thrush help (1 Viewer)

[mdmoshier2]

I saw this bird (I think it is the same one) at High Island, TX 7 weeks ago. I and trying to figure out what thrush it is. I am vasolating between a grey-cheeked and hermit. any help is appreciated. sorry for the pictures, /it was in deep brush on a dark day.

 

[Butty]

The tail in pics 1-2 is not contrastingly rufous - so that/those aren't hermit thrush. I'm fairly sure pic 1 is not the same bird as either pic 2 or pic 3 (upper part of head pattern). I stop there.

 

[KenM]

Grey-cheeked Thrush for me, eye-ring looks fairly muted, much more so than yer average Swainson’s.

Cheers

 

[THE_FERN]

Grey-cheeked Thrush for me, eye-ring looks fairly muted, much more so than yer average Swainson’s.

Cheers

I think there are at least 2 birds here. None show a rufous tail [although we can't see the tail of 563]. The first image (554) shows no buffy lores or eye ring. The other 2 do have this so I think they must be Swainson's and the first grey-cheeked.

 

[Indobirder]

I suppose Veery is excluded for the first bird on the basis of color (being not warm enough)?

ETA: I think it may well be a muted photo of a Veery. Attached is an edited copy, but I may have mucked up the settings (not sure how to make it most true-to-life)

 

[nartreb]

I'm pretty sure that 561 and 563 are the same bird - the breast spots seem to match. I'm not certain about whether 554 is a different bird ... lighting and angle can have pretty strong effects on visibilty of lores and eye-ring, but there is that seven-frame gap in time, and if I saw 561 or 563 by itself, I'd say Swainson's whereas for 554 by itself I'd say grey-cheeked.

Indobirder, your edit is far too red/purple. Look at the pale part of the bark the bird is perched on.

 

[Butty]

edit is far too red/purple. Look at the pale part of the bark

A slight pinkish tint to a bit of branch might not be out of court - but big strongly-pinkish patches on the tail-tip of a Catharus thrush definitely are. The colour balance of the original doesn't give me any reason to doubt that it's ± correct as it is.