[puffinboy]

Dear All

Lovely walk/birdwatch near Pett Levels in East Sussex..

The wardens have flooded an area north of the Royal Military Canal/Pannel Sewer and this has attracted many waders/gulls/ducks and tens of sand martins...

Managed to get an hour there this afternoon - I did read on the Sussex Ornithological Website reports of Green and Wood Sandpiper - also Greenshank, Ruff and Black Tailed Godwit...

Now Black Tailed Godwit I did see and Greenshank and Ruff but the Sandpipers are causing me consternation...!

I have attached a montage of a unknown sandpiper (there were at least 3 of them) of the freshwater edge of the aforementioned flooded area...

I would be delighted to receive comment... - I think wood sandpiper -but I'm not sure.........

Cheers Tom

see also - www.susos.org.uk

[Talons]

Top left looks like a Wood Sandpiper... top right is a Common Sandpiper... charming view of the one on the bottom, couldn't figure it out.

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Tom,
While it is very difficult to be sure of the ID from these photos, the bird (are these all of the same individual?) seems to be a Wood Sandpiper to me. Green Sandpiper would be darker on the upperparts, and structurally is more like a large Common Sandpiper. This bird is more of a typical Tringa in structure, a bit like a small Redshank, with longer legs than a Green and also a prominent supercilium (think I can make this out in the second and third pics). Can be aged as a juvenile based on the regular spotting of the upperparts, adults being more worn at this time of year.
Harry

[roger hill]

Hi talons
You can click on those thumbnails to make them bigger. Then you would see that by no stretch of the imagination could that top right bird be a common sand.
i`m quite happy that it is a wood sand.

[roger hill]

hi Puffinboy
Are you sure that all three pictures are of the same bird? I say this because, whilst i am happy with the top right pic being of wood sand, the top left looks to be of a Greenshank. The neck looks longer,darker and paler chinned. There seems to be more contrast with the primaries and coverts; the underside appears wholey white. (wood sand are never that clean). and the bird is wading quite a way out from the bank. (a feature more consistant with Greenshank than wood sand).
The third shot i am not brave enough to comment on.

[M Cowming]

Hi Tom,

I certainly wouldn't call any of the three a Common sandpiper and I'm presuming pic 2 & 3 are the same bird which looks good for Wood sandpiper. However, i'd be reluctant to call the bird in the first pic. Superficially, it doesn't say Wood sandpiper to me whether due to photographic effect or what i don't know but it appears too grey for Wood Sandpiper.

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Mícheál,
I share your concerns about the first pic, but admit that it doesn't really seem to be a Greenshank on structure etc, and perhaps it is just due to a photographic effect?
Harry

[M Cowming]

To be honest, greenshank was my first thought but, the bill is putting me off more than anything...appears too short! But, surely too strong and overall too bright a bird to be the same bird as in pics 2 and 3??

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Mícheál,
Maybe an adult Wood Sand, with the other one being a juvenile...?
Harry

[M Cowming]

Can't be convinced of Wood sand at all...may be very wrong but the bird seems too strongly built and bright overall to be typical Wood Sand! Not convinced of Greenshank either but what else could fit??? Bloody cameras..

[M Cowming]

Hi again Tom,

Having seen the bird, can you give any additional info? Was the bird different to that in the other 2 pics? Did it appear this grey or was it darker in real time? Any hints you could give might encourage a more appropriate ID as at the moment, I have a feeling the quality of the photo is going to leave the true ID in doubt.

[puffinboy]

Thank you all for your comments - very interesting - I'm sorry that one of the pics caused such issues - I agree!! - I did take other pics of a Greenshank but the montage was of the same bird - I suspect a trick of the light - Cameras can cause such annoying problems I know.......!

This was first time I have seen the presumed Wood Sandpiper - and having seen the Greenshanks on the same afternoon I would be pretty confident of telling them apart..

There were at least 3 of the said pipers in that area - so the comment regarding juveniles could be relavent...

Hope to revisit the area soon so hope for more pics.......

Cheers Tom

[Jane Turner]

The right hand and bottom pic.. givene a choice betweemn Green Sand and Wood Sand.. yes Wood, though I'm not sure they are identifiable without restricting the cboice.

Like others I am having trouble identifying the top left bird though it reallly doesn't look like a Wood Sand to me.

[roger hill]

Hi Harry
You say that the (first pic doesnt look like a greenshank on structure etc). In what way?. And what does The (etc) mean, is it something that you have identified over and above structure?
M Cowming says that he was happy, but for the Bill. Apparently too short and too strong. I think the reason it looks short is due to the angle of the bird. But having said that (juv) greenshank`s bill is shorter than adult anyway.

[roger hill]

Hi M Cowming
When i first came accross this thread and clicked on the thumbnail, my first impression was of Greenshank for pic(1) and Reeve for pic(2). But was happy with the concensus of wood sand, having read the mail.
I showed the pics to a friend who,without any prompting from me,came up with the same ID.
I think it is important that we all lose interest in this thread and move on!

[M Cowming]

Hi Roger,

There are times, such as this one, where certain photographed birds will never be conclusively identified. I still stick by my guns and disapprove of Pic 1 being a Wood Sand and most likely a Greenshank. I appreciate that camera angle etc. can "alter" features to such a degree that it can actually stump the best of birders.

"I think it is important that we all lose interest in this thread and move on!"

While I can understand what would urge you to make this comment, I think it's important to scrutinise such pictures not least if to learn a little more about bird identification. Since I've joined this forum, i find such debates as this the most healthy and informative. I consider myself a decent birder and have even gotten the simplest of ID's wrong on here myself...aswell as witness others who i consider to "know their stuff" suffer the same embarrassment.

My point is, it's a great tool to improve our identification skills and the more "dodgy" photographic contributions we have, the more we will learn.

Good to hear your comments though!!!

Best regards,

[roger hill]

Hi M Cowming
The statement of (i think we should lose interest and move on) was a joke!
However i refer you you a previous mail where you say that (you arent convinced of greenshank either) So which guns are you sticking to ?

[M Cowming]

Hi Roger,

I think I've clearly stated that I "think" the bird may be a Greenshank and have never said that it IS a Greenshank! The mail where I said I wasn't convinced about it being a Greenshank either was due to reason stated; ie apparent short bill but I also stated "what else could fit?" I think I reserve the right to question my own thoughts on the bird's ID. I also think the sum of my contribution clearly state that I think the bird is "probably" a Greenshank. Is that not sticking to my guns?

By the way, you have commented that Greenshank juveniles posess shorter bills than adults in one of your previous posts which seems to be one of your reasons for keeping with Greenshank ID. I'm just curious as to where you found this piece of info. Personally, I have never noticed this feature and to quote "Collins", the juvenile Greenshank's bill is "long, stout, slightly upturned".

Anyway, as much as I think it MAY be a Greenshank, it seems we are both wrong to think so as the thread starter has clearly stated, "the montage is of the same bird". This would indicate that it is infact a Wood Sandpiper and not a Greenshank or Reeve or anything else!

Like I said, bloody cameras!

Have a nice day,

[roger hill]

Hi M
Collins
Look at the text and dont just look at the plates.
the caption next to the juv doesnt mean that it is exclusively for juvs.
In the text there is no mention of this feature for separation of juv/ad.
Dont just make stuff up to win a debate.
But having said all that:- Have a nice day.

[THH]

Before reading any comments:

1. Greenshank
2. Wood Sand
3. Wood Sand

[THH]

But 'due to a photographic effect' they could all be Kingfishers!

[Jane Turner]

For what its worth I've blown the top right photo up and I really can't get close to making it a Wood Sand. It really uniform (greyish) on the upperparts and has no super. If it is the same bird as the others then its an astounding piece of photographic distortion. The bill is really quite thick too and I could be persuaded to believe that its a Greenshank with its head turned slightly.

Now.. how about converting the bottom pic into a Pacific Goldie?

[Joern Lehmhus]

For what it is worth, my first impression was Greenshank at an odd angle for the first picture (upper left) and Wood sandpiper for the second (Upper right)-the bird on the lower pic may also be wood sandpiper.

so the impression that the upper 2 pictures are of 2 different bird species is also very strong in me-
puffinboy, is it really totally out of question that a greenshank jumped into your pic when you were photographing your mystery sandpipers?

[M Cowming]

Hi Roger,

At the risk of allowing this to become confrontational, I'll make this my last post on the matter. Frankly, you seem more intent on demeriting my comments rather than identifying the bird. To now, your own reasons stated for identifying the bird as a Greenshank don't hold up and now you are saying that I am making stuff up?
What exactly am I making up?

I never said that in the Collins text, having a shorter bill was an identification feature between juv and adult Greenshanks! You did! See post #14. I merely said that I have never noticed this feature myself and that it wasn't even mentioned in Collins!

As for me not "looking at the text", i think that i am at least reporting what is actually on paper and not making it up like yourself. The caption next to the juvenile states "long, stout, slightly upturned" and is directly relative to the juvenile plate. Nowhere does it show or mention juveniles with a shorter bill. Infact, maybe you should look at the plates AND read the text as you seem to be seeing details that aren't even apparent.

Once again, I'd like to be reminded of what you think I'm making up to win a debate! I merely stated what I thought of the bird from studying the photo and reading Collins. Yes, to me it looks like a Greenshank but the original poster says it's a Wood Sand. Who am I to argue?

Finally, you say "In the caption next to the juv doesn't mean that it is exclusively for juvs". That caption says, I repeat, "long, stout, slightly upturned". By not being exclusively for juvs as you put it, I presume you mean it also pertains to adults and other ages? Well, if that's the case then at no age would a Greenshank have a short bill as you like to put it which kind of blows you own identification opinions out of the water.

Roger, I don't mind being wrong or even questioned as to why I have an opinion. I do mind being verbally assaulted in such a fashion as to make me look stupid! Maybe that's a strong statement from me but you get the jist of what I mean.
Concentrate on the bird and not those trying to ID it.

[roger hill]

Hi M
Initially,i tried to be diplomatic with Puffinboy, trying to steer him towards Greenshank.-Then i read that some people doubted it, by giving reasons. Then coming round to Greenshank.
But it wasnt until post #16 that i changed from just being just an interested bystander. I felt it was so patronising, i had to say something. This cuminatated in #19. which was totally out of order, and for which i am genuinely sorry.
I have since read over all the pertinant posts and accept i blew things out of all proportion.
I felt,personnally,that greenshank (juv) bill was shorter than adult and thought(wrongly)that it was common knowledge. Or wouldnt have made such an outrageous statement.
Since we started this todo, others have joined in, with the concensus now leaning towards greenshank. So some good may well have come of it.

Regards Roger