• 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.

Curlew sp. at Minsmere (5 Viewers)

CJW said:
Strewth!
This thread is going round and round in circles getting nowhere new (ofcourse this isn't being helped by the intransigence of some of it's contributors).

This is surely an unfair comment, we have all re-evaluated our ideas following research, better photos etc., its called learning. Few of the plumages features shown on recent photos were visble in the field to me, I just felt it didn;t feel right for slender-billed curlew(e.g. jizz etc.) - perhaps not the best id criteria but...
 
Steve said:
Care to nail your colours to the mast then Chris and tell us what you think it is ?
We know what you think it isn't
Steve, may I refer you to post #270 ( a little trick I learned from you!)
 
Ashley beolens said:
Why have these photos made you change your mind, they look very similar to those already around?

1. The bill isn't very slender and in fact in the head-on view looks very broad.
2. The legs are clearly grey-ish.
3. Bill apparently pale on most of lower mandible.

Amongst other more subtle features.

I've swung well into the "it isn't one" camp.
 
Steve, may I refer you to post #270 ( a little trick I learned from you!)
Well Chris telling members they are Going round in circles Is not being constructive is it? I thought you would of had the Stones to say what you think it is ?
 
marklhawkes said:
I don't think its anything to do with people being intransigent, people are just reading,
Nope, sorry. People AREN'T reading what's been written Mark. The same '1st.Winter theories' are/were being put forward when the bird's age had already been established as an adult.

marklhawkes said:
Easy to sit there and judge a bird you've not seen in the field!
I HAVE seen SBC in the field. Have you?
Sorry, that was unnecessary, but it should be apparent to even the most blinkered twitcher that NONE of the photos since day 1 have shown anything other than an 'odd curlew sp.' certainly not a Slender-billed. And THAT is based on experience of the species.
 
Ashley beolens said:
Why have these photos made you change your mind, they look very similar to those already around?

For me, it's not that these show new features- its more that the better the photos get- and/or the closer you get to the bird in good light- the more apparent the warm colours of the chest and flank become. I'm open to new information, but sceptical that true SBC ever departs this far from a basic pattern of dark markings (whether spots, streaks or chevrons) against a pale or white chest and flanks.
 
CJW said:
I HAVE seen SBC in the field. Have you?
Sorry, that was unnecessary, but it should be apparent to even the most blinkered twitcher that NONE of the photos since day 1 have shown anything other than an 'odd curlew sp.' certainly not a Slender-billed. And THAT is based on experience of the species.

Hear hear Chris. A point I am sticking by as I feel confident that I have found one also and can speak from a measure of experience, albeit mainly from memory.
 
CJW said:
Nope, sorry. People AREN'T reading what's been written Mark. The same '1st.Winter theories' are/were being put forward when the bird's age had already been established as an adult.

Sorry to ask - but please can you explain why this bird is definitely an adult (I'm not saying it isn't but want to know why it is). I was there today and although the question of age was being raised it seemed that no conclusion had yet been made. Speaking to staff they agreed that if confirmed as an adult it would rule out sbc, but they still seemed unsure.
 
CJW said:
Nope, sorry. People AREN'T reading what's been written Mark. The same '1st.Winter theories' are/were being put forward when the bird's age had already been established as an adult.


I HAVE seen SBC in the field. Have you?
Sorry, that was unnecessary, but it should be apparent to even the most blinkered twitcher that NONE of the photos since day 1 have shown anything other than an 'odd curlew sp.' certainly not a Slender-billed. And THAT is based on experience of the species.

I actually meant have you seen the bird at minsmere in the field? NO.
Thus, easy to judge from a distance- one thing that was established was that it does look different in the field than in the photos. I think you will recall that only recently has the age be considered to be an adult. Its reassuring to know that i have found the 'best birder in Britian tho' - clearly having an opinion (in your eyes) is only allowed if it agrees with yours. It was an odd curlew sp. (your words) and not an obvious EC - hence the discussion. If you are refering to me as a blinkered twitcher, then i can assure you that you are wrong - 99% of my birding is done on my patch or collating the county bird reports.

Have you never made a mistake or a wrong call? People like you (with your arogance) made discussion group seem immature

Everyone be quiet while he says 'i told you so'!
 
Reader said:
Hear hear Chris. A point I am sticking by as I feel confident that I have found one also and can speak from a measure of experience, albeit mainly from memory.
Was it accepted? (or even submitted?). If not - who knows what you saw!
 
If just saying has been established as an adult is good enoughthen it is most definately a 1st winter female Slender-Billed Curlew as people who have also seen them in the wild (more than one in fact), have stidied skins in museums and many photos, AND are going to be published on identification of SBC 1st winters, has said so!

hmm.. who would I rather believe?
 
Marek, just to argue agains the points you made (I'm in a fighting mood now) Leg colour is greyish, BWP (my only real reference I;m afriad) states bare parts colour as Grey-Blue to slate grey, so thats fine, bill colour - horn-brown, nearly black at tip; base of lower mandible fleshy-pink or pale horn with faint flesh-red tinge - So thats OK too, as for the colouration, its very subject to the photograph and any later manipulation, I could make those photos green, believe what you saw when there not what you are seeing now. If you then think its a EC cool!

I am really not fussed to get a "tick", barely chase anything these days, I just think too many people are saying its this or its that without backing themselves up, so far nothing has been said which fully rules out SBC, until it is I will follow my heart!
 
marklhawkes said:
Was it accepted? (or even submitted?). If not - who knows what you saw!


I have said this before in the thread. There is no way I can prove what I saw, and yes it was submitted but like all reports by a single birder in a foreign land, or even these shores for that matter, there is no way it would be accepted. What I can say is that they were impressed enough to say to me that they thought that I had probably seen one and that they would definitely earmark the site I saw it as as a possible site to watch in the future.

Have you ever been in that position Mark?

What you are in fact saying is if anyone saw a bird for a long period of time on his own, and was comfortable with his or hers ID, they are not to mention it to anyone, or even to use it as a comparison to a possible finding of another one, for fear of ridicule. Is that correct? If it isn't, what point are you trying to make. If it is correct then may I ask you to unbury your head out of the sand and join the real world of subjective debate without trying to bring a point of view down by embarrassing someone who has tried to make a valid point.
 
Reader I think, and I may be wrong, but what Mark meant was just because you say you have seen 1 does not mean you are a world expert and your testimony should be believed with out questioning. I do not doubt that both you and CJW have seen SBC in the wild (although according to some it has been extinct for 11 years) but I assume you saw an adult male which this bird is clearly not, so therefore, saying it didn't look like that is pretty obvious. It does not however mean this is not a plumge/age that you (or most of us) are unfamilliar with.
 
too be fair to Chris (and Jane and a couple of others of us!) it just didn't look right and some folk had the guts (esp Chris) to risk ridicule and say what they thought. That's a sad part of modern birding - the rush to id stuff quickly and put it out etc; if you get it wrong it seems to reflect on you rather more than it should.... No one is really sure what it is - just that it didn't appear right. In the field it certainly didn't and we said that on site to anyone who cared to listen. Maybe all the 'big boys' were saying SBC. The Norwich boys and most people i knew who saw it said opposite - but rather quietly.

I don't quite know what i've learn't about bird ID? Maybe to trust my instincts. A fair bit about human nature perhaps....oh and i want to know what sushkini curlew looks like as i keep banging on about em....

a good example of if your not sure - it probably isn't
 
for the record Reader's record sounds okay on the face of it to me. If you've seen one you'll be keyed into jizz and bill structure etc and one look at the Minmere bird will set you wondering.

I spent a whole spring in Greece looking for SBC - you lucky bugger Reader!



ps - it isn't the plumage that is the biggest problem for me (although it is a problem) it's the bill structure, body structure and behaviour.

and again to be fair to Chris, some of the pro SBC comments were quite vehement.
 
Last edited:
I'm still amazed at the bill shape for EC... and wonder just what the DNA from the faeces might show... and as predicted.. I'm now way more interested in it now the fuss it gone.. if it hangs about I may even come and see it.
 
Tim, we are each entitled to our own oppinion, my only grievence with comments like the one you have just made is that saying it doesn't look right but then not backing it up is a pointless comment!! (no offence meant)

Recently in Bucks/herts we had a claim of Double crested cormorant, and all peoplekept saying was it looks interesting, no one would say why, but those who knew it was a great cormorant of the seinensis? type, gave reasons why. It has been similar here, very few people have said why it is Not SBC but have said it doesn't feel right (well stop touching strange curlew then!!). If you don't think it is one give reasons why, thats all I ask.
 
I agree with the points Tim makes too (for once young Tim). If you want some points that discount Slender-billed Curlew, can I have some points that rule out Eurasian Curlew?! Like others have said, it maybe impossible to positively Identify this bird in the field to a point that everybody agrees as some people seem to have views that will not be changed, which isn't a bad thing, always stick to your thoughts, you shouldn't be swayed by a so called expert if you feel there points aren't valid.

The droppings should hopefully prove it to be one or the other. Lets keep it calm boys!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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