• 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.

Report images in the Gallery with the wrong scientific name (1 Viewer)

A rich vein of mislabelled and misidentified photos under Phoenicurus phoenicurus . . .

These are all Phoenicurus ochruros (all labelled correctly in English, but with the wrong sci name):
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=480412
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=480411
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=479461
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=468207
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=433135
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=180503

Phoenicurus ochruros again, but misidentified rather than mislabelled:
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=195869
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=102459
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101568
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=74059

Luscinia sp., probably Luscinia megarhynchos, misidentified:
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=139754
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=139753
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=139750

These (I think) are Phoenicurus ochruros rufiventris from Xinjiang, China (misidentification):
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=376686
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=376690
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=376689

And two Dunnocks Prunella modularis (misidentification):
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=379671
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=379391

Oh, dear, Podiceps cristatus! Wonder what happened here!!
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=414783
 
I took care of the last one. I do not have the time to go into the others at this point.

Niels
 
Changed to Monticola solitarius which is what blue rock thrush is in Opus

Niels
Arrgh! Yes, of course I meant solitarius . . . a bad typo, thanks for spotting that! ;)
My immediate impression was the same, but then I remembered that some Red Crossbill have white wing bars, even if they are less strong than on White-winged. So: are you absolutely sure?

Niels
Yes; these are broad, solid white with a clearly defined edge, and likewise on the tertials; in wingbarred Red Crossbills, the wingbars are narrow, and ill-defined, merging into the red/green of the rest of the plumage, and usually absent from the tertials.

PS still those Dunnocks and the Chinese rufiventris Black Redstart pics to do from before! :t:
 
Last edited:
Thanks!

This pic is correctly identified as Glaucous Gull, but has Larus glaucoides [Iceland Gull] for the sci name; needs changing to Larus hyperboreus.

This Thayer's pic is correctly listed, but the sentence at the top
I don't see Thayer's Gull listed in the database - I assume it is lumped with Iceland Gull, Larus glaucoides in the scheme used here.
is superfluous, and causes it to index under L. glaucoides as well, where it shouldn't be.
 
Last edited:
For the first one, what is the second bird?

For the second one, you are sure? I thought that Thayer's would be more in-between in the wing tip?

Niels
 
Sorry, somehow missed this . .
For the first one, what is the second bird?
Herring Gull, ssp. L. a. argentatus, probably 3rd winter.
For the second one, you are sure? I thought that Thayer's would be more in-between in the wing tip?
No reason to doubt it; I wasn't questioning the ident., just the superfluous comment at the top which must have been added before the Gallery had a separate listing for Thayer's (or had it listed then as a subspecies of Iceland, which it was in the past).
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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