[lou salomon]

sf. gheorghe is located in the danube delta, close to the mouth of the southern branch of danube. let's see what you think about these. i'm not 100% sure about no.2

[lou salomon]

err, here they are

[JANJ]

Hi Lou.
Well what about the first one, a brute, impossible to handle. Two things though, tibia looks slender and eye small.
The flying gull is between michahellis and cachinnans I think, closer to michahellis, due to heavy markings on undertail coverts, well marked underwing.Tailband looks narrow, not so "crisp" unmarked belly, breast band, marked flanks. A look at the head and bill gives a cachinnans feel, at least the bill looks long and slender. Could this be a well marked cachinnans? I guess it could, but it doesn´t feel all good, and not really for michahellis either.
This cachinnans is from Denmark, taken in November by Klaus:M. O.
http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures/birds...n-18112005.jpg
and is considered to have a well marked underwing. The same from above:
http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures/birds...vn-1211200.jpg

So, Lou I´m not 100% sure, about the flying, but michahellis keeps coming up, despite the bill.
I don´t think it´s argentatus.
JanJ

[lou salomon]

hi jan,
and thanks for your comment.
oh my dear, that flying cach from netfugl is really darkish!
"The flying gull is between michahellis and cachinnans" - and i thought i'm the only stupid one who can't decide between the 2. it was not the only one. generally inside the delta cachinnans was dominant, but in the harbours and especially in Constantza michahellis is the more abundant sp. (also a big breeding population of mich in Bukarest!). now there were a lot gulls that seemed to be "in between". structurally "clear" 1st cy cachs had darkish underwings (in all kind of variations), had spotted middle undertail coverts (which should be white) etc. so that i often looked at a bunch of unidentified birds. maybe some hybrids too? nobody knows if or how much gene flow there is between the two in black sea. usually they are well separated by breeding habitat.

the first bird was very weak, it had swallowed a fisher's hook and was condemned to die soon. i guess it was an adult looking cachinnans which by "weakening" lost its barepart pigmentation (legs, ok can be fleshy in cach., lightish iris is also possible, but usually the ponticus birds i saw had more pigmentation) - is this "decoloration" a known phenomenon? it seemed obvious to me. structurally it fit a male cachinnans (bill length, head shape etc. though on sic birds damaged plumage can give a false effect.

[Joern Lehmhus]

Hi Lou,
perhaps not a significant vote, but the first one "feels" like cachinnans for me-however, I am not that experienced on those.

Another thing, is it generally so that injured big gulls from species that normally have yellow coloured legs tend to develop pinkish legs?

[JANJ]

One thing Lou I would like to add, is that the long-legged appearance of cachinnans is often also seen in flight, where the feet (if tail isn´t to worn!) reach or almost reach the tail tip. I´ve seen, a couple of times in Sweden, toes even project beyond tail.
On your gull feet seems to reach tail tip, tail doesn´t seem to be that worn.
http://ddkkk.1g.fi/lokki/ammass.htm.
The finnish for michahellis = "Etelänharmaalokki", cachinnans = "Aroharmaalokki"
JanJ

[J Jones]

I would go for both being cachinnans.... look at the structure and length of the bill on the bird in flight... as JanJ says... presumably a well-marked cachinnans?