North Macedonia - Water or Tawny Pipit? (5 Viewers)

[PYRTLE]

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

Cheers

Malar, Moustachial etc pattern present in on the subject bird. But image taken in Spring. Some expert can maybe take out the grey upperparts and put in a "tawny" wash.

 

[KenM]

Malar, Moustachial etc pattern present in on the subject bird. But image taken in Spring. Some expert can maybe take out the grey upperparts and put in a "tawny" wash.

It’s ambiguous, whichever way you look at it, what’s needed is a “much” better image, without that, I wouldn’t like to comment further.😮

 

[Mike Earp]

It’s ambiguous, whichever way you look at it, what’s needed is a “much” better image, without that, I wouldn’t like to comment further.😮

Preferably a BOC shot or two, ideally slightly out of focus.

 

[KenM]

Preferably a BOC shot or two, ideally slightly out of focus.

Must have a sleep problem at 3.52 am for a “done to death” comment like that.😮
You can be assured that with an image like that…I would have produced “the most FOC shot that I could’ve mustered.

 

[opisska]

Malar, Moustachial etc pattern present in on the subject bird. But image taken in Spring. Some expert can maybe take out the grey upperparts and put in a "tawny" wash.

You can find photos of EYW that look really a lot like the bird in question. I am not claiming that this is necessarily EYW, but my wife has been showing me photos of them for the better part of the last hour and I have to say some are pretty convincing. The key is looking at similarly bad photos - then you see that the blur and de-noising does to the bird exactly what it did to this one - and then you realize how many of the "marks" on the photo are simply not reliable because you can arrive at the same impression from different starting birds.

I am now inclined to think that this bird is simply not identifiable - I think it's possible to say what species the collection of pixels on the photo represents best, but this collection of pixels is so far removed from the real bird due to the processing of the camera that it doesn't tell you the ID of the real bird.

 

[Mike Earp]

You can find photos of EYW that look really a lot like the bird in question. I am not claiming that this is necessarily EYW, but my wife has been showing me photos of them for the better part of the last hour and I have to say some are pretty convincing. The key is looking at similarly bad photos - then you see that the blur and de-noising does to the bird exactly what it did to this one - and then you realize how many of the "marks" on the photo are simply not reliable because you can arrive at the same impression from different starting birds.

Can you provide links to any of these photos? I think the bird has the shape of a pipit not a wagtail and I don't see how that can be distorted.

 

[opisska]

This is a really fun bird - it's now 7:5 Tawny:Water on iNat (so it will likely stay as "pipits") - the most fun is how many people have said that it's "clearly" one or the other. At least half of them must be wrong

 

[François Doyen]

Bill seems way too small/thin for any tawny pipit

 

[opisska]

I think at this point you can find an argument about any part of the bird's body either here or in the iNat discussion. It's 7:6 now, so either 2 or 3 people (depending on the direction) would have to change their minds or 6 or 9 new people (again depending on the direction) would have to vote. One of the most contested iNat bird IDs I have ever seen!

 

[Alexandre]

Hello all,
For me, and although the picture doesn't do it justice, everything on this bird fit ad. tawny Pipit, especially the coloration and pattern of the medium covert, the malard and the moustachial stripes, the uniformity of the sandy-grey colour of the upper parts etc.

Regards,

Alexandre

 

[Ryszard]

it's a wagtail, not a pipit

 

[Alexandre]

it's a wagtail, not a pipit

On what basis ?

Thanks in advance for clarifying,

Alexandre

 

[Ryszard]

In my opinion, the small beak and the color of the back rule out a tawny pipit. the Water pipit does not have such a uniform blue-gray color on its back. It's hard for me to describe the details in English, but for me it's a wagtail

 

[Ryszard]

...or hybrid

 

[Mike Earp]

Hello all,
For me, and although the picture doesn't do it justice, everything on this bird fit ad. tawny Pipit, especially the coloration and pattern of the medium covert, the malard and the moustachial stripes, the uniformity of the sandy-grey colour of the upper parts etc.

Regards,

Alexandre

The back is surely (slate) grey not sandy-grey and the edges of the median coverts ought not to be so white in a Tawny Pipit which should also have blackish lores. It looks to me like a Water Pipit not any sort of wagtail.

 

[Ryszard]

...or hybrid

what's so funny about hybrids?

 

[Ryszard]

Butty

 

[Ryszard]

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

IT was 01 May or 31 May?

 

[Mike Earp]

IT was 01 May or 31 May?

Observed: May 30, 2023 · 19:44 CEST

 

[Ryszard]

Why ma_fink ask andMike Earp answered?