Scottish Crossbill (1 Viewer)

Binocularface · Feb 25, 2004

Hi Linz

The calls were certainly identical to birds I have heard in Speyside. The Crossbill sp was perched up in Spruce (Cannot remember if it was Norway or Sitka though!).

Regards
Tristan

Edward woodwood · Feb 25, 2004

Wow Tris. you have very good ears

Also bear in mind that the intermediate bill size and 'new' call could easily be a result of 'remnant' Parrot and Common hybridisation. with the speed that bill size can evolve (large change in one season!) could they even be remnant Parrot that have reduced bill size x recently invaded Parrots?

Parrots are year round Scots Pine birds and most recent speyside birds have been Parrot. Birds I observed there last year appeared to be Parrot on morphological features and call/song. Didn't see/hear any other 'types'

In Spruce in Kielder I would imagine Common are much more likely as Lindsay says with Parrot being unlikely and 'scotch' type birds very unlikely.......

Binocularface · Feb 25, 2004

Tim Allwood said:
Wow Tris. you have very good ears

The calls I have heard in Speyside have been significantly different tone and pitch to those given by Common Crossbill.

Tim Allwood said:
In Spruce in Kielder I would imagine Common are much more likely as Lindsay says with Parrot being unlikely and 'scotch' type birds very unlikely.......

I would agree that Common Crossbills are far more likely. There were good numbers of Common Crossbill present at the time of observation which allowed direct comparison of morphological differences and calls.

Regards
Tristan

Edward woodwood · Feb 25, 2004

Watcha Tris

bit of a dilemma then!

Are u going to submit is as Parrot or Scottish or just as 'not Common'

whichever, it sounds like a sighting that should be documented.

Jasonbirder · Feb 25, 2004

I don`t for a minute think that Scottish Crossbill is a genuine species - and from a self avowed splitter thats a pretty damning indictment!

There are definately Common Crossbills about on Speyside - frequently in far larger numbers than the large billed Crossbills - call them Parrot or Scottish as you choose, however there are also Crossbills there which differ significantly in Call and Bill/Head profile/structure which can relatively easily be picked out with good views - some seem more "Parrot" like than others so its a case of where do you draw the line? Intermediate birds called Scottish? Who knows? The grey line becomes very hazy at that point....similarly though I suspect what we now talk about as possible Parrots - the deep calling/ bulbous mandible type birds, are what people blithely assumed where Scottish Crossbills before people started taking a closer look at them, which leaves Scottish Crossbills out on a bit of a limb.

I visit Speyside fairly regularly and have always managed to see what I would refer to as definate Commons and "Parrot-type" Crossbills plus some I can`t quantify - intermediates but are they Integrades, Scottish or variations on Common/Parrot, who knows?

Ashley beolens · Feb 25, 2004

Whilst in Scotland a couple of years ago, around Nethy bridge, I and a couple of friends bumped into a party of crossbill of the large billed type (no common) we had a great oppertunity to study them and their calls, and there were two distinct calls coming from two distinct looking birds, one Parrot crossbill, huge bill very fat, bull necked really harsh CHIP, like a common shouting really loud and agressively!! the second had an equally long bill but was far thinner (the bill that is), not a noticable bull neck, looked slightly leaner and a quite strange chip call. I am of the opinion that bird two was a scottish type bird and no amount of persuasion (you can't tell in the field etc.) will convince me otherwise, however as to their validity as a specise, I'll leave that to the experts.

Although if scottish were genuine and a parrot invasion was leading to thier demise through hybridisation, it'd just be another of these EU directives gone wrong

Binocularface · Feb 25, 2004

Hi Tim

Tim Allwood said:
Watcha Tris

bit of a dilemma then!

Are u going to submit is as Parrot or Scottish or just as 'not Common'

whichever, it sounds like a sighting that should be documented.

This observation was from January 1999 (if memory serves me correctly!) and I have not submitted the record. I perhaps should.
If I was going to submit the record I would submit it as Loxia sp.

Regards
Tristan

Edward woodwood · Feb 25, 2004

Watcha Jason
hey! We agree!

Likewise, I've seen Commons regularly up Speyside too...just not on my last visit. These 'Scotchbills' may be the result of Parrots that have irupted and then diverged in bill morphology. As Parrots have re-invaded they may have 'hybridised' with, or pushed the Scotchbill types out of their former haunts of Speyside, hence their being found in a wider range of habo....and Speyside now being the best spot to see a Parrot.

If you didn't see a putative Scotchbill prior to the Parrot irruptions of early 90s.....it's off your list boys!

jpoyner · Feb 25, 2004

Despite living in Speyside and watching and hearing Crossbill "Sp" extensively I still cannot convince myself that current thoughts on vocalisation offers any really useful field id towards "Scottish" type birds.
What calls were used in the research? Common call differently in flight than when perched. I think there is quite a variation in pitch and tone within this species alone.
I'm still interested in finding out if any research has been done into song rather than calls as surely as within other species this should have a noticable variation?
My view still holds that basically there are two species, Common and Parrot. A proportion of this isolated Parrot Crossbill population has been gradually evolving smaller bill sizes probably in relation to food availablity and may well in the future become quite a distinct species. I think that if anything all the curerent research shows is that this certainly hasn't happened yet.
The situation has been blurred by a fundamentaly flawed decision to "create" the species "Scottish Crossbill" in the first place perpetuating further misguided and flawed data.
Hopefully the situation is finally becoming a little clearer now thanks to the ongoing excellent research; however I would like to see the "powers" that be take the bold decision and to finally lay dead the "Scottish" species tag, wiping the slate clean for a fresh look at these few puzzling birds. ("few" worth bearing in mind as it really is actually only a small percentage of birds seen which can't be categorised and it was not so long ago we all were led to believe they were ALL Scottish here).
I think many would agree that under todays criteria it would never be "made" a separate species....I see no hard evidence as to how it possibly could be.

JP

Edward woodwood · Feb 25, 2004

John - wise words mate!

Jasonbirder said:
refer to as definate Commons and "Parrot-type" Crossbills plus some I can`t quantify - intermediates but are they Integrades, Scottish or variations on Common/Parrot, who knows?

Jase, the intermediates are/were between extremes of Parrot and Common in terms of bill size but the numer of intermediates (or Scotchbills) seems to have declined concommitant with the spread of Parrot in the late 20th Century - the graph in BB 96 P103 is a good example of this. What these Scotchbills were is also open to debate (the product of earlier Parrot invasions?). Any large-billed Crosser in Abernethy in 80s and early 90s used to be a Scotchbill, but these days with the Parrot invasions, possible hybridisation etc I think you're only kidding yourself if you tick em

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

Help! there's been about 50 new posts on this thread in the last 2 hours . . . . try to read them all, and there's some to reply to . . oh well, another 2 am bedtime tonite . . .

Michael

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

Harry Hussey said:
Hi Lindsay,

If this is the case,then perhaps the reduced frequency of 'intermediate' birds(i.e.'Scottish') could be due to the area being colonised by 'typical' Parrots following a large invasion(perhaps that of 1982?),which then interbred with the 'Scottish' birds(which were,after all,Parrots all along),thus leading to 'classic' Parrot features spreading at the expense of those shown by the already resident 'Scottish' birds?
Of course,this is all speculation on the assumption that your hypothesis above is true: it may not be!
I agree that it would be advisable for birders to continue to look for and document the 'crossbills' in the area,whatever their taxonomic affinities.
Arctic and Mealy Redpolls?That's another day's debate!
Harry H

Hi Harry,

One problem with the intermediate-size historical skin specimens is that where they were shot is largely not well known. Most of the ones that they do know, were NOT shot in native Scots Pine forest, but on policy grounds, i.e., in mixed exotic conifers (i.e., the collector shot the first crossbill he found after getting up in the morning at his host's mansion, and then didn't bother with any more). This includes (probably, but not definitely) the type specimen of Loxia scotica. This ties in with recent findings that Scotbills prefer mixed plantation conifers, often European Larch. What it also suggests is that most of the old collectors never trudged out into the (remote) native pinewoods. So the Parrots may have been there all along, un-noticed, until people started getting into the ideas of native pine crossbills as something to search for.

Michael

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

Tristan R said:
Hi

A couple of years ago I was in Kielder Forest (Northumberland) and I observed a Crossbill that was intermediate in bill structure between Common Crossbill (which were nearby for direct comparison) and Parrot Crossbill (which wasn't around for comparison!). I first picked the bird up on call as it was noticable different to the calls of the Common Crossbills that were also vocalising. The call of this bird was very similar to birds I have heard in Speyside, that I assume were Scottish Crossbills (deeper (& less 'chirping') than the Common Crossbills).

This certainly through a spanner in the works for me!

Regards
Tristan

Hi Tristan,

Someone tape recorded a 'Type C' crossbill (i.e., presumed Scottish Crossbill) in Kielder Forest 2 years ago . . .

Michael

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

Lindsay Cargill said:
I have just read the abstracts of the Ibis articles ( no.144 issue 3 ) online and it seems that Rae and Marquiss did not find three peaks for bill sizes either !

I've got a photocopy, somewhere, if I can find it! Very interesting read, certainly

Michael

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

Acanthis said:
Redpolls and crossbills are apparently each other's nearest relatives within the finch family and they share 1 characteristic - the propensity to give people 'splitting' headaches!
I think a good recording of flight + excitement calls would ID any dubious looking crossbills. The best and most comprehensive collection of crossbill recordings I've heard is available on a CD with a copy of Dutch Birding 22: No 2. Not only does it cover 6 curvirostra vocal types but Parrot, Scottish and 2-bar. Even a duffer like me can now confidently ID Common from 'Pine' crossbills by ear, though Parrot from Scottish may take a little longer.

Hi Sandy,

I'm told by David Jardine (also my source for the notes about historic Xbill museum skins) that the Dutch Birding CD has some errors on it - particularly, the 'Scottish Crossbills' on it are Parrots; they were apparently recorded at Abernethy before anyone realised there were also lots of Parrots there.

Michael

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

Tim Allwood said:
no, not even a slim chance of iding Scotchbill in the field.

Errr Tim,

Watch out . . . 'scotch' means ONLY whisky, and nothing else - the correct word is Scots or Scottish

You might just get a tartan-clad war party heading your way . . . :eek!:

Michael

Binocularface · Feb 25, 2004

Michael Frankis said:
Hi Tristan,

Someone tape recorded a 'Type C' crossbill (i.e., presumed Scottish Crossbill) in Kielder Forest 2 years ago . . .

Michael

This is certainly interesting information Michael. Perhaps I should dig out my notes!

Michael Frankis · Feb 25, 2004

jpoyner said:
Despite living in Speyside and watching and hearing Crossbill "Sp" extensively I still cannot convince myself that current thoughts on vocalisation offers any really useful field id towards "Scottish" type birds.
What calls were used in the research? Common call differently in flight than when perched. I think there is quite a variation in pitch and tone within this species alone.
I'm still interested in finding out if any research has been done into song rather than calls as surely as within other species this should have a noticable variation?
My view still holds that basically there are two species, Common and Parrot. A proportion of this isolated Parrot Crossbill population has been gradually evolving smaller bill sizes probably in relation to food availablity and may well in the future become quite a distinct species. I think that if anything all the curerent research shows is that this certainly hasn't happened yet.
The situation has been blurred by a fundamentaly flawed decision to "create" the species "Scottish Crossbill" in the first place perpetuating further misguided and flawed data.
Hopefully the situation is finally becoming a little clearer now thanks to the ongoing excellent research; however I would like to see the "powers" that be take the bold decision and to finally lay dead the "Scottish" species tag, wiping the slate clean for a fresh look at these few puzzling birds. ("few" worth bearing in mind as it really is actually only a small percentage of birds seen which can't be categorised and it was not so long ago we all were led to believe they were ALL Scottish here).
I think many would agree that under todays criteria it would never be "made" a separate species....I see no hard evidence as to how it possibly could be.

JP

Hi JP,

They do use specific call types. You'd have to ask David Jardine or Ron Summers (or any of the other folk working on them) exactly what's what, but they are well aware of the different call formats individual birds use in different contexts. What's significant too is that the results are repeatable, not just from day to day, but from year to year, and site to site. So they are real, and there is a distinct "Scottish Crossbill" call type (Type C in the BB article) that has not (yet) been found outside of Britain.

What its taxonomic status is, is a different matter. But on current evidence, all that can be said is that there's six different crossbill populations occurring on-and-off in Britain (Two-barred, Parrot, Scottish, and 3 different Commons), all (as far as can be currently determined) of equal claim to equal taxonomic rank. None (not even Two-barred) shows any genetic separation (on current evidence). But the evidence is that they do behave as species, to a large extent.

My personal preference is to agree that Scottish is probably derived from and referrable to Parrot, but the evidence to prove or disprove this is not yet found.

Maybe one day they'll sort it all out!

Michael

Edward woodwood · Feb 25, 2004

Michael Frankis said:
You might just get a tartan-clad war party heading your way . . . :eek!:
Michael

nothing we haven't seen before Michael

anyway judging by what Tristan has reported....maybe we'd better rename it British xbill

how many are deserving of specific status will surely depend on the species concept used? Maybe some are more equal than others.....

Acanthis · Feb 26, 2004

My God!!
I had hoped to answer a post I'd read quickly yesterday but there's been umpteen posts since then and every one with something new to chew over!

Scottish Crossbill (1 Viewer)

You've all got one...............!

Member

You've all got one...............!

Member

Jason-occasional-twitcher

Breeding the next generation of birders.

You've all got one...............!

Member

Well-known member

Member

conehead

conehead

conehead

conehead

conehead

conehead

You've all got one...............!

conehead

Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread