Wader (Fuerteventura) (1 Viewer)

[miami]

Ive been asked by a friend to ID this bird. I know what its not, but im not sure what it is.. Any helpers out there ?

 

[KenM]

If you ignore the apparent leg colour and length, it looks like a Winter plumaged Turnstone?

Cheers

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

If you ignore the apparent leg colour and length, it looks like a Winter plumaged Turnstone?

Cheers

How can you ignore the leg colour and length, why would orange legs look black and longer than expected?

I wondered about spring plumaged Sanderling, but could also be wrong.

 

[Southern Viking]

How can you ignore the leg colour and length, why would orange legs look black and longer than expected?

I wondered about spring plumaged Sanderling, but could also be wrong.

My first impression had been Turnstone too, but yeah, the black legs obviously discount that. Spring Sanderling was about the best I could do too, not that it looks very much like one in the photos!

 

[THE_FERN]

Only the front part of the legs show anything like the true colour. The black is an artifact, possibly caused by shadow (although I'm struggling to understand the direction of the ambient light here). The true colour might well be orangy: appears somewhat reddish to me. So I think turnstone is a good suggestion

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

Only the front part of the legs show anything like the true colour. The black is an artifact, possibly caused by shadow (although I'm struggling to understand the direction of the ambient light here). The true colour might well be orangy: appears somewhat reddish to me. So I think turnstone is a good suggestion

How does that explain it looking long-legged?

 

[Southern Viking]

How does that explain it looking long-legged?

The bottom bit is the foot bent backwards as it's walking I presume

 

[THE_FERN]

How does that explain it looking long-legged?

It doesn't. But it's very difficult for me at least to judge leg length. Most of the right leg seems to actually be backwards-pointing foot

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

It doesn't. But it's very difficult for me at least to judge leg length. Most of the right leg seems to actually be backwards-pointing foot

Fair enough. I can't see any orange in the legs but if others can I'll defer.

 

[Southern Viking]

Fair enough. There's no hint the legs

Fair enough. I can't see any orange in the legs but if others can I'll defer.

I can see what looks like a pale front border, not sure on the colour, but at least that would make the legs normal thickness. The black bit alone would be almost impossibly thin

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

I can see what looks like a pale front border, not sure on the colour, but at least that would make the legs normal thickness. The black bit alone would be almost impossibly thin

Ok. Not seeing orange but I take the point. Perhaps it was taken on a mobile phone.

 

[THE_FERN]

I can see what looks like a pale front border, not sure on the colour, but at least that would make the legs normal thickness. The black bit alone would be almost impossibly thin

Yes it's about interpretation of the colour of that "pale border". I agree it's subtle (so people will disagree) but I see the colour here to be reddish or perhaps orangy---this of course making allowances for the obvious problems with the images

 

[Butty]

Bill-shape and -length are quite wrong for turnstone. Direction of ambient light is clear (see shadows in the sand-hollows): it's coming from low down and front left - so... the legs are in direct sun and there's no reliable colour (other than black) visible in them - it's all artifact - which is not to say they're certainly black in reality but I think it highly probable. If the lower part of the odd-looking left foot is the bent-back toes, then presumably a hind toe would be visible if present - and it isn't. There's nothing much at all wrong with it being a spring sanderling. In my opinion. But... that's subject to additional info being forthcoming...
Can you ask your friend:

• If s/he has any more photos, however bad?
• What the date is? - if known, this should be provided with every ID request as it's often valuable in determining what plumages need to be considered.

Thanks.

 

[miami]

Bill-shape and -length are quite wrong for turnstone. Direction of ambient light is clear (see shadows in the sand-hollows): it's coming from low down and front left - so... the legs are in direct sun and there's no reliable colour (other than black) visible in them - it's all artifact - which is not to say they're certainly black in reality but I think it highly probable. If the lower part of the odd-looking left foot is the bent-back toes, then presumably a hind toe would be visible if present - and it isn't. There's nothing much at all wrong with it being a spring sanderling. In my opinion. But... that's subject to additional info being forthcoming...
Can you ask your friend:

• If s/he has any more photos, however bad?
• What the date is? - if known, this should be provided with every ID request as it's often valuable in determining what plumages need to be considered.

Thanks.

I will ask.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Structurally, Knot?

 

[THE_FERN]

Bill-shape and -length are quite wrong for turnstone. Direction of ambient light is clear (see shadows in the sand-hollows): it's coming from low down and front left - so... the legs are in direct sun and there's

Which means the right is in shadow {the black parts of the legs), and the left part (the "pale" part) indicates the real colour of the legs---they certainly are not black

no reliable colour (other than black) visible in them - it's all artifact - which is not to say they're certainly black in reality but I think it highly probable. If the lower part of the odd-looking left foot is the bent-back toes, then presumably a hind toe would be visible if present - and it isn't.

One cannot both say that the image is so full of artifacts as to be uninformative and then suggest that something as small as the hind toe should be visible. I see a blob for the foot: I can make out nothing more. I do not believe you can determine presence or absence of a hind toe either way

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

I know the caveats but I've put it in Google Lens and it thinks it's a Sanderling.

 

[Butty]

Structurally, Knot?

Yes - mas o menos - and that was my thought at initial glance. But the plumage is wrong - certainly unless this is a juvenile which is why I've made a point of inquiring the date - but upperparts scaling looks too heavy and the apparently-dark chest is still wrong in any case.

the right is in shadow {the black parts of the legs), and the left part (the "pale" part) indicates the real colour of the legs---they certainly are not black

I'm afraid I don't understand any of your meaning here so I'm a bit lost as to how to respond. Both legs are in full sun (as is almost all the visible underbody) for reasons I gave above. The whitish upper part of the right leg is feathering. I don't see anything in this image that could give the bare parts of the legs/feet/toes any credible real colour other than black - or extremely dark brownish-purplish-black. In my opinion. Clearly we disagree in our interpretations, but that's fine.

One cannot . . . say that the image is so full of artifacts as to be uninformative

I agree (and no one has said that).
If a hind toe is big enough it will be visible, with or without artifacts - and my judgement is that here one would be visible if it were present (as I said). I fear that, mysteriously, we are interpreting the legs in a completely different way and so seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Never mind 🤷🏻

 

[pianoman]

There are some strange shadows going on and the overall exposure is dark, but it looks like either Little Stint or Sanderling to me. First impression was Little Stint. I see both are on the list for Fuerteventura but I'm not sure of their monthly occurrences

 

[Andy Adcock]

I know the caveats but I've put it in Google Lens and it thinks it's a Sanderling.

I'm leaning that way now.