Crossbills in Scotland (1 Viewer)

Capercaillie71 · Feb 18, 2007

Any crossbill experts out there care to pass an opinion on these photos? They were taken in Deeside, Scotland. I was recording sound too, but, although this bird sang for a short while, it refused to make any flight or excitement calls that would have been diagnostic. I did record some flight calls and excitement calls of birds close by but they were quite faint/noisy and I haven't been able to produce a good sonogram.

I recorded some Common Crossbills of the 'Parakeet / X' type a couple of miles from where this bird was in December, so I suspect that's what this may be, but this bird was in a much more Scots Pine dominated plantation.

StuartReeves · Feb 18, 2007

As there don't seem to be any crossbill experts around right now, I'll chip in. My reaction was that this bird is a Scottie. In the third photo the bill looks relatively large, but not massive enough to be an obvious Parrot. It looks smaller-billed in teh first two photos (assuming that's the same bird as in the third), but still gives a Scottie impression to me.

Stuart

Jane Turner · Feb 18, 2007

I think that it is probably not a Parrot...

Is that equivocal enough?

Youngbirder18 · Feb 18, 2007

Bill looks a bit slim for Scot's

eagle33 · Feb 18, 2007

I would go with Common Crossbill, the head looks too small for parrot also the bill looks good for Common, IMHO. Dosn't look mean enough for parrot.

David Norgate · Feb 18, 2007

Again as a completely non-expert in crossbills (I await their comments) my immediate thought was common crossbill, with the bill within the expected range of birds i see in norfolk. The overall colouration is slightly deeper than I would expect and the third photo does seen to show a more stocky bill, dasically parallel at the base, suggesting Scottish - but I would not have thought Parrot.

Capercaillie71 · Feb 18, 2007

The first set of photos are all of the same bird. Although the bill looks quite big in the last one, it seems smaller in the others. There was also a red male in the same tree (although less photogenic), and he seemed to have quite a small bill. Common is probably the most common species in the area where the photo was taken, although Scottish also occur. The nearest Parrots are 10-15km to the west

griffin · Feb 18, 2007

Hi Paul,

Nice photos !

Both birds are Common Crossbills. The first looks like a 'golden cock' - there are a lot of them about on Deeside just now. It is also a first winter bird eg. born last Summer/Autumn based on faint fringes on GC's (and the fact it is golden). The red male's culmen is not downcurved enough for scottish. Scots pine cones are now opening in places so curvirostra could be present though I would expect them to still be feeding in larches and sitka.

Lindsay

deborah4 · Feb 18, 2007

I find this very interesting! Are people here now suggesting that sub-species can be determined on factors other than call? (In reference to an earlier thread where I was looking for those with experience in the field to offer any 'jizz' observations to help determine type and was met with a blanket of 'silence' or at least overt scepticism on the matter in relation to a sighting where Scotts were known to feed and where Parrot had been ruled out?!)

Capercaillie71 · Feb 19, 2007

Thanks everyone - Common Crossbill it is then, although which 'call-type' will have to remain a mystery. I'll find a Scottish Crossbill in my local woods one of these days!

A 'golden cock'!? Did you coin that phrase yourself, Lindsay, or is it in common usage? The colouring didn't seem quite right for a female and I did wonder if it was a young male bird when I saw it - particularly when it started to sing (although maybe females sing too?). The fact that it was going about with a red male (and I saw them both in the same place two days in a row) made them look superficially like a pair though.

Deborah, I don't think that anything is simple with crossbills!! As I understand it, it should be possible to identify a small-billed Common or a large-billed Parrot by sight, based on bill-size, if you have enough experience (and the red male I photographed does look to have quite a lightweight bill). Anything within the bill size range of Scottish is probably too difficult to call where all three species occur (due to bill-size overlap), and that is why sonogram evidence is preferred.

I thought the first bird (the 'golden cock') was probably a Common, but possibly Scottish (based on the third photo) and I posted these photos not really expecting a definitive answer but more to gauge opinion, as I though it might be impossible to be definitive without a sonogram. However, Griffin is sure of his ID and has far more experience of crossbills than me (or indeed probably all of us). It is also probably easier to make a leisurely assessment of bill size from a photograph than in the field, when the bird is moving about.

deborah4 · Feb 19, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
As I understand it, it should be possible to identify a small-billed Common or a large-billed Parrot by sight, based on bill-size, if you have enough experience (and the red male I photographed does look to have quite a lightweight bill).

I think it's entirely possible with both these examples you give being at extreme end of range and Parrot can be feasibly be ruled out as can 'smaller' range of Common. However, what's problematic is identifying Scottish Crossbill as distinct from either, as it falls within these two extremes and apparently overlaps with both small Parrot and large Common in terms of bill size.

Jane seems to have it spot on, in this respect, the closest being to rule out Parrot.

Still, it's interesting that some feel sure enough, without sonagramic evidence to call 'Scottish' (or even rule it out in preference to Common) on the basis of still photos. Which seems to suggest that some people believe bill size (with location) can be a diagnostic features in absence of call, enough for them at least to rule out Scottish over Common, or vice versa. It's this I find very interesting, especially as the most definitive answer is from someone very experienced with both ssp. - perhaps only certain people can spot the difference, but the point is 'difference' does apparently exist in structure, and with good scoped and prolonged views, a feeling for the jizz of bill size, head shape, behaviour, might be enough to clinch it to the satisfaction of the individiual observer. (still probably wouldn't be accepted as official record with out call ID though, which I can understand - a lot might depend on whether you feel still photos are more reliable than powerful scoped views in the field with 'live' birds)

Steven Astley · Feb 19, 2007

Still photos are more reliable than scoped views and dead birds are better (just for id purposes obviously) than live birds as you can pick it up and get protractor out and do other biometrics, IMHO.
Agree its not a Parrot, looks like a Common to me from bill size, I wouldn't know and don't care as don't live in Scotland and don't own sonogram machine or own a ringers license.

griffin · Feb 19, 2007

deborah4 said:
I find this very interesting! Are people here now suggesting that sub-species can be determined on factors other than call? (In reference to an earlier thread where I was looking for those with experience in the field to offer any 'jizz' observations to help determine type and was met with a blanket of 'silence' or at least overt scepticism on the matter in relation to a sighting where Scotts were known to feed and where Parrot had been ruled out?!)

Eh ? What "sub-species".

As presumably one of "them" and "people" referred to let me clarify.

For the record I study crossbills several times a week (for over 4 years now), have seen them in the hand, have bill profile shots of bill depths in the hand (of known species), and can tell their calls apart. There were several factors that led me to my conclusion. If you have have seen as many Scottish Crossbills as I have you would know those birds in the photos are not this species. I have supplied criteria for field ID of crossbills on Birdforum which you obviously did not read so no need to be glib.

Please don't be cynical about those of us who actually know what the hell we are talking about !

Lindsay

griffin · Feb 19, 2007

Capercaillie71 said:
A 'golden cock'!? Did you coin that phrase yourself, Lindsay, or is it in common usage?

No afraid not Paul, first heard Rab Rae (Skitts) use that one !

Linz

griffin · Feb 19, 2007

Steven Astley said:
dead birds are better (just for id purposes obviously) than live birds as you can pick it up and get protractor out and do other biometrics, IMHO.

We do that with "live" ones too, then we let em go !

Linz

deborah4 · Feb 19, 2007

griffin said:
Eh ? What "sub-species".

As presumably one of "them" and "people" referred to let me clarify.

For the record I study crossbills several times a week (for over 4 years now), have seen them in the hand, have bill profile shots of bill depths in the hand (of known species), and can tell their calls apart. There were several factors that led me to my conclusion. If you have have seen as many Scottish Crossbills as I have you would know those birds in the photos are not this species. I have supplied criteria for field ID of crossbills on Birdforum which you obviously did not read so no need to be glib.

Please don't be cynical about those of us who actually know what the hell we are talking about !

Lindsay

eh? What on earth are you attacking me for?? Was there anything in my post to suggest you didn't know what you were talking about? I think you totally misunderstood where I was coming from. I'm not being 'glib' nor am I being 'cynical'. If you read my last post carefully, instead of jumping to conclusions, I was actually expressing an interest in how you are able to ID Scotts from bill size etc without call ID - it was this enquiry that was the subject of my previous thread, where the concensus seemed to be that it wasn't possible. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post some photos of Scottish Crossbill, I'd like to see a comparison.

oh and just in case you misunderstood what I meant by 'I find this interesting' what I meant was I find it interesting.

griffin · Feb 19, 2007

deborah4 said:
eh? What on earth are you attacking me for?? Was there anything in my post to suggest you didn't know what you were talking about? I think you totally misunderstood where I was coming from. I'm not being 'glib' nor am I being 'cynical'. If you read my last post carefully, instead of jumping to conclusions, I was actually expressing an interest in how you are able to ID Scotts from bill size etc without call ID - it was this enquiry that was the subject of my previous thread, where the concensus seemed to be that it wasn't possible. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post some photos of Scottish Crossbill, I'd like to see a comparison.

oh and just in case you misunderstood what I meant by 'I find this interesting' what I meant was I find it interesting.

Whatever 8-P

griffin · Feb 19, 2007

deborah4 said:
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post some photos of Scottish Crossbill, I'd like to see a comparison.

Already have, on the thread I was talking about - RESEARCH.

deborah4 · Feb 19, 2007

griffin said:
Already have, on the thread I was talking about - RESEARCH.

I didn't read the other thread: you obviously didn't read mine either a few months back when I was trying to track down 'research' into how crossbill species can be separated on features other than call.

I do believe some people, who have worked closely in the field with Scotia, have claimed to notice subtle jizz differences, unfortunately, much of the work produced from field studies by these people is only available in it's full text by registering for the periodicals and paying for the article. I believe there has been some interesting articles in IBIS but I don't subsribe to it! ... Certainly, it's from the perspective of a birder, that I'm interested in more details regarding the jizz claims from those working in the field, as I think we all would be with any species (subs) of birds)

I was advised by several people to approach you for the information, I'm glad I didn't bother to be honest. I'll rest in my ignorance.

Cheers

griffin · Feb 19, 2007

deborah4 said:
I didn't read the other thread: you obviously didn't read mine either a few months back when I was trying to track down 'research' into how crossbill species can be separated on features other than call.

I do believe some people, who have worked closely in the field with Scotia, have claimed to notice subtle jizz differences, unfortunately, much of the work produced from field studies by these people is only available in it's full text by registering for the periodicals and paying for the article. I believe there has been some interesting articles in IBIS but I don't subsribe to it! ... Certainly, it's from the perspective of a birder, that I'm interested in more details regarding the jizz claims from those working in the field, as I think we all would be with any species (subs) of birds)

I was advised by several people to approach you for the information, I'm glad I didn't bother to be honest. I'll rest in my ignorance.

Cheers

Having just read your replies and comments on your thread here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=73375&highlight=Scottish+Crossbill

I am truly glad I missed it and wouldn't have replied to you if you contacted me with an attitude like that. BTW the onus is not on me to answer your threads when you are the one with questions - how ridiculous ! I browse Birdforum sporadically when I can.

BTW FYI Scottish Crossbill is 'scotica' not 'scotia' and the scientific name for crossbill is 'Loxia 'not 'Laxia' but then you are after all confident with your ID !

Enjoy your ignorance - bliss ! :-O

Crossbills in Scotland (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Local rarity

Well-known member

Well-known member

Craig Shaw

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread