• 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.

Snipe ID (1 Viewer)

Grousemore

Senior Member
Having recently posted about the differences between Common Snipe and Wilson's Snipe,I wonder if anyone can differentiate between the 2 pics attached.
One was taken in Kent last September and the other in Florida a week ago.
 

Attachments

  • bird 1.JPG
    bird 1.JPG
    131.1 KB · Views: 288
  • Bird 2.JPG
    Bird 2.JPG
    99.3 KB · Views: 333
Wilson's delicata on the left I reckon due to flank pattern and apparent colder overall colour

if you look very very closely you can see it has eight pairs of rectrices not seven as typical in Common ;)
 
Hi Grousemore,
I'd tend to agree with the consensus that the Wilson's pic is the one on the left,but it's hard to see much fine detail in either photo.Flanks look right for one,and the upperparts look less patterned.
Harry H
 
Harry Hussey said:
Hi Grousemore,
I'd tend to agree with the consensus that the Wilson's pic is the one on the left,but it's hard to see much fine detail in either photo.Flanks look right for one,and the upperparts look less patterned.
Harry H
Thanks,Harry,I must admit to finding differentiation between the two very difficult,but will persist.
All replies were correct in that the Wilson's (USA) bird was the one on the left,although Michael must be disqualified for cheating. ;)
 
Is it just me?......I didn't actually find them diff. at all. The flanks and colour are quite distinctive in the Wilson's aren't they? I have seen a few and thought they were quite obvious as well given a reasonable view. A rustier bird if they exist may be troublesome though.

Looking for fine detail might start to confuse........and anyway count the tail feathers! ;)
 
Tim Allwood said:
Is it just me?......I didn't actually find them diff. at all. The flanks and colour are quite distinctive in the Wilson's aren't they? I have seen a few and thought they were quite obvious as well given a reasonable view. A rustier bird if they exist may be troublesome though.

Looking for fine detail might start to confuse........and anyway count the tail feathers! ;)

I suppose it depends on how good/experienced one is;the ability to separate marginal details develops (I hope) over time and in the field.
Sibley refers to "gestalt" which he describes as ...."a distinctive overall appearance that is generated by the interaction of all parts of the birds,including subtle and indistinct characteristics."
This is obviously dependent on a reasonable number of sightings of the species concerned and I guess that relatively few UK birders have seen Wilson's.
 
Grousemore said:
Sibley refers to "gestalt" which he describes as ...."a distinctive overall appearance that is generated by the interaction of all parts of the birds,including subtle and indistinct characteristics."
Think I'll stick with "jizz", thanks!

Jason
 
Interesting point, Grousemore. I've always accepted the (unproved) explanation of "jizz" as deriving from the acronym GISS - an WW2 RAF abbreviation, I believe, for "general impression of size and shape". I've always taken that to mean exactly the same as Sibley's "Gestalt". How do you understand it?

Jason
 
Bluetail said:
Interesting point, Grousemore. I've always accepted the (unproved) explanation of "jizz" as deriving from the acronym GISS - an WW2 RAF abbreviation, I believe, for "general impression of size and shape". I've always taken that to mean exactly the same as Sibley's "Gestalt". How do you understand it?

Jason
You've defined jizz by the two factors of size and shape;that's akin to my definition,basically equating to a silhouette.
Gestalt is broader,often referred to as the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
 
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. It has been suggested that the derivation of the term jizz comes from GISS, but I don't stop there and I'm not sure anyone else does either. In practice I expand it to encompass Sibley's "Gestalt".

I think most birders, when asked what "jizz" is, would say that it's the general impression and "feel" that a bird gives in the field. That takes on board more than just the silhouette and I think it pretty much equates to Sibley's "Gestalt".

Jason
 
Bluetail said:
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. It has been suggested that the derivation of the term jizz comes from GISS, but I don't stop there and I'm not sure anyone else does either. In practice I expand it to encompass Sibley's "Gestalt".

I think most birders, when asked what "jizz" is, would say that it's the general impression and "feel" that a bird gives in the field. That takes on board more than just the silhouette and I think it pretty much equates to Sibley's "Gestalt".

Jason
If as you say the term jizz (GISS) derives from the RAF,then it was probably alluding to the silhouette of an aircraft.
 
Yes it was. Certainly not birds! But, like I said, that's thought to be merely the origin of the term, not its complete definition as used by birders today.
 
Last edited:
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