Mystery bunting - Turkey (1 Viewer)

Would Corn Bunting show such a cleanly marked head pattern? We still get plenty in Lancashire and I can't remember seeing one that had such clear marks and colour contrast as this picture. I know it isn't a great photo but a better picture would only emphasise those features. Plus it looks too cold which may well be a picture issue but I would expect Corn Bunting to look browner

HH75 said:

Hi all,
I am far from as experienced with some of the species that have been mentioned on here so far as some of the contributors...for example, as Corn Bunting is sadly extinct in Ireland, I mainly only see this species when visiting a country within its extant range, and I have only seen a female Pine Bunting once, the co-operative bird at Wilhelminadorf, the Netherlands last winter...but I shall add my five cents worth.
Looking at the original image, which hasn't had the contrast enhanced, or colours changed all that much, and is possibly the closest fit to what the bird may have looked like in life, I would see a few problems for Pine Bunting. Namely, I would expect at least somewhat of a warmer/rusty wash underlying the streaking somewhere on the breast sides, with perhaps some of the streaks themselves being a warmer brown. Some typical birds would have quite an obvious rufous wash underlying the breast and flank feathers, and I'd just not expect such prominent and 'continuous' breast and flank streaking on a Pine Bunting. The bird also seems a bit more streaked than one would expect for a Yellowhammer, and I can't see any yellow tones to the fringes of the remiges, though I concede that erythrogenys could look greyer, as already stated by Murat.
The bill shape, despite the rather 'unfair' comparison shot showing a heavily pixellated crop of the subject bird next to a sharp image of a Corn Bunting, doesn't quite seem right for a Pine Bunting or Yellowhammer to me, but, that said, I'd much prefer to base this 'hunch' on more solid evidence.
The median coverts have obviously white or whitish tips, which is a bit worrying for Pine Bunting or Yellowhammer, but fine for Corn Bunting. Again, I concede that perhaps the poor image quality could be influencing the apparent colour, but it really does seem whitish, and there's also a faint but apparent whitish wingbar former by pale tips to the greater coverts, or seems to be anyway.
I think that the uppertail coverts that are just about visible in this image don't look rufous enough for Pine Bunting or Yellowhammer, but I could be wrong. Also, the nape is usually paler and greyer than this on a female Pine Bunting. The apparent orange tones to the leg colour do remind me of those often seen on Corn Bunting. Finally, and this is just a wild hunch based on a perhaps flawed reading of some poor images, the subject bird doesn't seem to have the typical Emberiza tertial pattern whereby the dark centres narrow abruptly towards the feather tips, producing a 'stepped' effect. Some buntings have more regular dark centres without such a step, Corn Bunting being one of them.
That said, I am more than prepared to listen to a constructive case for this being anything else. As I said, I don't see Corn Buntings very often, but that is what I think this most likely is.
Regards,
Harry

Click to expand...

First I agree with andyadcock on this,

Hi Harry,

I am now very happy cause we are finally discussing the bird, intsead of being canalized to a certain species. And now almost everyone came to the point that the subject bird is not a "Pine Bunting" but the "Corn". Before claimed weak eye ring, spots on the ear plates, whitish edges of the primaries and white tail tips of the tail feathers are already clearly indicated in the Spanish study for Corn Bunting that I've linked. But not for the Yellowhammer. Because the studied Yellowhammers by same persons most probably belong to nominate subspecies.

Since you indicated the observation location of the Corn Bunting, according to my knowledge, Most probably the bird you've observed, is the "clancei" subspecies of the "Miliaria calandra". In this subspecies, as far as I know, the ground color is dark brown, while in the "bturlini" subpecies of "Miliaria calandra" this color is rather grayish. And the streaks on the flanks are weaker on the birds found in Turkey. On the other hand, the Yellowhammer you compared is most probably is E. c. caliginosa (Clancey, 1940) It is the subspecies with the most saturated colors . This subspecies is found in Scotland, Ireland, northern Britain and Whales. What you are saying is absolutely right while we compare these birds. But, here in Turkey, in this season, I think we have to compare the "M. c. bturlini" (Hermann Johansen, 1907) and E.c. erythrogenys (C. L. Brehm, 1855), which are extremely similar in some cases, in certain ages/sexes. My knowledge is based on some English and German studies which are old (at least 15 years back). Although I have a huge collection of photo/video footage of these two species from all over Turkey, I have to update myself with some new studies i. e. lesser coverts fringes (colors, extend etc.) flank colors and streaking etc. so that I can categorize my footage. Any illustration, sketch or article can be extremely helpful for me and for similar cases. And if possible please share some images within the safety margins of the mentioned subspecies so that we can analyze the birds. Thanks.

Murat F. Özçelik

https://vimeo.com/channels/murat


P. S.: The most intriguing thing for me is the yellowish glowing of the feathers of the bird when I increase the saturation. As a person who had the chance to hand hold both species, I can say that the melanin types of them are a bit different. And I suspect the colours reacts differently on a CMOs sensor. Anyone who is interested in, can make an experiment by similarly exposed footage of these two birds (on an IPad, on the Turkish birds, otherwise melanin types may be different).

andyadcock said:

I don't think the comments were aimed at you personally but at the growing number of people taking pictures without looking properly at birds.

For many people, the use of a photograph is a very useful but last resort in a problematic ID.


Andy

Click to expand...

For me personally, photo is starting to replace the use of a scope. I find that I can often see more details (sometimes even on the rear screen in the field), and if the id is problematic, I have the photos to pour over at home afterwards.

Having said that, for closer birds I usually go binoculars first, unless they are so close that I know I want a photo to bring home

Niels

Yes, finally. We are back to discussing the bird. I believe the tail photos above are very convincing. So are all the things which were said about the coloring of the coverts and the wingbar. The beak shape and color also seem to be ok for a corn bunting. Even manual measurements of the beak on the photo yielded good results for a corn. Studies Mr.Ozcelik shared are also helpful. I'm glad that the bird got an ID and is no longer a mystery. Thanks to those who contributed to the ID discussion.
Regards,
Kaan

birder vs photographer

Hello Everyone

The discussions in here are so sweet that I could not stop my self jumping in. The mystery bird may be a corn bunting but I don't think so. I am saying this as a person behind the scene seeing what resources my husband (Murat) is digging.

Executive summary of what I will be writing may be this: Please note that Turkish birders/bird photographers didn't live the Victoria age where birds are caught and painted to their very detail, but we jumped to the digital era. To explain in detail what I mean please read below in patience.

Dear Andy,

The case is slightly different in us that Murat is the Ultra-tele videographer and I am the birder with a pair of Leica Binos. Because I don’t have his patience and meticulous approach towards birds, but I enjoy the videos he brings home in times I cannot make it to the field together with him.

The case in Turkey is that Although we are very lucky location wise, as we are at the cross roads of two major migration bottle necks and our country is offering a variety of habitats, we don’t have enough number of expert birders. Which is very normal. because bird watching is just becoming a hoby in parallel to the development in digital photography. in the 80s there were I assume about 10 bird watchers, only a hand full of people. Most of them were from Istanbul. And because they were in Colleges run by Foreign missionaries Like the American Collages or German Colleges, where probably their teachers were birdwatchers. And the next generation I think was us, in 1991 we started to birdwatch at the remote corners of METU campus and we established an unofficial group that we tittled Ankara Bird Watching Group. We than established the METU Bird watching Group under the Social Committees of the University. I remember organizing a workshop and inviting all those who might be interested in bird watching and the number of attendants were either 90 or 100 tops. This METU BirdWatch also lead way to the establishment of several similar clubs in Hacettepe University and in Ankara University Agriculture Faculty. But may be since METU Biology department and Hacettepe Biology Department’s have faculty who were also bird watchers the two clubs lasted longer and then Turkey had the KAD (Kuş Araştırmaları Derneği) Bird Research Association, that one is later renamed as Bird and Nature Research Association. And in those days we were the field staff in mid winter counts, raptor studies or in surveys done in Cukurova Delta, Kizilirmak Delta name it. I remember my self guiding a group of Dutch Birders in Kizilirmak Delta and camping with them, when I was in 2nd Grade at the Geological Engineering Department. This is how we learned about birds. Then we became photographers or videographers. But today I know a lot of Bird Photographers who only like taking bird pictures without knowing what bird it may be or just learning after shooting it. This is because of the advancements in Bird photography.

Sorry for taking your time and for this long explanation. But I think we need to organize in Turkey a bird watching or bird identification workshop and explain these talented photographers (who are doing a great job capturing our avifauna) some basic steps in bird identification. We used to organise bird schools (we used to call them) seminars where we were trying to attract new people for bird watching.

Well what is surprising me is that people started to rely only on pictures. IMHO A bird photographer should also carry a binocular at all times.

And my dear METU mates didn't you hear the bird's song at all. We used to listen to the birds and I think the song is a very good criteria in identification.

Thanks for the decent discussion and contribution of everyone in identifying all the mysterious/odd looking/not fitting to book birds observed in Turkey.


--

Asli said:

Hello Everyone

The discussions in here are so sweet that I could not stop my self jumping in. The mystery bird may be a corn bunting but I don't think so. I am saying this as a person behind the scene seeing what resources my husband (Murat) is digging.

Executive summary of what I will be writing may be this: Please note that Turkish birders/bird photographers didn't live the Victoria age where birds are caught and painted to their very detail, but we jumped to the digital era. To explain in detail what I mean please read below in patience.

Dear Andy,

The case is slightly different in us that Murat is the Ultra-tele videographer and I am the birder with a pair of Leica Binos. Because I don’t have his patience and meticulous approach towards birds, but I enjoy the videos he brings home in times I cannot make it to the field together with him.

The case in Turkey is that Although we are very lucky location wise, as we are at the cross roads of two major migration bottle necks and our country is offering a variety of habitats, we don’t have enough number of expert birders. Which is very normal. because bird watching is just becoming a hoby in parallel to the development in digital photography. in the 80s there were I assume about 10 bird watchers, only a hand full of people. Most of them were from Istanbul. And because they were in Colleges run by Foreign missionaries Like the American Collages or German Colleges, where probably their teachers were birdwatchers. And the next generation I think was us, in 1991 we started to birdwatch at the remote corners of METU campus and we established an unofficial group that we tittled Ankara Bird Watching Group. We than established the METU Bird watching Group under the Social Committees of the University. I remember organizing a workshop and inviting all those who might be interested in bird watching and the number of attendants were either 90 or 100 tops. This METU BirdWatch also lead way to the establishment of several similar clubs in Hacettepe University and in Ankara University Agriculture Faculty. But may be since METU Biology department and Hacettepe Biology Department’s have faculty who were also bird watchers the two clubs lasted longer and then Turkey had the KAD (Kuş Araştırmaları Derneği) Bird Research Association, that one is later renamed as Bird and Nature Research Association. And in those days we were the field staff in mid winter counts, raptor studies or in surveys done in Cukurova Delta, Kizilirmak Delta name it. I remember my self guiding a group of Dutch Birders in Kizilirmak Delta and camping with them, when I was in 2nd Grade at the Geological Engineering Department. This is how we learned about birds. Then we became photographers or videographers. But today I know a lot of Bird Photographers who only like taking bird pictures without knowing what bird it may be or just learning after shooting it. This is because of the advancements in Bird photography.

Sorry for taking your time and for this long explanation. But I think we need to organize in Turkey a bird watching or bird identification workshop and explain these talented photographers (who are doing a great job capturing our avifauna) some basic steps in bird identification. We used to organise bird schools (we used to call them) seminars where we were trying to attract new people for bird watching.

Well what is surprising me is that people started to rely only on pictures. IMHO A bird photographer should also carry a binocular at all times.

And my dear METU mates didn't you hear the bird's song at all. We used to listen to the birds and I think the song is a very good criteria in identification.

Thanks for the decent discussion and contribution of everyone in identifying all the mysterious/odd looking/not fitting to book birds observed in Turkey.


--

Click to expand...

..You've invited me to your fifth meeting from Hacettpe University as "a guy who knows birds with the Latin, English and German names" ) Former Minister Adnan Kahveci came one day to one of our meetings in Uygar's home. 23 years later you were one of the invited persons (as an Oxford alumni) to speak with the UK Foreign Affairs Minester HE David Cameron when he came to Turkey . 1-1.. Just a moment I was the one who guided the wife of the head of CIA as the best bird guide in Turkey ) (at that years) 2-1! Why did you came to here? Am I coming to carbon conferences or your lextures at Sabancı University.. ) loves to Istanbul...

Back to the bird; the discussion is not over on my side until closest looking subspecies of the Corn bunting and Yellowhammer are clearly compared with the bird on these photos. Sorry..

Murat F. Özçelik

https://vimeo.com/channels/murat

With the bird now pretty safely identified as a Corn Bunting, I'd like to add my two cents to the photographer discussion.

I don't really understand, where it came from, that everybody assumed, that the original finders are photographers instead of birders. They used sound logical arguments while discussing this bird. Hasn't it become a standard procedure to identify birds by picture? Why were they condemned for this?!

It is very true, that to become a good birder you need many years of experience in the field and relying only on pictures shouldn't be encouraged. However I think pictures make identification so much easier and more exact, than just accounts of what one has seen. Many birds will only stay in sight for a few seconds and you won't be able to grab all the details in this short amount of time. My camera will.
Other than colours being slightly altered, pictures are very reliable and I'm very happy to live in an era, where most people have at least a point-and-shoot to document their sightings.
I for one have learnt very, very much by looking at my own and other peoples pictures and will continue to do so!

Maffong

Maffong said:

With the bird now pretty safely identified as a Corn Bunting, I'd like to add my two cents to the photographer discussion.

I don't really understand, where it came from, that everybody assumed, that the original finders are photographers instead of birders. They used sound logical arguments while discussing this bird. Hasn't it become a standard procedure to identify birds by picture? Why were they condemned for this?!

It is very true, that to become a good birder you need many years of experience in the field and relying only on pictures shouldn't be encouraged. However I think pictures make identification so much easier and more exact, than just accounts of what one has seen. Many birds will only stay in sight for a few seconds and you won't be able to grab all the details in this short amount of time. My camera will.
Other than colours being slightly altered, pictures are very reliable and I'm very happy to live in an era, where most people have at least a point-and-shoot to document their sightings.
I for one have learnt very, very much by looking at my own and other peoples pictures and will continue to do so!

Maffong

Click to expand...

I think I am writing too long.

1. "Prety safely idetified as a Corn Bunting" why? Because masters say that. But masters say something more..

2. I am asking for comparing two similar looking different species/subspecies

3. If you have time please read the discussion from the beginning and with the help of google history/translate turkish discussions for the same bird (on the turkish sites).

4. Please look back to two shrike pictures to notice how the digital imaging effects bird ID.

5. I respect your approach learning from your and others photographs, but I don't accept it. My approach is learn first, than record it. Why don't we ask to Mr. Brian if he illustrate his drawings from a photograph or a real life observations. May be you are right.

Murat F. Özçelik

https://vimeo.com/channels/murat

Maffong said:

With the bird now pretty safely identified as a Corn Bunting, I'd like to add my two cents to the photographer discussion.

I don't really understand, where it came from, that everybody assumed, that the original finders are photographers instead of birders. They used sound logical arguments while discussing this bird. Hasn't it become a standard procedure to identify birds by picture? Why were they condemned for this?!

It is very true, that to become a good birder you need many years of experience in the field and relying only on pictures shouldn't be encouraged. However I think pictures make identification so much easier and more exact, than just accounts of what one has seen. Many birds will only stay in sight for a few seconds and you won't be able to grab all the details in this short amount of time. My camera will.
Other than colours being slightly altered, pictures are very reliable and I'm very happy to live in an era, where most people have at least a point-and-shoot to document their sightings.
I for one have learnt very, very much by looking at my own and other peoples pictures and will continue to do so!

Maffong

Click to expand...

Agree with all this


Andy

4. Please look back to two shrike pictures to notice how the digital imaging effects bird ID.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion.

Murat, as I'm sure you will agree, it isn't just digital cameras that can make a bird look different to how it "should look". Lighting conditions - for example - strong sunlight, shade or evening light can all change the apparent colours/tones of a bird without any involvement of a camera. In the field, we probably all make mental adjustments to what we see to compensate for the lighting conditions. Depending on whatever detail is captured in a photo it is sometimes possible to make similar mental adjustments (not always). If we are trying to assess someone else's photos then we do not always have all the necessary information to mentally process for the lighting conditions, we can only hazard a guess. Sometimes we will be correct, sometimes not.

With regards your point number 5 above. A photograph/selection of photographs, or even a video can all be a major help in learning how to ID a bird (- otherwise field guides wouldn't exist, I suppose). If I see a warbler darting around among a tangle of branches for 5 seconds before it flies off out the rear of the bush, I probably haven't been able to see too much detail to confidently identify it without using other clues (call/song etc). If I look at it through binoculars for a few seconds - long enough to identify it as a "warbler", maybe even to which group of warblers and then take a few photos for the remaining 3 seconds - photos which I can look at and study later at home, I stand a better chance of identifying it AND also learning from the experience. (Without the photo at the start of the thread, we would be trying to identify the bird from a description - which I suspect would have been even more difficult).

I enjoy seeing 'new' species because each one is a unique learning experience, but it may be a bird that I will actually see only for that few seconds in my lifetime (I usually have an idea of what I'm looking at, or what features I should be looking for once I have an idea of what it could be) - so I also attempt to take photos and observe the bird through the camera as I'm doing so. Without the photos I only have a mental picture to consult - and memory can play tricks more easily than even a digital photograph can. How many times would I have to see an uncommon/rare bird to learn enough from it to confidently ID it? The more times I see a bird, the more confident I can be in identifying it - not just from colours/plumage details, but from behaviour/habitat/calls etc - all things that a photo can't capture (though a video might capture). That works best with commoner species - the rare birds we don't always get the opportunity to see well enough to take in enough detail so next time we will just know. I don't think there is just one right way, - only what works for the individual.

Whatever it is, its a fascinating thread, I have learnt a lot.

The input of the Turkish birders has been excellent, I hope you haven't become frustrated at some comments.

The fact that you have managed to do so, so masterfully in a language that is not your native tongue, is all the more admirable.

Should both watch and capture

Maffong said:

....
I don't really understand, where it came from, that everybody assumed, that the original finders are photographers instead of birders. They used sound logical arguments while discussing this bird. Hasn't it become a standard procedure to identify birds by picture? Why were they condemned for this?!
.....
I for one have learnt very, very much by looking at my own and other peoples pictures and will continue to do so!..

Maffong

Click to expand...

Dear Andy and Maffong,

I have not condemned any one but I am only trying to underline the peculiarities of my country. And we are also using photographs and now videos to identify birds, and not only now but we also used to do this since the film time. We used to get together and check all the slides taken by bird watchers and we were trying to identify birds. This was also very useful since as young birders we were learning about the details of the birds just like we are also learning a lot from this forum. But we were also spending time in the library. And this is how Murat started to write his book about the passerines of Western Palearctic in Turkish.

So I think we are on the same page in that we all apreciate the merits of a "good quality" picture in the identification of birds, and we all agree that sending time and memorizing the looks and "songs" of the birds is very important, even if you see the bird on for a mere second.

But I insist in the recommendation to our young biologists to visit the Reference section of the Library to read about these species in the HB of Birds of Western Palearctic. I whish we could have a replica of the Ornithology section of the Library at the Zoology Department of the Oxford.

And dear Murat you are always welcome to the carbon conferences and Energy Management Master Classes, but those topics can be boring for you ...

Shall we now compare the possibilities to identify the "mystery bunting" at the subspecies level?

Lets increase the safety margin of the identification

(Wolfbirder thanks for the compliments we are also learning a lot)

Dear Wolfbirder,

Thanks for your nice compliments. Sharing information and learning somethings from each other and discussing with such wold class birders makes me happy.



Dear Stonefaction,

In 1993 I photographed a Slender billed Curlew with a 200mm Russian lens attached Zenit film camera. In 2014 I filmed a long billed Pipit with Zeiss superachromat attached to Sony AX100 camcorder (I wish they were vice a versa). Both are very rare records for Western Palearctic (Both I did not shared yet). As in my (remembered) footages, yes,
lighting conditions changes all parameters of a digital footage as well as human memorization. Human brain compensate the color with some mental adjustments. BUT, there are other factors i. e. "Purkinje Effect": some cells in human eyes are more sensitive to blue colors at certain times of the day and some to the red color at other certain times of the day. I wrote this before in another discussion thread, but to simplify I can give this example. In the Old days English and French ladies used this trick for centuries when wearing their sapphire or ruby gemstones. You may have heard many similar stories a Dutch or Danish Lady goes to India or Taiwan and get a brilliant gemstone. But when she is back to Amsterdam, the purchased stone turnes to a charcoal (e.i. looks like a charcoal , in other words it dims off). What causes this? Has the gem dealer lied or what? To prevent this in gemstone trade there is a SOP (standard operating procedure): put the gemstone to a table that stands in one meter distance from a window that faces towards the north. All gemstone sellers use this method for color standardization in the Northern hemisphere. But unfortunately there is no such methodology in bird ringing centers. In that case classic field birders describe the colors as simulated to a natural fixed reference material i. e. chestnut, ochre, olive etc.

In my opinion an experienced birdwatcher should consider all these effects. For example the Rock Thrush in Nemrut mountain in Turkey, seperated as "coloratus" in some resources. And many consider it as monotipic. Museum samples also support this. Mentioned effects together with optical instruments may be causing this situation. Actually Nemrut mountain has a very special lighting and ambiance. If The researchers may have effected, imagine todays butterfly effect in birding world..

But digital cameras are the el nino of the birding. They change the colors according to their algorithms. Noise reduction also effects the image very badly. Result is clean but unrealistic nice looking image. I don't say anything to birders who use digital cameras as a learning tool or as an archiving tool. My riot is against advanced level birders who use the digital images as reference. In problematic species they are already has very close details. If someone talks about minute differences that are indicative at the subspecies level transitions, I believe birder should have a good grasp of the minuses and weakness of his/her digital/optical and/or mental tools. When I am watching my captured video footage on my tv, I always try to remember bare eyed and bino version of the bird, so that I can correct, adjust and minimize the digital effects.


I don't again say anything to a rare bird first captured digitally, then observed optically/mentally. For example when a rare warbler alert comes, of course you want to capture it digitally. But I blame if the birder do not observe and memorize the similar species so that when he/she meet the rare cousin, birder can know how the similar parts seems in bare eye or by binıculars. Without making such memorization the digital image is the bible for the photographer. Nowadays most of the new birders use this way. And whenever somebody say to their captured images anything other than supporting their expectations, they understand this as a threat or war against themselves. This is not only in Turkey also almost everywhere. I wish you have a chance to look at the Turkish bird records room in Oxford library. The heroes, I mean the birders who worked in Turkey in the past centuries and before sixties put their hearts to their works. You can smell it there. They were not using canon 7dm2 or Leica noctivid or zeiss 20x60s. But we are still using their descriptions and behavioral notes.

And I am again saying that, I won't close this case as a Cornbunting until some work or evidence other than ancient birder's to come to compare the subspecies that I mentioned.

Best.

Murat F. Özçelik

https://vimeo.com/channels/murat

Thanks Murat, for your reply. Interesting stuff. I now have a better understanding of what you were saying earlier.

Here is an example of a digital camera really messing with the appearance of, coincidentally, a bunting

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=408044&d=1349516681
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=408094&d=1349542492

Many years ago, again with a bunting, I was convinced that I saw a male Yellowhammer half the size of the other yellowhammers I had seen that day. I am more experienced today (then about 800 sp life list, today about 3x that) - and I am today not sure that it was not the strange light conditions that day that made me mistake what might just have been a normal size bird. This only to illustrate that a reasonably experienced observer can still be outdone by the conditions, there does not have to be a camera included to induce errors.

Niels

andyadcock said:

I don't think the comments were aimed at you personally but at the growing number of people taking pictures without looking properly at birds.

For many people, the use of a photograph is a very useful but last resort in a problematic ID.

Andy

Click to expand...

Correct Andy. The comment was not aimed at anyone in particular and was merely a generalised observation on the direction birding seems to be going. Photography is without doubt a valuable tool and without it many important bird records would have been 'lost' in the past, but it should surely be regarded as a means to an end and not an end in itself?

Jane Turner said:

Here is an example of a digital camera really messing with the appearance of, coincidentally, a bunting

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=408044&d=1349516681
http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=408094&d=1349542492

Click to expand...

When I photograph moths, I often have to alter the 'white balance' or everything gets a brownish or sometimes grey appearance.

My wife is a keen photographer, without here telling me I wouldn't have had a clue how to resolve it!

It's a fact also than many cameras don't like bright light.





A

njlarsen said:

Many years ago, again with a bunting, I was convinced that I saw a male Yellowhammer half the size of the other yellowhammers I had seen that day. I am more experienced today (then about 800 sp life list, today about 3x that) - and I am today not sure that it was not the strange light conditions that day that made me mistake what might just have been a normal size bird. This only to illustrate that a reasonably experienced observer can still be outdone by the conditions, there does not have to be a camera included to induce errors.

Niels

Click to expand...

Very true indeed, that what the 'two bird theory' is for....:t:


A

Hi all,
Murat, I accept the points you made in your post addressed to me, but I was busy all day yesterday and am only getting around to responding now!
I actually doubt that I've ever seen clanceyi Corn Bunting. The range of that taxon is given as western Ireland (where the species is now extinct) and western Scotland (where I have never seen Corn Buntings). In theory, the one vagrant bird that I have seen here, on Cape Clear Island in 2003, may have been of this form, but it may just as equally been a nominate bird. I concede that most of my personal Yellowhammer experience is based on caliginosa here in Ireland, but I have seen quite a few citrinella also, and I took into account before commenting how greyish some female-type erythrogenys can be (perhaps mainly 1st-winter females?). I recall Dick Forsman posting images of grey and white wintering Yellowhammers from Finland that perhaps could have belonged to that taxon. I can't recall if I saw any Yellowhammers in central Asia, I can only remember a few singing male Pine Buntings (phenotypically textbook birds) outside Astana.
I also concede that, as the images are far from perfect...and this is not meant as a criticism of the photographer...then there is an element of uncertainty introduced into the equation where it comes to me or anyone else making a comment. We may be influenced by 'false impressions', as it were. My main aim, originally, was to give my reasons as to why the bird can't have been a Pine Bunting, and in that sense alone, one could say that it doesn't matter which of two presumably common species in Turkey was involved. But it's always worthwhile trying to figure a puzzle out, even if one's best efforts are ultimately in vain then much useful discussion can take place. We have all been given a timely reminder of erythrogenys Yellowhammer, a bird taxon that presumably could stray even to western Europe...if (phenotypically good) Pine Buntings can get here, then perhaps they could also, and they could be a source of confusion.
When I made my comments about the bird in the original image lacking obvious yellow fringes to the remiges, I was taking erythrogenys into account as well, based on, among other things, the images of that form posted on this thread. Even those seem to have (faint) yellow tones to these fringes, which the subject bird seems not to, though, again, the usual proviso applies that the apparent colour tones of those shots may not be truly representative of the actual appearance of the bird (and the actual appearance itself would depend on ambient light, of course).
I ask the original photographer, in the spirit of trying to seek the truth here, not to be deemed 'right' or 'wrong' or make a competition out of this, if there are any shots showing the bird's tertials head on (maybe the whole bird with its back turned to the camera, say)? After all, Corn Bunting and Yellowhammer consistently differ from each other on tertial pattern, and this one feature might enable us all to identify the bird with confidence. In addition, are there any pics showing the front of the breast? The streaks on a Corn Bunting's breast often coalesce to form a distinct spot, and, if present, this would also exclude Yellowhammer.
I can't make a good judgement call on the colour of the lower mandible, the images are just too poor, which is a shame as that is also a very useful feature, as you know.
Regards,
Harry