• 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.

Strange Pigeon (1 Viewer)

Jacamar

Well-known member
I saw this pigeon a few months ago, and I cannot figure out what it is. There was obviously something wrong with it, it would let me approach within a few feet before hopping away, and it had a deformed beak. Could anyone tell me what it was, and maybe tell me what was wrong with it?
 

Attachments

  • Pigeon 018 (Custom).jpg
    Pigeon 018 (Custom).jpg
    31.5 KB · Views: 334
  • Pigeon 013 (Custom).jpg
    Pigeon 013 (Custom).jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 323
Well, lately I've been batting under average on these ID's. Maybe I'll get lucky this time. To me it looks like Patagioenas cayennensis (Pale-vented Pigeon). Crossing my fingers until Rasmus comes along!!

Bubo,
I have Patagioenas subvinacea purpureotincta as occurring in the Guianas.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's a Pale-vented Pigeon. Here's the main reasons why (there are others, but the following are actually usefull in the field):

1) Grey rump and tail contrasting with reddish-brown mantle and wings. Ruddy & Plumbeous both have tails and rumps that are rather similar in colour with the mantle and wings (but often somewhat "brighter"); I.e. NEVER grey.
2) Vent and lower belly is grey in Pale-vented contrasting with the brownish-red chest, hence the underparts are two-toned. In Ruddy & Plumbeous vent, belly and chest are all a similar colour.
3) Shoulder (and to a lesser degree mantle) is vinaceaus, therefore contrasting with the rest of the wing. Ruddy and Plumbeous have wings (incl. shoulder) that are rather unicoloured overall.

All in all this makes the Pale-vented Pigeon look somewhat more colourfull than Ruddy/Plumbeous.
Differenting Ruddy and Plumbeous is a completely different matter, that can be rather hard. Often voice is the best thing to seperate those two. If silent eye-colour (!) and jizz (proportions) often are the best things to go by.
 
Males & females look alike. No difference. Juveniles have an all over paler look. Only thing that made me wonder for half a second was the bill. Normally it is dark, but seem somewhat light on your second photo. However, that part of the photo is rather unclear, so it may very well be some sort of a leaf/flower behind it. Anyways, other than that it fits perfectly with an adult.
 
Last edited:
Some people believe that most New World Columba's are significantly different from the "typical Columba's" of European. Therefore they have placed them in another genus. Some checklist use this approach, but generally without giving much else justification than "they look different". Personally, I have still to see any real justification on them being so distinct that they would need another genus. Untill seing that proof, I'll personally stick with Columba.
 
Rasmus Boegh said:
Some people believe that most New World Columba's are significantly different from the "typical Columbas" of European. Therefore they have placed them in another genus. Some checklist use this approach, but generally without giving much else justification than "they look different". Personally, I have still to see any real justification on them being so distinct that they would need another genus. Untill seing that proof, I'll personally stick with Columba.
Hi Rasmus,

No mention of Patagioenas in Lynx HBW. Would it also include Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata)? How widely accepted is the new genus?

Michael
 
Michael Frankis said:
Hi Rasmus,

No mention of Patagioenas in Lynx HBW. Would it also include Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata)? How widely accepted is the new genus?

Michael

Hi Michael, Rasmus,

The substitution of the generic name Patagioenas is followed in the SM (updated 2003) and the Clement's 5° Ed. (updated 2003). The Howard & Moore 3° Ed. 2003 does not fall in line with this interpretation.

The current work being done on the SACC baseline list seems to be coming down on the placement of new world Columba into genus Patagioenas.

http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline03.html

1. Although the monophyly of the Columbiformes has never been seriously questioned, its closest relatives are uncertain and remain unresolved. Traditional classifications (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2001) treat the huge, extinct flightless pigeons of the Mascarene Islands as a separate family, Raphidae, but recognition of this family would certainly make both families paraphyletic because it would seem impossible that the three species of "Raphidae" are each others' closest relatives, but instead represent three independent colonizations of separate islands with subsequent convergent evolution <find citation, if one exists>. Within the Columbidae, Goodwin (1983) recognized five subfamilies, only one of which, Columbinae, occurs in the Western Hemisphere. Whether these subfamily designations correspond to deep splits in the family is not yet confirmed, and so the subfamily designation is omitted here. In fact, genetic data (Johnson 2004) indicate that the New World ground-doves are a distinctive group that are the sister group to a large sample of Old World and New World genera. SACC proposal pending to change linear sequence of genera.
2. Populations in South America are feral or semi-feral derivatives of domesticated stock.
3. Called "Rock Pigeon" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003). SACC proposal pending to change English name.
4. Johnson & Clayton (2000a), Johnson et al. (2001), and Johnson (2004) found strong evidence that Columba is paraphyletic, with Old World Columba more closely related to Streptopelia than to New World "Columba." This is consistent with previously recognized differences between New World and Old World Columba in terms of morphology (Ridgway 1916), serology (Cumley & Irwin 1944), and behavior (Johnston 1962, <?> Goodwin 1959a). Johnston (1962), however, considered the P. fasciata superspecies to be more closely related to Old World Columba than to New World species due to plumage characters (but see Goodwin 1983); genetic data (Johnson et al. 2001) indicate that fasciata is basal to other New World, but that they still form a monophyletic . <incorp. Goodwin 1959>. The New World taxa are here placed in the genus Patagioenas. SACC Proposal passed to recognize Patagioenas. The AOU has also made this change (Banks et al. 2003).
 
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