Harrier sp (Avon) (1 Viewer)

Can anyone help with the id of this harrier which I had fly over my car at Chelwood in Avon. Cant remember what time of year it was, so that would have maybe helped.

As any harrier in Avon is rare it would be good to know what species this one is.

I thought myself that it was a Hen, because when I first saw it, it looked structurally like a buzzard. But the facial marking are quite strong so maybe Montys?

Any comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks :t:

ohh interesting bird,

1) The bold patterning on the face and presence of a collar + fairly broad wings would appear to rule out Monty's

however -
2) the bird appears unstreaked on underparts and coverts and this area appears to have a rufous tinge

3) your right, the bird has a strong facial pattern and does to me appear to have a dark 'boa', - the dark line behind the pale collar. the face panel appears paler in contrast to the colour behind the collar.

4) also the shot showing the underparts shows a divide between the the dark streaked pale primaries and the darker secondaries, the primaries do appear to be dark tipped however.

5) the primary projection shows 4 distinct primary projections -

6) the upperwing shows fairly distinct carpal patches.

its really difficult from the photos, did you take any others, - could you enhance photo 1 its a bit blurry, i don't want to say anything definite yet, but i thinks theres going to be quite a bit of discussion on this bird. - there are some quite strong ID features suggesting Pallid.

I agree, the collar would suggest a Pallid and darker, duskier secondaries are present on this species too I believe, it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

If these are digital shots will the "Properties" on the original files tell you when tey were taken?

OK, I'll have a bash at this before the "experts" get at it.

I'm going for a Monty because I don't see an obvious enough boa to be a Pallid. The dark secondaries maybe more a trick of the light and look darker than they should be. I also see the bird as being more bulky than I would expect of a Pallid.

Hi Rob.

I'm going for Pallid imm. based on clear separation of cheek and neck, primary undercoverts being same colour tone as secondaries and upperwing coverts contrasting more with rest of wing.

Twite.

i'd say monty's for the same reason as Dougie

Twite said:

Hi Rob.

I'm going for Pallid imm. based on clear separation of cheek and neck, primary undercoverts being same colour tone as secondaries and upperwing coverts contrasting more with rest of wing.

Twite.

Click to expand...

My experience of imm Pallid is only one bird, but it was almost orange below, very slim looking compared to this bird, and a very prominent boa.

I know birds can vary, but this looks nothing like the one up here this Autumn (imm bird).

I'm not convinced that's there's enough detail visible in the photo to get enough for a definitive ID. It seems to have four fingers in the wingtip, making it one of the two smaller harriers, and the orangey tint to the underparts suggests its a young bird, though time of year would be an important piece of information here. The dark secondaries are not conclusive either way, and I can't make-out enough detail on the primaries or the neck and face to say anything based on those features. However, it does look to me that the axilaries are barred, which would be diagnostic for Montagu's. So on that, admittedly rather tenuous, basis, I would lean toward the bird being a Montagu's Harrier.

It also appears to be in active wing moult, which means we should be able to work out when the pic was taken.

i know that the 'boomerang' is meant to be an important feature of separating these birds - could anyone explain what it is an whether it is visible on this bird?

agree with Dougie that boa does not appear quite prominent enough - think i may have discarded monty a bit early.

Jane Turner said:

It also appears to be in active wing moult, which means we should be able to work out when the pic was taken.

Click to expand...

Which also means that the number of visible primaries should also be treated with care as Hen Harrier in active wing moult can also show four, instead of five, fingers.

I don't think the pattern on the underside of the primaries can be seen clearly enough to say whether this bird shows the 'boomerang' or not.

Although it's a young bird I reckon it's a first summer rather than a juvenile, which would show pale tips to the upperwing coverts & wouldn't be in wing moult.

A couple of 1st summer female Monty's :

http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=11384
http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=16659

A Pallid of the same age:

http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=6108

and for the sake of completeness, a Hen:

http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=5878

I still come down in favour of Monty's.

In my limited opinion, i dont think its a monty as there is usually dark fringing to the underwing trailing edge and fingers.

Also, in my opinion monties are the most slender of all harriers, pallid females can appear quite stocky and in flight more falcon like.

That apart, i will leave it to the experts

I don't like to comment on this bird it shows how hard Harriers are. Is it definatly a first year bird?

Woodchatshrike said:

I don't like to comment on this bird it shows how hard Harriers are. Is it definatly a first year bird?

Click to expand...

The secondaries look all dark, implying a bird in its first or second calendar year.

Rob, my first reaction on seeing the photos was the same as yours when you first saw this bird in the field - on shape alone (wing-breadth compared to wing-length/tail-length/overall length of the bird), it has to be a Hen Harrier. I cannot believe that photographic effects could ever make Montagu's look this broad-winged. Pallid does look less narrow-winged than Monty's, though, so we have to rule this species out. That the bird is in moult is the obvious explanation for the 'incorrect' number of fingered primaries.

It's definitely not a juvenile of either Pallid or Monty's. They're much more vivid rusty-orange below. The extent of the warm colour on the rear flanks & underwings is surely within the range of juvenile Hen (see e.g. Plate 198 in Forsman's The Raptors of Europe and the Middle East). I also don't believe the underparts are unstreaked - I can see what appear to be streaks on the breast-sides at least; they could be artifacts due to the low resolution, but if so, then we have to conclude that the resolution isn't good enough to say that the bird is definitely unstreaked there either.

I don't really see anything in the head pattern that it incompatible with juvenile Hen Harrier. In terms of collars, I'm not sure what others are seeing but I see just a dark collar, with no pale behind it, and therefore no contrasting dark boa behind a pale collar either. The pale area is the bird's cheek. Pallid in juvenile and female plumages should show a narrow pale collar immediately behind the dark area, and this bird doesn't show that.

Re: the underwing pattern, a contrast between pale-looking primaries and dark-looking secondaries is fine for Hen - see e.g. plate 200 in Forsman. I'm straining to see the exact pattern of underside primary barring. "Boomerangs", as I understand them, are wide, boomerang shaped pale gaps between the bars at the base of the underside of the primaries that differ in shape & prominence between the three species; this bird doesn't show anything here, as far as I can tell, which is wrong for Hen. I don't think the photo has a high enough resolution to draw any conclusions about axillary barring - and this isn't a Yes/No feature - Pallid and Hen can be patterned here too - it's just that on Monty's the pattern is one of really obvious alternating rufous & pale bars. Prominence of the upperwing covert patch is surely fine for Hen too?

Steve

How do you go about identifying Northen Harrier? I've never bothered reading the papers.

I kinda fancied Hen myself.

My first thought was Hen, based on structure alone. That should rule out the other two straightaway, before we consider plumage details. And forgive me going back to basics, but isn't it more likely to be Hen because that's by far the commonest of the three (relatively speaking, of course).