Wader - Paxton / Didington Pits, Cambs. UK (1 Viewer)

[DoghouseRiley]

Updated picture etc

The bird was completely on it's own. No wader anywhere near it. For those that know the area, it was down the waterboard road, over the stream bridge and turn left, through the light scrub to the edge of the gravel pit. The bird was strutting it's stuff on the peninsular. Size wise is tough, I was focusing more on trying to get a decent shot in difficult conditions - which is a basic error really, note to self.
I am struggling to see the "clear-cut boarder" on the breast quoted in Collins, for a Green Sandpiper.
I have tried to "work" on the picture a bit - could this be a juv. Common Sandpiper. Small "gap", very pale breast?

 

[Jhanlon]

Common sand has a clear cut white shoulder (and long tail) which this bird lacks.
This site is covered daily by local birders Martin Davis and Jamie Wells. They had a green sand there over the weekend but there have been no recent greenshank sightings, in case that sways a few more into the green sand camp.

The bird is a green sand with a poorly marked breast, that's all.

 

[AlinoVegano]

Tail is too short for Common Sandpiper. At first sight looks like Greenshank because of an artefact giving a long, up-turned bill appearance. Once the bill trick explained, the rest is fine for Green Sandpiper. Note the strong white eye-brow on front of eye, underlined with black lores. Green Sandpiper it is.

 

[DaveN]

Tail is too short for Common Sandpiper. At first sight looks like Greenshank because of an artefact giving a long, up-turned bill appearance. Once the bill trick explained, the rest is fine for Green Sandpiper. Note the strong white eye-brow on front of eye, underlined with black lores. Green Sandpiper it is.

I see you deleted your original post saying it was a Greenshank 8-P

 

[DaveN]

It just goes to show how 1 image can be misleading. I've seen 100's of both Green Sand and Greenshank and there's never a problem in the field and I would have put money on this being a Greenshank at first. You live and learn. Green Sand it is......I think :smoke:

 

[Jonathan Mitchell]

I originally voted for Greenshank, but have now been won over by the Green Sandpiper camp. It just goes to show what a closer look can reveal!

 

[DoghouseRiley]

So Green Sandpiper it is. I'll try to make sure the picture is better next time, although a lot of people got involved and I guess that is good. I'd like to thank you all for your input. Gareth

 

[SteveClifton]

So Green Sandpiper it is. I'll try to make sure the picture is better next time, although a lot of people got involved and I guess that is good. I'd like to thank you all for your input. Gareth

I think that the ID of Green Sandpiper is far from definite!

I've looked at this thread a number of times but never scrolled down to read the comments as I thought from the thumbnail it screamed Greenshank. The jizz, general proportions and head shape, facial 'expression' etc all strongly point to Greenshank, irrespective of any 'artefacts' that might or might not be affecting the bill shape.

I think that those who originally thought Greenshank but were swayed away from their gut instinct should have another look.

The problem with photos like this is that few of the clinching features are visible, but enough of the tail is exposed that surely if it were a Green Sand the bold tail pattern should be evident. I'm just seeing a pale greyish 'blur' which would fit the finely-barred tail of Greenshank just fine. Also I'm sceptical that the so-called artefacts aren't really the actual up-turned bill of a Greenshank (with pale green base and darker outer half). There are no artefacts where you would expect the bill of Green Sand to be (i.e. pointing down at a lower angle) so everything I'm seeing just confirms the impression of Greenshank for me.

 

[DoghouseRiley]

Hi Steve
I am struggling with both, but that is just me. Doesn't the front of the breast look really pale a virtually unmarked?
Once again guys, sorry for the quality of the pic. I was umming and ahhhhing whether to send it in or not.
For those in the vicinity the date of the pic is 5th May this year - just stumbled across it and realised I had not IDed it.
Yours, Gareth

 

[johnallcock]

I think that the ID of Green Sandpiper is far from definite!

I've looked at this thread a number of times but never scrolled down to read the comments as I thought from the thumbnail it screamed Greenshank. The jizz, general proportions and head shape, facial 'expression' etc all strongly point to Greenshank, irrespective of any 'artefacts' that might or might not be affecting the bill shape.

I think that those who originally thought Greenshank but were swayed away from their gut instinct should have another look.

The problem with photos like this is that few of the clinching features are visible, but enough of the tail is exposed that surely if it were a Green Sand the bold tail pattern should be evident. I'm just seeing a pale greyish 'blur' which would fit the finely-barred tail of Greenshank just fine. Also I'm sceptical that the so-called artefacts aren't really the actual up-turned bill of a Greenshank (with pale green base and darker outer half). There are no artefacts where you would expect the bill of Green Sand to be (i.e. pointing down at a lower angle) so everything I'm seeing just confirms the impression of Greenshank for me.

I find myself in much the same position. I've looked several times, and every time I open the photo I think Greenshank. I can see the arguments in favour of Green Sand, but I'm still not entirely convinced it is one. For me, the features favouring Greenshank include paler mantle, pale breast and spotting extending down the sides of the breast onto the flanks. Like Steve, I'm also not convinced that the apparent greenshank bill is an artefact and I can't see a bill that would fit Green Sand.

Given the new information about the date being in May, the evidence that a Green Sand but no Greenshank was present last weekend is no longer useful (which was the main thing swaying me towards Green Sand).

I never really think of these two as being confusion species - it shows how confusing a single photo can be at times.

 

[AlinoVegano]

I never really think of these two as being confusion species - it shows how confusing a single photo can be at times.

Yes, especially in superficial view. But looking deeper, it is easy to separate Greenshank and Green Sand, and here it is DEFINITELY a Green Sandpiper.

 

[DoghouseRiley]

For what it is worth. Martin's posts on CamBirds for the 5th an 6th do not mention Green Sandpiper but do mention Greenshank. Though the argument that a birdwatcher who is very good and knows the patch cannot miss a bird or that he is watching 24/7 is a spurious one. Looking at other posts around that time, there appear to be very few Green Sandpipers, more Greenshanks.
It is interesting how many people are adamant about it being one bird rather than another.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

FWIW I think most of the features being talked about can't be reliably assessed in a pic like this. Bill, tail barring, whether or not the breast is actually pale, subtleties of head pattern etc, could all look different in real life. I'd like to know what features AlinoVegano is going on to be definite about the ID.

My gut reaction was Green Sandpiper, until I looked at the Greenshank bill, then I was swayed back to Green Sand by the discussion. I'm happily in the unidentified camp now!

I too wouldn't go on what so-and-so happened to say that day, when we're talking 2 common options.

 

[johnallcock]

Yes, especially in superficial view. But looking deeper, it is easy to separate Greenshank and Green Sand, and here it is DEFINITELY a Green Sandpiper.

Would you care to explain why it is DEFINITELY a Green Sandpiper?
I have set out some arguments about why I favoured Greenshank. Your only previous comment is that the bird has a white supercilium and dark lores, a feature that can be shown by both species.
https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&...E9KDm-SDD22alQOmPZ7-6zoQ&ust=1501151431087818

To be clear, I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other, but if you are so certain it would be useful to hear your reasoning.

 

[KenM]

It's DEFINITELY a TRINGA!!!......:smoke:

 

[Andy Adcock]

No one prepared to suggest Terek?


A

 

[AlinoVegano]

Would you care to explain why it is DEFINITELY a Green Sandpiper?
I have set out some arguments about why I favoured Greenshank. Your only previous comment is that the bird has a white supercilium and dark lores, a feature that can be shown by both species.
https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&...E9KDm-SDD22alQOmPZ7-6zoQ&ust=1501151431087818

To be clear, I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other, but if you are so certain it would be useful to hear your reasoning.

I've corrected a bit the light, and erased the black line of the riverbank giving the Terek Sandpiper bill feeling :-O , Do you still really need to be explained why it is a Green Sandpiper?

 

[Andy Adcock]

That is a Green Sand........


A

 

[Ighalo is amazing]

For me the eye is too big in proportion to the head and the breast band is not contrasting enough for Green Sand.

 

[MTem]

Sometimes ....... you just need a better photo, or to be there ....... sometimes