I think that too: well marked breast, contrasting facial pattern, shortish bill. But the shape of the lower mandible is not too obvious for me from that single photo. I was hoping more photos would make an assessment easier or clearer.the lark looks good for thekla.
The lark is a Crested Lark & agree on Iberian Grey Shrike.
the lark looks good for thekla.
Who's splitting the Shrike?A
I'm not really too fussed about any particular authority, Andy. The OP's photo shows a Grey Shrike in Iberia that has a pink flush and asked if it was an Iberian Grey Shrike - which I think it is based on having seen only a few. But if they have a taxonomic list they prefer then it may be a sub-species of Southern Grey Shrike or some other taxon.
I'm not really too fussed about any particular authority, Andy. The OP's photo shows a Grey Shrike in Iberia that has a pink flush and asked if it was an Iberian Grey Shrike - which I think it is based on having seen only a few. But if they have a taxonomic list they prefer then it may be a sub-species of Southern Grey Shrike or some other taxon.
Well, it's nominate Southern Grey Shrike (Lanius meridionalis meridionalis) which occurs only in Iberia and extreme Southern France. Iberian Grey Shrike seems appropriate for this taxon, unless you want to call them Iberian Southern Grey Shrike* :king: As long as we all know what bird we're talking about I'm not too bothered about which common name is used (I guess this is mostly an UK thing?); now the scientific name is a different matter.
*Or Northern Southern Grey Shrike o 3
We'll have to disagree Rafael, I think that Southern is more appropriate as it's range does extend outside of Iberia even though not by much?
Southern, AFAIK, was a name used first and as I said, one with which I and probably others, was / were familiar, why the need to change it?
It's not just 'a UK thing', people are getting hacked off with the constant, messing with names!
A
But that can't be an argument. Most likely 99% of its population is found in Iberia. Iberian Chiffchaffs also breed in the UK, Madeiran Storm Petrels breed outside of Madeira island, Kentish Plovers are far from a Kent endemic, etc, just to name a few. To me a common name is a common name, we don't need to change it all the time whenever scientific nomenclature changes and especially not when it's only taxonomy that changes and the scientific name remains the same. That is the case of the Iberian taxon, which is the nominate subspecies. It seems there will be changes to Southern shrike taxonomy and eventually the Iberian taxon will become monotypic (there's a paper hinting at that I think) and then the name "Southern Shrike" would no longer be appropriate. But I wasn't discussing the English name for it, I was just saying that as long as we all know what we're referring to, it doesn't really matter (for me at least )
This and the other examples, never had another name, that's my main point, they didn't need to change the name at all, it was already split from Great Grey as Southern Grey Shrike, why the need to chamge it? My point is not what the name is, it's the constant changing that seems unneccessary?
Why won't 'Southern Shrike' be appropriate anymore, meridionalis isn't being further split is it?
Here's another link, showing how it confuses people
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=164442
A
I only asked in light of the other Iberian splits, Magpie etc, thought one had passed me by.
It's Southern Grey Shrike on the IOC, a name I was familiar with and one which I think, is more appropriate?
A