for Whitethrtoat, adding to the case.
http://www.alsirhan.com/images/Whitethroat_sc420.jpg
http://www.summerhillbirdclub.co.uk/images/whitethroat.jpg
http://www.birdguides.com/pictures/default.asp?v=1&f=69732&r=0&st=0
There are links to a few birds similar to the ones in the pic.
Cheers
D
James Thomas
Well-known member
It all just goes to prove how many birds will be called wrongly, my initial thought was nightingale and would probably never have suggested whitethroat as a possibility. But given that the bird is in strong sunlight so all coulours will be paler and looking at that tail (short but significantly angled) I have a question for those able to give a detailed response, why not juv Cetti's?
dan pointon
Can't Stop
The Firecrest said:
That. And, Cetti's is a darker brown colour, where as this bird is quite lightish overall. Also, though i'm not sure about juv Cetti's, ad Cetti's have a much greyer wash to the breast, not the whiter colouration shown here. The tail is fairly long and thin, a pro sylvia feature and against it being a Cetti's. Cetti's show a hint of a supercillium, which this bird shows nothing of, in fact being quite plain around the eye.
Cheers
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've only got a field guide to go by (dont have one of each sat on my shoulders to compare!) and I cant see anything that sais Whitethroat , to me anyway. I'm not the most experienced person when it comes to Nightingales (never seen one) or Whitethroats, so experience must be what you guys have in you favour. Cant argue with that. Still, could someone explain why my points in post 37 aren't valid.
Sorry to be a pain
Jason
Sorry to be a pain
Jason
deborah4
Well-known member
Hi Jason
I think all your points are very valid. Not sure how much it boils down to 'experience' when Iding from difficult photos - people more experienced than I am have been caught before! Think Colin summed it up really, we all have different monitors, different perspectives on how to interpret what we are looking at on the screen. As for seeing Nightingale in 'open' spaces, Ive seen them on top of bushes (and in gorse scrubland) very visible. When it comes to unclear pictures, personally don't think you can ID conclusively on location or on 'jizz' of body posture from a still photo, angles of camera, distortion with depth of field that photography produces (ie. size, distance) can be strong influencing factors in what we have as a still image. Ive certainly never seen a female Whitethroat with these colours in the field or indeed with a body shape like this, with an apparently small head, gently sloping crown, compared to the rest of it's body. The female Whitethroats Ive seen have always appeared same structure as males and a lot darker on the mantle and forehead, with secondaries, covert and primaries richer in red tones (not just darker) than anywhere else on the plumage. Also tails have appeared same colour as crown/mantle (not redder than secs) and longer in proportion to body size so there you go! Funnily enough, my first instinctive reaction was Cetti's but quickly ruled it out on Tail length and location too.
The jury's out for me on this one, whatever anyone else makes of the photo.
I think all your points are very valid. Not sure how much it boils down to 'experience' when Iding from difficult photos - people more experienced than I am have been caught before! Think Colin summed it up really, we all have different monitors, different perspectives on how to interpret what we are looking at on the screen. As for seeing Nightingale in 'open' spaces, Ive seen them on top of bushes (and in gorse scrubland) very visible. When it comes to unclear pictures, personally don't think you can ID conclusively on location or on 'jizz' of body posture from a still photo, angles of camera, distortion with depth of field that photography produces (ie. size, distance) can be strong influencing factors in what we have as a still image. Ive certainly never seen a female Whitethroat with these colours in the field or indeed with a body shape like this, with an apparently small head, gently sloping crown, compared to the rest of it's body. The female Whitethroats Ive seen have always appeared same structure as males and a lot darker on the mantle and forehead, with secondaries, covert and primaries richer in red tones (not just darker) than anywhere else on the plumage. Also tails have appeared same colour as crown/mantle (not redder than secs) and longer in proportion to body size so there you go! Funnily enough, my first instinctive reaction was Cetti's but quickly ruled it out on Tail length and location too.
The jury's out for me on this one, whatever anyone else makes of the photo.
Attachments
deborah4
Well-known member
eagle33 said:
nb. distinction between 'habitat' and 'location' (at least my interpretation!) - location in this context, I'm refering to on top of ferns apparently (dunno if it's near water) and very obliging. Cettis Ive seen have also been skulkers (as generally are Nightingales) and Ive only seen them in reeds low/or on the ground rustling around in vegetation. So, tongue in cheek (funnily enough) ruled it out on same basis Nightingale was partially ruled out. Also think the super would be visible and tail, even with foreshortening/depth of field distortion, would appear more fanned and larger, and the bird would appear more buff/darker on belly. But as I say, just dunno at all from this photo what the bird is conclusively.
Tim100 said:
Gashead said:And edit largest for second largest. 3
Ha ha! Point taken. That said I answered the rest fairly well.
No. 2 - "Unsure" seems quite good at the moment ;-)
No 3- I was hinting at Whitethroat or garden warbler (wasn't sure on the levels of white on the throat in juveniles)
No 4 - I played it safe
Tim
Similar threads
