• 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.

Auto-ID of birds in photos—now for UK and Ireland (1 Viewer)

I borrowed one from Joe Pender obtained off a Scilly Pelagic

http://wwwsapphirepelagics.blogspot.co.uk

I tried a load of those and it got all as Wilson's. I did try another Wilson's pic and it returned Band-rumped (Madeiran) this despite the projecting legs but presumably because the bird had a very weak covert bar due to lighting. Not sure how much weight it pits on pattern vs structure...

Presumably as time goes on more information will become available on the process....
 
Last edited:
A field guide doesn't tell you what you are looking at. It makes you look at details, interpret them in conjunction with the guide and learn simultaneously the features and how to interpret birds in different conditions with field guide data.

This device just gives you an answer. No learning. No details. No remembering. Dependence on the device, just like all the people that no longer know their friends' phone numbers, or drive into rivers/railway lines due to duff satnavs.

This thing will substitute for learning for most people. Ability will decrease.

Edit: Here's a thought. We've already seen the committees reject a putative first for Britain due to no photo. How long before they start asking what Merlin makes of the photo? Alternatively, with the availability of Merlin, what need for committees?

John

The worst of it is not that birdwatchers will get lazy, field and id skills will plummet etc but that the Birdforum Identification Q and A section will become defunct ...


:eek!:
 
I tried a load of those and it got all as Wilson's. I did try another Wilson's pic and it returned Band-rumped (Madeiran) this despite the projecting legs but presumably because the bird had a very weak covert bar due to lighting. Not sure how much weight it pits on pattern vs structure...

Presumably as time goes on more information will become available on the process....

OK perhaps we have different ID "packs" downloaded ?
 
Thanks for all the great testing—really helpful to get these results in the system. Every time someone uses Merlin to ID something, submits a new eBird checklist, or uploads a photo to an eBird checklist, the app gets that much better.

As of today, there are two new packs out that cover mainland Europe, for both Northern and Western species. There are now more than 400 species covered by the app, so if previous Photo ID results were lacking a species in question, it may now be represented.
 
Worked perfectly on my test picture:
7ff9e0aeff126c40b9694c05d5526a73.jpg
4c3b1ce88b6bebdf8c15141e963655db.jpg
 
A link to a BBC article on on-line identification tools. The Butterfly Conservation moth one is truly terrifying:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/natureuk/entries/401f587e-4561-40d0-a3bd-409418ea29c1

Suffice to say that comparing the eBird tool to some of these is like comparing a live video hologram to a street cartoonist!

All the best

Unless I'm missing something, the moth identification page is not an app but a sort of overview of some of the commoner species. I would have thought that it would be rather dangerous to name some species on the basis of the photos shown - some of the micromoths can easily be misidentified as macros and vice versa (at least by me!)
#
 
Unless I'm missing something, the moth identification page is not an app but a sort of overview of some of the commoner species. I would have thought that it would be rather dangerous to name some species on the basis of the photos shown - some of the micromoths can easily be misidentified as macros and vice versa (at least by me!)
#

It gave me Bedstraw Hawkmoth as an option for a description in Scotland and Shoulder-striped Clover as an option for a non-descript description in England. There is no sensible basis on the questions asked that you are likely to end up with an appropriate selection of common moths from which to select an identification from the photos produced. It is certainly not an overview of commoner species. That could be useful and less dangerous........... :eek!:

All the best
 
It gave me Bedstraw Hawkmoth as an option for a description in Scotland and Shoulder-striped Clover as an option for a non-descript description in England. There is no sensible basis on the questions asked that you are likely to end up with an appropriate selection of common moths from which to select an identification from the photos produced. It is certainly not an overview of commoner species. That could be useful and less dangerous........... :eek!:

All the best

I was looking at the wrong bit of the page. The 'key' on the left looks pretty useless. 'What colour was it?' for example when most moths are at least two-coloured. And size is pretty arbitrary, too. If you see a small angle-shades it's small compared with a hawkmoth but large compared with an Argyresthia goedartella.
 
I was looking at the wrong bit of the page. The 'key' on the left looks pretty useless. 'What colour was it?' for example when most moths are at least two-coloured. And size is pretty arbitrary, too. If you see a small angle-shades it's small compared with a hawkmoth but large compared with an Argyresthia goedartella.

I put in Scotland; Large; Pink; & Stripes:-

http://butterfly-conservation.org/5...Colour=pink&uf_Markings=Stripes&filtersubmit=

It should have told me to seek medical help. :king:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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