• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Murchison Falls, Uganda - Weaver? (1 Viewer)

My first thought based solely on the bill would be Slender-billed Weaver but I'd expect to be able to see the distinctive grey legs?

It might help eliminate other 'masked' Weavers if you have a shot showing eye colour?
 
Last edited:
The eyes are not apparent in any of my other shots. I tried brightening the image & playing with contrast and nothing sticks out, so I assume these indicates the eyes are dark or black.
 
I'd go for Vitelline Masked myself for this one.

For Slender-billed: I think the black should go further back on the head, the yellow should be lemony, and the legs should be grey. The bill shape seems to be a result of the angle of the photo (though other shots, even if they don't show any other eye colour, might help with this). And the dark red eye could not be visible in the light in this photo.

Baglafecht doesn't have this mask pattern.
 
I'd go for Vitelline Masked myself for this one.

For Slender-billed: I think the black should go further back on the head, the yellow should be lemony, and the legs should be grey. The bill shape seems to be a result of the angle of the photo (though other shots, even if they don't show any other eye colour, might help with this). And the dark red eye could not be visible in the light in this photo.

Baglafecht doesn't have this mask pattern.

Here are two other photos (though they might not be the exact same bird):

https://static.inaturalist.org/photos/60536888/original.jpeg?1580393345
https://static.inaturalist.org/photos/60536942/original.jpeg?1580393406
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top