• 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.

Peregrine or Hobby ? You Decide. (1 Viewer)

I'm not an expert like you guys, but I've seen both mature and immature Peregrine and Hobby just recently and I firmly believe this is a Hobby!
 
OK, I can be bothered...sorry to those who read my thoughts on the other thread.

My first reaction to seeing the photo was Hobby, but something did not look 100% to me. So I stopped and considered the features of the visible bird.

If this is a Hobby, whatever age, shouldn't the breast markings uniformly start at the top of the breast, i.e. under the chin?

Shouldn't Hobby, whatever age, show a fairly strong pale supercillia?

Shouldn't Hobby, whatever age, show a completely clean cheek, without streaking towards the nape?

Should Hobby have 'big' looking feet and bill? (I know, a little subjective from a photo)

My only doubts on Peg are all around the size of the pale cheek - however, I think the shape of the head (flat crowned) and bill size are all consistent with Peg, rather than a (soft looking) round headed, small billed look of Hobby (to my eyes and experience).

Cheers Mark.
 
hi mw ...

best I can do for those questions would be >

1. yes generally, but I don't see why you consider the contentious bird not to show that, I can see a line of demarcation although not as strong as I've seen on many a pic of young Hobby ... there is variability in any young falcons on an individual level, for instance a brood of young Peregrines although all clearly Peregrines may show difference in strength of buff markings on the uppers, particularly as they age, all just minor variabilty

2.have a squint at the Surfbirds Hobby gallery ... again minor individual variation .... however, good fieldmark on a population level

3.the streaking you refer to is minor, could be a plumage detail, could be a photographic thing ... what can I say

4.well you see the feet as big (and rightly acknowledge the subjectivity), I don't personally ... have a look at the SE Icelandic bird in Surfbirds ... another point here whilst looking at that bird, note the small bill, I'd say that's down to that bird being a very recent fledgling ... feet on young falcons are disproportionately big right from hatching (often a good way to sex Peregrines after a short while with reasonable confidence), whereas they 'grow into' their bills (and they grow fast) ... saying that though I've never seen it as being particularly large billed.

As someone said earlier, this falcon is do-able on gizz alone without even having to attempt a breakdown of features ...
 
Last edited:
London Birder said:
4.well you see the feet as big (and rightly acknowledge the subjectivity), I don't personally ... have a look at the SE Icelandic bird in Surfbirds ... another point here whilst looking at that bird, note the small bill, I'd say that's down to that bird being a very recent fledgling ... feet on young falcons are disproportionately big right from hatching (often a good way to sex Peregrines after a short while with reasonable confidence), whereas they 'grow into' their bills (and they grow fast) ... saying that though I've never see the it as being particularly large billed.

As someone said earlier, this falcon is do-able on gizz alone without even having to attempt a breakdown of features ...

Mornin' LB, I know we kind of agreed to disagree on this bird...but as you replied to my post ;)

I can't argue with what you say above, but I do think that the visible foot AND bill look proportionaly large, something I would associate with a larger falcon. Hobby, to me, tend to look 'well' proportioned, unlike Peregrines, which look to have large talons, neck and bill - which I guess comes from their choice of prey.

Anyway, you can't beat a falcon in the field, especially when it is tucking into a nice bit of duck or jackdaw |=)|
 
M Cowming said:
Hi guys,

Been an interesting couple of threads on falcons! Just proves how judging one bird from one photo can be soooooo troublesome. I can honestly see where both camps are coming from and am not tempted to fully call it either Hobby or Peregrine.

However, if push came to shove, a couple of points;

1) Habitat....been proven that Peregrines land in trees! Still, suits Hobby more.
2) Gizz/Jizz ( which spelling is correct?) Contrary to what one contributor says, can be an important part of bird id. Some birders are just better at it than others! (no offence intended)
3) Most important concerning this particular bird! The cheek patch! To me, it's too broad and reaches up the back of the neck/head rather than being "rounded", typical of Perry!

For these reasons, for me it's a Hobby! I accept this bird has been rung as a Peregrine...I think? just breezed through the posts, but, as i say, if push came to shove...Hobby!

I will hold my hands up however....hard to prove ringing measurements wrong!! Isn't it?? ;)

Happy debating boys......it's great!!

Kind regards,

the jizz of this bird is clearly hobby to me

The term 'jizz' I believe comes from a military term 'giss'
Which means general impression of size and shape.
shape wise its slim like hobby
size wise would have to say like hobby due to tree
also its sat in a tree it just gives the impression of a hobby
but non of these can be used as prooving its a hobby
objectively its a peregrine to me
fine breast streaking and white cheek of face reaches upto almost reaching the eye (typical of imm. peregrine photos i have looked at)
 
Last edited:
i give up. this is going the same way as the last thread with far too much analysis and trying to judge extent of slightly blurred streaking etc etc. take a step back and look at the bird - its a hobby!
 
jonny h said:
i give up. this is going the same way as the last thread with far too much analysis and trying to judge extent of slightly blurred streaking etc etc. take a step back and look at the bird - its a hobby!

I believe the quality of the picture does not make this bird unidentifiable.
 
Revelation

This is what Frank Neijts answered to my mail:

It is quite funny to realize that you (or a picture you made) can be the
subject of a real ID-discussion without even knowing it is going on! And
that someone finds out you're "not an unexperienced
birder.."................. I liked that! Well, although I can imagine that
on this picture the bird looks like a Hobby, it should be noticed that the
bill is to heavy and the fine streaking on the breast is wrong for that
species. But for the non-believers I enclose some more pictures of this
Peregrine on which the large feet and the lack of rufous throusers (among
other features) are clearly visible. Besides, I saw the bird hunting at
quite close range leaving the identity without any doubts. I merely took the
pictures because the bird was ringed and I therefore sent them to some
people who are involved in colour-ringing of Peregrines. But until now (more
than 1 year later) I didn't get an answer! In the meanwhile I found out that
this kind of ring-combinations are typical for Dutch-ringend Peregrines.
By the way, Peregrines are no rarities (anymore) in this part of the
Netherlands and even summer records like this one are no longer exceptional.

Kind reagrds,

Frank Neijts
Eindhoven, NL
 

Attachments

  • slechtvalk050804c.jpg
    slechtvalk050804c.jpg
    72.1 KB · Views: 254
  • SlechtvalkA0804.jpg
    SlechtvalkA0804.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 222
  • SlechtvalkB0804.jpg
    SlechtvalkB0804.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 237
  • slechtvalkb050804.jpg
    slechtvalkb050804.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 190
and another one from Frank:


I now read the whole thread and realize that also involved in the discussion
is the fact that the bird sits in a tree. In the Netherlands we don't have
mountains or rocks or anything like that. In fact in my whole 'home patch'
(about 1000 square kms) the altitude is nowhere above 35 mtrs! Peregrines
don't breed in this area but today they are regular migrants and some
winter. Their favourite haunts here are areas where they can hunt for gulls,
ducks and shorebirds, especially heathlands. When there are power pylons
they use these as lookouts but happily on most protected heathlands these
are absent and than the Peregrines use all kinds of trees.
Therefore,especially early (or late) migrants regularly occur together with
Hobby's which still breed quite commonly in this area and can be found
sitting in the same tree (although not at the same moment...).

Kind regards,

Frank
 
btw. regarding frank's statement that they don't sit on the same tree at the same time: recently i observed a peregrine in the danube delta with two hobbys sitting in the same tree (an old willow with dry branches). at the moment the peregrine started off the two hobbys went playing and chasing him like hell - a great spectacle!
 
Thanks for that Lou, and once again, even in a good image like this, notice the difficulties of IDing from photos, and quite understandible that is, for reasons all would know about. Even if the impression at first sight was that of a Hobby, there where characters that did not fit a Hobby, what do you do then? Learn from yet another experience, and be happy!
JanJ
 
Alan Seaton said:
At first glance, several hours ago, I thought it looked like a hobby.

After a closer look, however.....

It was still a hobby.

I held my peace and didn't get involved and now it's on page three! But does it matter what it is? It's a picture, for crying out loud. Pictures can tell lies. I think it's a hobby, others don't.

It makes no difference. The bird has flown off and in a hundred years we (and the falcon) will all be dead.


I meant peregrine ;)
 
Last edited:
I reckon the fact that the first shot was in a Pine tree made a lot of people 'want' this to be a Hobby, despite the fact that Lou posted a shot of juv Hobby in post#34 showing quite distinctly different streaking.

Out of interest, I looked at some illustrations of juv Peregrine in a few books, including BWP concise and they all show heavy streaking - the only two photos I've got of young Peregrines show much finer streaks, similar to photo 1
 
pine tree has nothing to with with it for me personally ... only in as much as it may help gage the size of the bird, I assume it's a scotts pine .. and doesn't the bird in post 34 show russet 'trousers' ?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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