North Macedonia - Water or Tawny Pipit? (1 Viewer)

[ma_fink]

Dear birdforum-users,

in May 2023 I took a picture of a Pipit in North Macedonia. At the location I ID´d the bird as a clear Water Pipit so I only took a quick record-shot.

Link to observation: Pipit in North Macedonia

Now I uploaded this pic to iNaturalist, not to ask for ID help, just to save the observation and the record... Due to the bad pic quality there is now a big discussion over the correct ID of the bird (Water vs. Tawny Pipit). The picture was taken in the last light of the day so colours and so on are a little off...

I would appreciate to hear your opinions on this bird! Of course I would also be happy if you could respond directly on iNaturalist, if you like!

Best regards, Mario

 

[PYRTLE]

I would call that as a summer plumage Water Pipit.

 

[lou salomon]

in addition to what has been said in favour of spinoletta and against campestris, especially from capracornelius, I'd add that I think the top mountain habitat in a generally mountaineous area is also in favour of Water Pipit which it strongly looks to me.

 

[Butty]

Welcome to BF.
It's not just the AI on iNat that's rubbish for bird ID... 👎🏼

 

[01101001]

Could Tawny Pipit have such a cold grey back at all?

 

[kuzeycem]

Straightforward Tawny for me, unless I'm looking at the wrong photo? Pale back, long tail, unmarked underparts, distinct facial stripes.

 

[PYRTLE]

Whilst allowing for the late afternoon light, the slate grey crown, nape, back together with white,( not creamy or buff ) supercillium and pink wash to the breast sides takes me away from Tawny.....on my monitor.

 

[PYRTLE]

Spring Tawny Pipit


Subject bird

 

[kuzeycem]

You really shouldn't be using color-related cues on such a badly-lit photo. Mind doing the same comparison with a breeding Water Pipit? Would you mind showing a Water Pipit combining completely lacking any underparts markings with such pale ear coverts and pronounced moustachial/malar stripes, which wouldn't be affected by lighting?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Straightforward Tawny for me, unless I'm looking at the wrong photo? Pale back, long tail, unmarked underparts, distinct facial stripes.

Doesn't strike me as being at all, Tawny like?

 

[cafe birder]

While the colours make it look like an obvious water pipit the long tail, apparently well marked moustachial/malar stripes and especially the distinctive dark centred coverts all tip me towards Tawny.

 

[Mike Earp]

While the colours make it look like an obvious water pipit the long tail, apparently well marked moustachial/malar stripes and especially the distinctive dark centred coverts all tip me towards Tawny.

Aren't dark-centred coverts mentioned as a feature of Tawny Pipit in contrast to Richard's Pipit? I think Water Pipit also has dark-centred coverts which, moreover, are white-fringed as in the original bird pictured and unlike in Tawny Pipit.

 

[PYRTLE]

You really shouldn't be using color-related cues on such a badly-lit photo. Mind doing the same comparison with a breeding Water Pipit? Would you mind showing a Water Pipit combining completely lacking any underparts markings with such pale ear coverts and pronounced moustachial/malar stripes, which wouldn't be affected by lighting?

No, not really. One should perhaps also consider that most of the underparts are hidden whilst any faint streaking here may be absorbed by the various sensor artefacts in play.There's enough from the OP link for me to hazard an identification not forgetting that colours and their related areas are a standard pointer to a species. And given that other keen and experienced birders don't see it as a Tawny suggests it is far from being a straightforward id as you intimate.

 

[kuzeycem]

No, not really. One should perhaps also consider that most of the underparts are hidden whilst any faint streaking here may be absorbed by the various sensor artefacts in play.There's enough from the OP link for me to hazard an identification not forgetting that colours and their related areas are a standard pointer to a species. And given that other keen and experienced birders don't see it as a Tawny suggests it is far from being a straightforward id as you intimate.

Possibly keen and experienced (I don't know many people here personally, sorry) UK or NW Europe-based birders - which has always been one of the weak points of this forum in general. If only there were more SE European, Middle Eastern or Asian birders on this forum, then perhaps I wouldn't so often come across as the 'minority opinion'.

However, you are of course well within your rights to an opinion and I apologise if I have been too adamant on mine.
That being said, I would still be interested in seeing any Water Pipits with this tail length or facial markings.

 

[PYRTLE]

Possibly keen and experienced (I don't know many people here personally, sorry) UK or NW Europe-based birders - which has always been one of the weak points of this forum in general. If only there were more SE European, Middle Eastern or Asian birders on this forum, then perhaps I wouldn't so often come across as the 'minority opinion'.

However, you are of course well within your rights to an opinion and I apologise if I have been too adamant on mine.
That being said, I would still be interested in seeing any Water Pipits with this tail length or facial markings.

Not withstanding the observer who took the photograph, hopefully studying the bird and had at the time, " clearly identified it as a Water Pipit ". That statement has some merit surely.
You also must not underestimate your experience and valued input into BF.
I have been unable to locate an article by Chris Heard on Water / Scandinavian and British Rock Pipit, with very useful plates.
We should enquire if Mario also saw or has experience of Tawny Pipit.
Regards meanwhile.

 

[Mike Earp]

Which race of Water Pipit would be there?

 

[opisska]

I think the discussion focuses too much on "what is wrong for Water Pipit" instead of "how could this even be Tawny". The outer tail feathers are burningly white - that's not a "lighting issue", as the rest of the bird is too dark instead. The lack of breast streaking is easily explained by the photo quality, this has been clearly processed "to remove noise" and the streaks are the baby from the proverbial bathtub ...

edit: huh, Tawny also has white edges? I always kinda assumed they are sandy, there is no contrast in that bird So that's not a great argument actually, but still, the bird looks so wrong for a Tawny Pipit ...

 

[01101001]

Not entirely dissimilar to Tawny Pipit (and it does seem to have a uniform mantle--can Water Pipit show that?). Not that I know, either way.

 

[THE_FERN]

The grey back is misleading. It's due to ambient light. Seems like tawny to me

 

[KenM]

How would one discount Eastern Yellow Wagtail from this image….dunno?

Cheers