-
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.
Id Help - Sattal - 9 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mihir
- Start date
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
1 Is confusing?
Hodgson's Bushchat?
Hodgson's Bushchat?
Last edited:
No, but I don't know what it is. More images please, Mihir.
Grahame Walbridge
Well-known member
1. male Bar-winged Flycatcher-shrike.
2 = Himalayan Prinia following Alstrom et al (2019) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ibi.12759 already adopted by IOC.
Grahame
2 = Himalayan Prinia following Alstrom et al (2019) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ibi.12759 already adopted by IOC.
Grahame
Seth Miller
Well-known member
Bar-winged Flycatcher-shrike for #1?
Had me confused for a while, but that feels about right.
edit: Grahama beat me to it
Had me confused for a while, but that feels about right.
edit: Grahama beat me to it
Yes, it seems obvious now. The wingbar seemed to be going in the wrong direction but we can only see the median covert tips.
I couldn't remember how the Brown/Striated Prinia complex broke down.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I looked at this and dismissed it as the bold, wing bar isn't apparent.
It's an odd angle.
Have this photo. very blurred though
Attachments
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
You should have posted this one first!
Different race to the birds I've seen in W India where the males are much more black and white and are often mistaken for Little Pied Flycatcher there.
Last edited:
Sorry about that. It was so blurred that I had not bothered to edit this one.
johnallcock
Well-known member
Are we confident on #3?
I got a Niltava impression on this bird, especially with the rufous tones on the face. I have never seen female Ultramarine for comparison but online photos look greyer with paler lores and longer legs.
I got a Niltava impression on this bird, especially with the rufous tones on the face. I have never seen female Ultramarine for comparison but online photos look greyer with paler lores and longer legs.
You could be right, John - it's rather plump-looking, which I had noticed, and has blotchy underparts. It looks a bit like this bird:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/500181102358513746/
Female Ultramarine can be quite gingery around the face though, including the lores, e.g.
https://www.hbw.com/ibc/photo/ultra...a-superciliaris/ultramarine-flycatcher-female
Last edited:
Grahame Walbridge
Well-known member
Whoops, missed that! Like Andy, not too worried by the rufous tones to the face but the rather uniform, 'dappled' underparts and thicker, pale legs/feet which are wrong for fem Ultramarine. Pretty sure its a Small Niltava but just to be certain, any more images Mihir?
Grahame
Last edited:
Hi Grahame, Have this one.
Attachments
Grahame Walbridge
Well-known member
Fem Small Niltava if a little over-exposed. You can just make out a single blue feather on the neck side below the rear eyelid, the remainder of the patch concealed.
Grahame
Grahame
