• 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)

bolton birdman said:
Well done lou for sorting it out. Think no 34 is sub-adult if thats the right terminology

thanks. but i have to say the hobby in #34 looks rather 1st cy to me. pic was taken on 17.09.2005 and a subadult, i.e. 2nd cy wouldn't show that clear pale buffish fringing of upperpart-feathers, which generally would have a more slate-gray or steel-grey tone.

btw., the 2 bird-theory seems ridiculous to me - anyone can see it is the same bird, on its particular nape pattern alone. if there was a smiley i'd accepted it...
 
sorry Lou, try as I might I see the first bird as significantly lighter-weighted (scuse the phrase), paler cheeked and I'm not sure the the head pattern does actually match
 
eden why be so childish, it's a forum for debate ... should I now say 'oh yes, the first photo shows a Peregrine' because the final three do ... even though I'm having some difficulty reconciling that as the same bird ...

we've had people veering between one species and another and people maintaining an ID one way or another etc ... I fall into the latter and say I'm not convinced the first pic is depicting the same bird as the additional photos ... because I'm not!
 
Last edited:
Timmmeeeh - one all. But you were suspiciously quiet on this one....?

It is incredible to me that the additional photos so clearly show a Peregrine, and also seem to show the same bird!! I don't think I'll ever believe my eyes again!

Well done to those who stuck out with the right answer. Bolton Birdman - I owe you an apology.

GV
 
Agree with Lou, the bird in # 34 is def. a 1st cy, if not, it would mean the bird would have skipped two major moults, and it doesn´t look like that according to the fresh plumage.
Maybe because the colour of the undertail coverts are surprisingly reddish looking, and contrast with the underparts, made people think of an older bird.
JanJ
 
Ghostly Vision said:
Timmmeeeh - one all. But you were suspiciously quiet on this one....?

I don't think I'll ever believe my eyes again!

GV

Hiya Sean
thought it might be prudent!

A while back i resolved not to do another pic unless there were some obvious and unambiguous features on show. My resolve slipped though. At the end of the day I think the photographer should have been able to say what colour the bird was! At least. ;)

recent threads have been nothing more than guessing. Me included.

Tim
 
well Tim, fair point, but no one has denied a Peregrine was rung ... like I say (for my part) when I look at Pic 1. I don't see a Peregrine ... do you?
 
Last edited:
Tim Allwood said:
and it was obvioulsy a Peregrine as the bloody thing was rung - the size difference might have been apparent!!!

Tim


Yeah, I think the issue was whether photo's had been mixed up.

I am going to send the original photo to unsuspecting mates to see what they come up with!! One would've thought a photo that good would have been pretty unambiguous.

GV
 
London Birder said:
eden why be so childish, it's a forum for debate ... should I now say 'oh yes, the first photo shows a Peregrine' because the final three do ... even though I'm having some difficulty reconciling that as the same bird ...

we've had people veering between one species and another and people maintaining an ID one way or another etc ... I fall into the latter and say I'm not convinced the first pic is depicting the same bird as the additional photos ... because I'm not!
Calling me childish, well as you wish. Refusing to take the photographers word for it is merely obtuse.

Rob
 
really eden ?

denying my own perceptions, however skewed you may think they are, would surely be more obtuse ? ... the issue is trying to ID from the photo, not whether the photographer says it's A, B or C as mix-ups in photo's are hardly impossible are they? nor is it whether a Peregrine was rung ... the issue is what species is in the first photo and to me it's a Hobby ... I have no clue what you're Identification of it is ... to post a message saying 'some people don't know when to give up' is childish in my opinion because it's not a case of 'giving up' as you put it ... like I say it still appears to be a Hobby to me !
 
I said it was a peregrine from the outset, though in my first post on the subject I said my first impression was hobby. Other advocates of hobby are happy to accept that the bird is the same in each of the photos.
I am not impugning your ID skills, field identification is a world away from an ID from one photo and it DOES look very like a hobby. However the debate is over.

Rob
 
I finally had a look at the pic and yes you think Hobby straight away but if you look again... quite funny how forthright cartain people were give the recent Kestrel debacle eh Sean and LB? You couldn't script it... :king:

at least Kes was a dodgy pic!!!

Tim
 
At first glance it looked like a Hobby, maybe partly because it was sitting in a pine tree. On a closer look it is definitely a Peregrine because the bill is too big for a Hobby and the streaking on the underparts is much too fine - Juv Hobby shows big black blotches, not streaks. The head pattern looks sort of intermediate but the lack of a supercilium points towards Peregrine.

Clearly (to me) all four shots are of the same bird.

Steve
 
Tim Allwood said:
I finally had a look at the pic and yes you think Hobby straight away but if you look again... quite funny how forthright cartain people were give the recent Kestrel debacle eh Sean and LB? You couldn't script it... :king:

at least Kes was a dodgy pic!!!

Tim

not quite sure what you mean Tim, if I was forthright in the Kestrel thread about the bird in question being a Kestrel that's because I thought it was one ... I never thought the photo was THAT dodgy, just a not too brilliant record shot of a Kestrel ... you thought it was Peregrine if I remember rightly and if so then you were wrong, I don't imagine for a split second you can't ID a Kestrel in the field however ... with this current contentious bird the photo really isn't that bad yet look at the divided opinions, I just still happen to maintain mine, nothing more, nothing less ...
 
Last edited:
Ghostly Vision said:
As per the other thread, this is a juvenile Hobby.

The pale nape mark, the proportions (i.e. large head size in relation to body, indicating a small bird), the plain white, unstreaked cheeks are diagnostic. The fact that it is in a conifer doesn't help the Peregrine theory either. The density/thickness of the breast streaks is irrelevant compared to the features mentioned above.

There is no further debate on this bird.

GV

If only...
 
London Birder said:
I never thought the photo was THAT dodgy, just a not too brilliant record shot of a Kestrel ...

I just still happen to maintain mine, nothing more, nothing less ...

no point maintaining it now - it's been shown to be a Peregrine.

you must be having a laff re. that Kestrel photo? - it was shocking :eek!:

Are you happy with the Mistle Thrush id?

Tim
 
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