• 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.

Scottish Crossbill (1 Viewer)

pduxon

Quacked up Member
Whenever I read guides telling me how to differentiate Scottish from Common I keep thinking I wouldn't have a clue.

Stephen Moss describes Scottish "taxonomically dubious"

Do you reckon you could separate the two with any confidence other than the birds in normal Scottish range?
 
The last time I was up in Speyside and was confronted with a flock of Crossbills I decided on a resounding 'No' in answer to this question.
 
Yes and no! Probably in the hand (licence required), measurements of the bill would confirm some to be Parrot, some to be Common and some not to be determined. This is only a guess but a ringer in the forum could confirm or discount my thoughts.
 
The majority of Crossbills seen in Speyside are Common, followed by Parrot. A small percentage of birds exist whose bill measurements don't fit exactly into either category but this is indeterminable in the field. As for calls, both Common and Parrot are extremely variable depending if in flight or perched. I would have thought that song was a much better indicator as it is in most species, but have yet to find any work which has been done on that.

JP
 
Michael Frankis said:
If I had a decent sound-recording and analysing setup, Yes.

Otherwise, No.

Michael

Should of course clarify this - if a bird gives a 'Type C' call (as per Brit. Birds 96: 100-111), then it is a Scottish Crossbill.

That is, if Hartert's museum specimen which defines Scottish Crossbill also gave a 'Type C' call when it was alive.

Which of course, no-one can ever know . . . . maybe it didn't . . . so in that sense, Scottish Crossbill cannot be identified, ever (other than one skin in a museum) . . .

Michael
 
Michael Frankis said:

That is, if Hartert's museum specimen which defines Scottish Crossbill also gave a 'Type C' call when it was alive.

Michael

Spot on. Were the bird(s) giving this "type c" call correctly identified (in the field?????)in the first place. Catch 22!
 
Why is the Scottish Crossbill considered a different species? Only because of a somewhat different call, a somewhat isolated existence, and a small difference in bill size with overlap with the Common?

I heard that quite a few Commons visit the Scottish's area and that nobody can distinguish between the two. Aren't they interbreeding? Or can nobody verify that because they can't be separated?

As a non-ornithologist I would then ask if there is not more reason to split the Pied and the White Wagtail instead of those Crossbills?

Or is it important to have an endemic species in Scotland? ;)

OK, start throwing the stones!

Peter
 
Fulmar said:
Or is it important to have an endemic species in Scotland? ;)

Basically, yes.

The need is to finance protection for the native Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) forest habitat in Scotland (including ALL the species in it), which has lost something like 95% of its original area from before human forest clearance.

But EU grants are based around individual named endangered species, not habitats, and the more interesting the species, the more likely it is to get funding (politicians being what they are!).

So there was a definite need for a 'flagship species' to base pine forest conservation around.

Which one? -
Capercaillie? - what, a re-introduced species, that is also common in two other EU countries? - No, sorry.
Red Grouse? - Endemic, yes, but not a pine forest species. No, won't work.

Aha - invent a crossbill!
That does the job just nicely.

Trouble is, it has now been found that the majority of the crossbills in the native pinewoods are actually Parrots - a species that's common in two other EU countries and not deserving of special funding

And even worse, Scottish Crossbills (or at least, 'Type C' call crossbills, which are 'officially' identified with Scottish) are proving to be most numerous in plantations of exotic conifers — and worst of all, in the environmentally disastrous Lodgepole Pine plantations on the Sutherland Flow Country (the ones which the RSPB is desparate to get rid of, to conserve the very important wader breeding habitat) . . .

Michael
 
Of course the official UK ornithological bodies will strenuously deny all of the above . . . because if they don't, the funding might get stopped . . .

Sad thing is, the funding is desparately needed. Just wish they could get funding for the real 'flagship species' (Pinus sylvestris), and for the whole habitat.

Michael
 
So .... is there actually any scientific difference between the 2 species ?

A slightly different bill, sounds a bit different & lives in a different tree to the other one ... is that it ?
 
I am sure I have seen it argued in some research on crossbills that all 4 (common, scottish, parrot and two-barred) could all be regarded as one species.
 
To answer Pete. No. I have seen Crossbills in Scotland in varying habitats but there is no way I can be sure of the ID in the field. Only 3 crossbills on my list.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 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