-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Which Harrier? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Keith Glasgow
- Start date
Xenospiza
Distracted
Some excellent Dutch birders on that pic (not me though). But then again... am I serious? I decided to be undecided on this harrier.
However, I have a few badly digiscoped pics back home of a bird that shows a secondary bar, and is a definite Montague's. The pale belly and big white rump of this bird confuse me (well I'm not alone).
Note that (oh shame!) any confusing harrier is directly forwarded to Dick Forsman by the Dutch rarities committee... I think that's your best bet.
Raptors on BF... do you remember that Peregrine that turned out to be a Kestrel?
However, I have a few badly digiscoped pics back home of a bird that shows a secondary bar, and is a definite Montague's. The pale belly and big white rump of this bird confuse me (well I'm not alone).
Note that (oh shame!) any confusing harrier is directly forwarded to Dick Forsman by the Dutch rarities committee... I think that's your best bet.
Raptors on BF... do you remember that Peregrine that turned out to be a Kestrel?
Last edited:
DEREK CHARLES
Well-known member
"Note that (oh shame!) any confusing harrier is directly forwarded to Dick Forsman by the Dutch rarities committee... I think that's your best bet."
I know its just a crazy thought (once again) why doesn't the observer send the video/description to the relevent records committee ie "NIBARBC" and let them decide A/ was the bird seen in Northern Ireland ? B/ is it acceptable as a Montagus Harrier?
They and they only will decide the fate of this record.
Derek
I know its just a crazy thought (once again) why doesn't the observer send the video/description to the relevent records committee ie "NIBARBC" and let them decide A/ was the bird seen in Northern Ireland ? B/ is it acceptable as a Montagus Harrier?
They and they only will decide the fate of this record.
Derek
tittletattler
Well-known member
A few serious birders have emailed me and said:
"Birdforum - don't do it! They're nearly all idiots!".
Personally I think that's a bit unfair which is why I decided to help with the ID of this bird. Zek had requested help, in good faith, and I know Harriers which is why I initially responded. This bird IS easy to ID.
Whilst I accept that I can be arrogant, ironically I don't believe that I have been in this instance. I have cross-referenced most of the ID features in my original email to source and also provided other reference material to further support my claims. This must have seemed like a breathe of fresh air to those who appreciate a professional approach as this is generally lacking on this forum. Surely the people who are arrogant are those who have posted to this thread pretending to know Harrier ID.
As for Nirofo - well his initial reply to my first post made him fair game.
Back to the bird:
Greg,
Thanks for your comments. The secondary bars on the underwing and upperwing are diagnostic of female Monties (already agreed). I also feel that they should be diagnostic of an adult.
But you're also right to raise the issue of the buff looking underparts and weakish streaking. From the many images that I've reviewed I'd say that these two features can be variable. Note that a 2nd Calendar bird would still have its original juvenile feathers in June of the following year as remex moult doesn't start until mid to late summer. Therefore they would be dark (on the underwing) and not have the bold pattern shown by the NI bird. Marcus's photos a page or two back of a 2nd calendar female Monties that he photographed this year at Dunge show this nicely. Note that this bird was being claimed as a Pallid initially as photos suggested that it had pale axillaries but it turned out that this was due to 'burn out' etc. One of Marcus's more distant shots is attached which demonstrates this well. Now compare this to his close-up shots of the same bird.
Marcus and I have found (and sometimes photographed) a fair few Monties in Kent and this included another Monties at Dunge this May. This second bird had the dark secondary bars on the upperwing but had a dusky hue to all of the pale areas in the secondaries in the underwing. In theory, this bird shouldn't have shown both of these features together.
I would think that it was a 3rd calendar female (aka 1st adult) showing an advanced secondary pattern. Perhaps the NI bird is the same age.
Cheers,
Andy.
Ps
Wurzle - I'll start knitting once I've received a photo of a female Hen Harrier with dark secondary bars on the upperwing.
Pps Jane - thanks also. I also misinterpreted your email! Sorry.
"Birdforum - don't do it! They're nearly all idiots!".
Personally I think that's a bit unfair which is why I decided to help with the ID of this bird. Zek had requested help, in good faith, and I know Harriers which is why I initially responded. This bird IS easy to ID.
Whilst I accept that I can be arrogant, ironically I don't believe that I have been in this instance. I have cross-referenced most of the ID features in my original email to source and also provided other reference material to further support my claims. This must have seemed like a breathe of fresh air to those who appreciate a professional approach as this is generally lacking on this forum. Surely the people who are arrogant are those who have posted to this thread pretending to know Harrier ID.
As for Nirofo - well his initial reply to my first post made him fair game.
Back to the bird:
Greg,
Thanks for your comments. The secondary bars on the underwing and upperwing are diagnostic of female Monties (already agreed). I also feel that they should be diagnostic of an adult.
But you're also right to raise the issue of the buff looking underparts and weakish streaking. From the many images that I've reviewed I'd say that these two features can be variable. Note that a 2nd Calendar bird would still have its original juvenile feathers in June of the following year as remex moult doesn't start until mid to late summer. Therefore they would be dark (on the underwing) and not have the bold pattern shown by the NI bird. Marcus's photos a page or two back of a 2nd calendar female Monties that he photographed this year at Dunge show this nicely. Note that this bird was being claimed as a Pallid initially as photos suggested that it had pale axillaries but it turned out that this was due to 'burn out' etc. One of Marcus's more distant shots is attached which demonstrates this well. Now compare this to his close-up shots of the same bird.
Marcus and I have found (and sometimes photographed) a fair few Monties in Kent and this included another Monties at Dunge this May. This second bird had the dark secondary bars on the upperwing but had a dusky hue to all of the pale areas in the secondaries in the underwing. In theory, this bird shouldn't have shown both of these features together.
I would think that it was a 3rd calendar female (aka 1st adult) showing an advanced secondary pattern. Perhaps the NI bird is the same age.
Cheers,
Andy.
Ps
Wurzle - I'll start knitting once I've received a photo of a female Hen Harrier with dark secondary bars on the upperwing.
Pps Jane - thanks also. I also misinterpreted your email! Sorry.
Attachments
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Andy
See if you can help with any of these - apologies if any links are broken.
[size=+1]Unidentified and contentious birds[/size]
Whether you fancy your chances as an identification guru or just fancy stirring up some additional controversy, these are the threads with the most lengthy debates about which species is involved or those which have evaded identification thus far (excluding the ones without pictures or with unrecognisable blobs in the far distance!)
• Grebe spp Possible Pied-billed x Atitlan integrades;
• Hybrid Aythya with Lesser Scaup Characteristics
• Raptors Possible Peregrine x Saker?, Common Buzzard with unusually pale tail; Unidentified raptor and probably unidentifiable, but it generated just about the most heated debate on BF. I can't make the original links work but there are some additional images of the bird late in the thread; Unidentified Raptor in Thailand, Possible Besra; Mystery raptor; Snake Eagle spp, ***Spotted Eagle spp, Honey Buzzard and Common Buzzard the most argued thread on BF;
• Gulls Glaucous or Glaucous x Herring 1st summer bird; Troublesome gull variously identified as Laughing, Franklins, Little and Kittiwake; Unidentified gull possible hybrid LBBG x Herring; Large Gull spp; Unidentified leucistic Gull.
• Terns Whiskered Tern, Elegant Tern In Dingle; Least or Little Tern
• Waders Challenging Tringa, Probable Least Sandpipers, Little Stint that is confusable with Semipalmated Sandpiper; Little Stint tricky and slightly unusual winter-plumaged bird; Summer plumaged Stint; unidentified South African Calidrid Red-necked, Little or perhaps just a Sanderling; Unidentified Snipe, Odd Golden plover spp, another Odd golden Plover
• Unidentified Black Hummer, another a feamle taken in the US
• Unidentified Nightjar
• Downy or Hairy Woodpecker
• Cliff or Cave Swallow
• Pipits Strange Tree Pipit allegedly; Pipit spp Icelandic Mystery Pipit; Pipit SppMeadow or japonicus Buff-bellied?, The Hannafore Pipit japonicus Buff-bellied Pipit or strange Rock pipit? further discussion, Troublesome Pipit Water Pipit or Scaninavian Rock Pipit;
• Old world Warblers hybrid Sedge x Reed Warbler, Unidentified Warbler, Whitethroat possibly of the race icteops; Unidentified Warbler spp in India, Another Indian mystery Warbler, Hulme's Yellow-browed Warbler and probably Two-barred Greenish Warbler; **Iberian Chiffchaff probable, Mystery Phyllosc
• Unidentified White-eye deceased after close encounter wth a cat;
• Mystery Corvid
• Southern Grey Shike lengthy debate about the identification of an adult male, possibly Steppe Grey Shike;
• Kingbird spp
• Myiarchus flycatcher
• Nitlava spp Fujian or Rufous-bellied Nitlava
• probable Cape May Warbler
• Northern or Orchard Oriole
• Mystery Albino, Albino-ish something
• Buntings Oddly plumaged Reed Bunting probably! Cirl Bunting moulting female;
• Troublesome US Sparrow
• Passerine spp
See if you can help with any of these - apologies if any links are broken.
[size=+1]Unidentified and contentious birds[/size]
Whether you fancy your chances as an identification guru or just fancy stirring up some additional controversy, these are the threads with the most lengthy debates about which species is involved or those which have evaded identification thus far (excluding the ones without pictures or with unrecognisable blobs in the far distance!)
• Grebe spp Possible Pied-billed x Atitlan integrades;
• Hybrid Aythya with Lesser Scaup Characteristics
• Raptors Possible Peregrine x Saker?, Common Buzzard with unusually pale tail; Unidentified raptor and probably unidentifiable, but it generated just about the most heated debate on BF. I can't make the original links work but there are some additional images of the bird late in the thread; Unidentified Raptor in Thailand, Possible Besra; Mystery raptor; Snake Eagle spp, ***Spotted Eagle spp, Honey Buzzard and Common Buzzard the most argued thread on BF;
• Gulls Glaucous or Glaucous x Herring 1st summer bird; Troublesome gull variously identified as Laughing, Franklins, Little and Kittiwake; Unidentified gull possible hybrid LBBG x Herring; Large Gull spp; Unidentified leucistic Gull.
• Terns Whiskered Tern, Elegant Tern In Dingle; Least or Little Tern
• Waders Challenging Tringa, Probable Least Sandpipers, Little Stint that is confusable with Semipalmated Sandpiper; Little Stint tricky and slightly unusual winter-plumaged bird; Summer plumaged Stint; unidentified South African Calidrid Red-necked, Little or perhaps just a Sanderling; Unidentified Snipe, Odd Golden plover spp, another Odd golden Plover
• Unidentified Black Hummer, another a feamle taken in the US
• Unidentified Nightjar
• Downy or Hairy Woodpecker
• Cliff or Cave Swallow
• Pipits Strange Tree Pipit allegedly; Pipit spp Icelandic Mystery Pipit; Pipit SppMeadow or japonicus Buff-bellied?, The Hannafore Pipit japonicus Buff-bellied Pipit or strange Rock pipit? further discussion, Troublesome Pipit Water Pipit or Scaninavian Rock Pipit;
• Old world Warblers hybrid Sedge x Reed Warbler, Unidentified Warbler, Whitethroat possibly of the race icteops; Unidentified Warbler spp in India, Another Indian mystery Warbler, Hulme's Yellow-browed Warbler and probably Two-barred Greenish Warbler; **Iberian Chiffchaff probable, Mystery Phyllosc
• Unidentified White-eye deceased after close encounter wth a cat;
• Mystery Corvid
• Southern Grey Shike lengthy debate about the identification of an adult male, possibly Steppe Grey Shike;
• Kingbird spp
• Myiarchus flycatcher
• Nitlava spp Fujian or Rufous-bellied Nitlava
• probable Cape May Warbler
• Northern or Orchard Oriole
• Mystery Albino, Albino-ish something
• Buntings Oddly plumaged Reed Bunting probably! Cirl Bunting moulting female;
• Troublesome US Sparrow
• Passerine spp
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Wow, nearly 49,000 idiots in total! That must be a world record. But there's always room for one more.Real Grosser on my list said:
Keith Glasgow
Well-known member
DEREK CHARLES said:
Hi Derek,
My friend Cameron (the observer) showed the footage to an experienced Harrier watcher and he concluded the bird was a Hen.H. Cameron still had doubts (not unreasonably I judge!). He showed it to someone else who clearly thought it was a Monty. I looked at it, and decided that putting it on Birdforum would help, as many birdwatchers on here have good experience of both birds. I didn't expect it to run to over 100 replies - I expected the answer to come back clearly either Monty or Hen.
I'm not sure about all the politics and protocal, and I've never heard of the NIBARBC (sorry if I've offended you in some way) - I just enjoy birds. It seemed reasonable at the time to check which species it was before submitting it to a records committee. I can only speak for myself here, but I've really enjoyed the replies, and I appreciate all the help given.
As someone recently said; Don't shoot me, I'm only enjoying birdwatching.
thanks,
Zek.
Mike Johnston
Well-known member
Send it to the NI Birdwatchers Association Records Committee (NIBARC):zek said:
George Gordon
Secretary NIBARC
2 Brooklyn Avenue
Bangor
BT20 5RB
gordon (AT) BALLYHOLME2.FREESERVE.CO.UK
DEREK CHARLES
Well-known member
Hello Zek,
This was not aimed at you but at the observer (who is fully aware of who the records committee are and how they can be contacted).
Derek
This was not aimed at you but at the observer (who is fully aware of who the records committee are and how they can be contacted).
Derek
tittletattler
Well-known member
Jane,
Blimey I'm flattered. I'm a typical birder who knows a little about some Brit birds and a bit more about one or two birds/families and that's it. I'm not really that good.
This list reads like the bird list from hell with every difficult species known to man. I doubt I'll be able to add to any of those debates.
Thanks for forwarding it though!
Cheers,
Andy.
Ps - Zek, Derek is right. Will you submit the record?
Blimey I'm flattered. I'm a typical birder who knows a little about some Brit birds and a bit more about one or two birds/families and that's it. I'm not really that good.
This list reads like the bird list from hell with every difficult species known to man. I doubt I'll be able to add to any of those debates.
Thanks for forwarding it though!
Cheers,
Andy.
Ps - Zek, Derek is right. Will you submit the record?
gerdwichers8
Well-known member
Mike Johnston said:
Thanks Mike for the invitation, the hill has been very cold and lonely last winter, here I can enter; Jan had me standing outside; is he in as well?
gerdwichers8
Well-known member
Anyway, the subject bird shows in the secondaries blackish color in between the two dark lines: that s a no for an adult female Montague's so its of that position.
If it is a younger bird, the dark line will loose weight.
The hand of the bird is rather chequered. For a young male Hen it is stated that a pale, unmarked hand is indicative for a young male Hen (it being male). Is it for every individual?: No it is not.
The shape of the secondaries, being argued to be good for Monties, that s fairly strong, and it will be a good point as well, but, in my opinion it is not exlusive in all individuals.
I want to found this:
The first winter Hen I mentioned earlier on in this thread, which had me running last winter because I could not find its sex with certainty, was studied for a long time, finding it long and slender and fairly even in the terminal line of the wing. It was a bird, size wise in the exact middle of all ringtail harriers that came to roost.
But at an evening, after looking for a definite first winter male (and now I am tempering my "definite male Hen Harrier for this subject bird because that bird was clearly male in comparision with 30-is other harriers) I saw a very agile, long and slender winged bird; supposedly a first plumage Montague's Harrier ( all the features correct, but "supposedly" because the date was exceptionally early for Holland, and, though informed at a member of the Dutch rarities committee, not submitted to their judgement)
When the reference bird for sexing appeared, this reference bird, at all other instances looking long, pointed and slender winged in the whole wing, looked broad and bulky compared to the first winter male and first plumage Montague's
and, but it is my opinion:
"This subject bird is no match in the wing with even a "supposed" first plumage Montague's !"
If it is a younger bird, the dark line will loose weight.
The hand of the bird is rather chequered. For a young male Hen it is stated that a pale, unmarked hand is indicative for a young male Hen (it being male). Is it for every individual?: No it is not.
The shape of the secondaries, being argued to be good for Monties, that s fairly strong, and it will be a good point as well, but, in my opinion it is not exlusive in all individuals.
I want to found this:
The first winter Hen I mentioned earlier on in this thread, which had me running last winter because I could not find its sex with certainty, was studied for a long time, finding it long and slender and fairly even in the terminal line of the wing. It was a bird, size wise in the exact middle of all ringtail harriers that came to roost.
But at an evening, after looking for a definite first winter male (and now I am tempering my "definite male Hen Harrier for this subject bird because that bird was clearly male in comparision with 30-is other harriers) I saw a very agile, long and slender winged bird; supposedly a first plumage Montague's Harrier ( all the features correct, but "supposedly" because the date was exceptionally early for Holland, and, though informed at a member of the Dutch rarities committee, not submitted to their judgement)
When the reference bird for sexing appeared, this reference bird, at all other instances looking long, pointed and slender winged in the whole wing, looked broad and bulky compared to the first winter male and first plumage Montague's
and, but it is my opinion:
"This subject bird is no match in the wing with even a "supposed" first plumage Montague's !"
Last edited:
Keith Glasgow
Well-known member
DEREK CHARLES said:
To be fair, the observer seldom uses the internet and hadn't heard of Birdforum - It was myself who persuaded him (arm up his back) to have the photos submitted, as I thought it was a good idea (I'm still of that opinion).
I assume the observer will forward the footage to the relevant committee at some stage, tho' that will be his decision, not mine.
thanks again,
Zek.
Joern Lehmhus
Well-known member
I have been following this thread with interest, because it is a good debate over an interesting and, in my eyes, not easy bird...
I seldom comment anything here apart from ID-Questions, but at the moment I find it nessecary to do so. I come here to give ID help in fields where I can, and, even more important, to receive information and learn from people who have more experience (and there are quite a lot here, even though I am not an inexperienced birder).
Andy (Real Grosser), I valuate the the field marks and discussion points you gave in your first mails...
but I have to admit how you expressed it sounded extremely arrogant to me. (I guess this may be because I am no native speaker and perhaps wasn´t meant to sound like this-if so, my apologies).
Re your last mail: I wonder what kind of birders people are that call BF people idiots. I think Birdforum is an open place for people with very different amounts of knowledge on birds, but which all share a fascination for birds. So if some birders tend to call the people that meet at this forum idiots,fine by me, they can well stay away.
But I think birding also involves a responsibility. It is also about learning to appreciate to love and to help protecting nature, in a time where the world looses more and more of its natural resources and richness through the acts of mankind.
By to help protecting nature I do not generally mean, everybody has to engage in nature conservation like crazy. It even helps to take a little time to show people who are curious on what we (birders) are doing, what we see through our bioculars and scopes. You only get people to understand and,in the end ,to protect, what they know.
And in my opinion, this is also a place Birdforum is for- so the "ignorant " are needed here as much as the "knowledgable" people.
A bit clumsily expressed, maybe, but I hope it is understandable.
Best Regards,
Jörn
By the way, I get a Monty´s impression from this harrier.
I seldom comment anything here apart from ID-Questions, but at the moment I find it nessecary to do so. I come here to give ID help in fields where I can, and, even more important, to receive information and learn from people who have more experience (and there are quite a lot here, even though I am not an inexperienced birder).
Andy (Real Grosser), I valuate the the field marks and discussion points you gave in your first mails...
but I have to admit how you expressed it sounded extremely arrogant to me. (I guess this may be because I am no native speaker and perhaps wasn´t meant to sound like this-if so, my apologies).
Re your last mail: I wonder what kind of birders people are that call BF people idiots. I think Birdforum is an open place for people with very different amounts of knowledge on birds, but which all share a fascination for birds. So if some birders tend to call the people that meet at this forum idiots,fine by me, they can well stay away.
But I think birding also involves a responsibility. It is also about learning to appreciate to love and to help protecting nature, in a time where the world looses more and more of its natural resources and richness through the acts of mankind.
By to help protecting nature I do not generally mean, everybody has to engage in nature conservation like crazy. It even helps to take a little time to show people who are curious on what we (birders) are doing, what we see through our bioculars and scopes. You only get people to understand and,in the end ,to protect, what they know.
And in my opinion, this is also a place Birdforum is for- so the "ignorant " are needed here as much as the "knowledgable" people.
A bit clumsily expressed, maybe, but I hope it is understandable.
Best Regards,
Jörn
By the way, I get a Monty´s impression from this harrier.
Helsinki Birder
Stealth Birder
I have to say, that regardless of what people think of how andy posted his original message, or their thoughts on the tone of said message,
He nevertheless succeeded in being the first to lay out ALL the relevant points for the ID of this bird, with relevant references, in a clear and concise manner.
And above all, he was right.
Ive been often accused of being arrogant in the past, but the fact of the matter is when you are right you're right.
Fair play.
Pariah
He nevertheless succeeded in being the first to lay out ALL the relevant points for the ID of this bird, with relevant references, in a clear and concise manner.
And above all, he was right.
Ive been often accused of being arrogant in the past, but the fact of the matter is when you are right you're right.
Fair play.
Pariah
Similar threads
