-
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.
Common or Thrush Nightingale? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Orvany24
- Start date
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Going by the wing details in Collins Bird Guide, relatively long P1 and 7 primary tips countable, I'll go for Common.
Thanks, Nutcracker.
How about the tone of the plumage? Common NG should have warmer brown tones - is that visible in the photos?
Unfortunately, I struggle with distinguishing close colors and tones.
Some of the eastern races aren't such a warm brown colour as the ones we see in western Europe.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Undertail is better for Thrush, there are 'spots' but not that obvious, unless it's just the way the feathers are laid?
I also think that the red of the tail, would extend further on to the lower back in Common?
Last edited:
I don't have first hand knowledge of thrush, but again going by Collins, I'd suggest the undertail matches common better in that plate: similarly, I think rump is browner in thrush than here
Two different people, two different counts. One of you should post an annotated image (I counted 7 but didn't do it very forensically). I was especially unclear about how to interpret the position of 1st primary in these images
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Same here!
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
So you don't see any dark, what 'Collins' calls 'spots on the undertail sides at all?
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
8 visible primary tips visible beyond the tertials, (translucent p3 suggesting short p2?) faint spots (1cy) on undertail coverts, malar streaking on throat (cf to Common), very brown grey bird with rufous tail and two tone alula (I can’t see p1), make this a Thrush Nightingale.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Forensic as usual Deb though I struggle to see malar streaking, thanks.
Alexander Stöhr
Well-known member
Hello Andy, I see what appears a malar streak, too (streaking, when I as a non native speaker, interpret this correct, consists of multiple streaks)
Please compare this Trush Nightingale with a prominent (and broad) malar streak: https://flic.kr/p/22q59jr (11.05.2016, NE-Germany), all pictures:https://flic.kr/s/aHsmbGhwT2 . An "ID-book"-Trush Nightingale has a narrower one, the OP bird is quite typical in this respect.
Also, the pattern of the undertail-coverts seems good for Thrush Nightingale.
I hesitate to ID this bird, as I have no experience with eastern ssp of Common Nightingale and its nearly impossible to judge pattern and colour of breast and lower throat area. Here is Common Nightingale with a darker than normal breast, but this area is uniform and unpatternd (should be streaked or at least with some cloudy smuding in Thrush Nightingale): https://flic.kr/s/aHsmNXnRif (10.05.2020, NE-Germany). Or this bird, that is darker and colder than a normal Common Nightingale: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmQJdA4Q (13.04.2020, SW-Germany ), with many thanks to Christian Stohl, Julia Bayer and Heino Hauf for help with identification of this bird.
Conclusion? Its one of those threads that I learn from, but I hope, my post is still an usefull contribution. And I agree with all, that picture quality might prevent a safe ID (for example, is the pattern of the undertail-coverts real or an artefact?)
Please compare this Trush Nightingale with a prominent (and broad) malar streak: https://flic.kr/p/22q59jr (11.05.2016, NE-Germany), all pictures:https://flic.kr/s/aHsmbGhwT2 . An "ID-book"-Trush Nightingale has a narrower one, the OP bird is quite typical in this respect.
Also, the pattern of the undertail-coverts seems good for Thrush Nightingale.
I hesitate to ID this bird, as I have no experience with eastern ssp of Common Nightingale and its nearly impossible to judge pattern and colour of breast and lower throat area. Here is Common Nightingale with a darker than normal breast, but this area is uniform and unpatternd (should be streaked or at least with some cloudy smuding in Thrush Nightingale): https://flic.kr/s/aHsmNXnRif (10.05.2020, NE-Germany). Or this bird, that is darker and colder than a normal Common Nightingale: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmQJdA4Q (13.04.2020, SW-Germany ), with many thanks to Christian Stohl, Julia Bayer and Heino Hauf for help with identification of this bird.
Conclusion? Its one of those threads that I learn from, but I hope, my post is still an usefull contribution. And I agree with all, that picture quality might prevent a safe ID (for example, is the pattern of the undertail-coverts real or an artefact?)
Last edited:
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
I meant ‘streak’ as in singular in this case obviously.
Pedantry aside - this was not my conclusion - so not ‘all’ agree it can not be identified (perhaps as a non-native speaker ‘all’ means something different o
)
Last edited:
Alexander Stöhr
Well-known member
I meant ‘streak’ as in singular in this case obviously.
Pedantry aside - this was not my conclusion - so not ‘all’ agree it can not be identified (perhaps as a non-native speaker ‘all’ means something different o
Then I understood the answers wrong. Sorry from a non native speaker!
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
No worries - not sure how else it can be phrased though to assist with comprehension ... perhaps you would use another phrase for ‘’makes this’’ or maybe my posts are harder in general for a ‘non-native’ speaker to understand than other English posts? - I am ‘always eager to learn from others’ (to borrow a favourite phrase from you) so welcome any suggestions as to how I can modify my language.
I only post this because there's been a lot of discussion about this, and because the images are not, well, perfect:
I think the best way to clarify thinking and communicate interpretation would be to post an annotated image indicating (for example) which we think the primary tips are on this image, where we think the throat streak is (I can't see one but doesn't mean it's not there) etc. That way, we can focus on whether we agree with the analysis of the photo or not and then move on to its interpretation.
I think there's a majority view from those who know the species that this is thrush nightingale but I for one would find this generally useful...
I think the best way to clarify thinking and communicate interpretation would be to post an annotated image indicating (for example) which we think the primary tips are on this image, where we think the throat streak is (I can't see one but doesn't mean it's not there) etc. That way, we can focus on whether we agree with the analysis of the photo or not and then move on to its interpretation.
I think there's a majority view from those who know the species that this is thrush nightingale but I for one would find this generally useful...
Alexander Stöhr
Well-known member
Sorry Deb, when reading your message with bold words again, it is now clear, that you have Id this bird as a Trush Nightingale.
More, I think, the idea from The Fern is good!
