• 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.

Not a Broad-billed (1 Viewer)

zoutedrop

zoutedrop
I was given this photo to ID and was told it
was a female Broad-billed. Sometimes it is
easier to say what something is not. The
lower mandible should show some coloration
of a BBIH.

I think a Costa's.

This was published in the ID forum without luck.
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    121.2 KB · Views: 42
I agree not a Broad billed. This is an exact duplicate of a photo on IBird of a female Black chinned, copyrighted to Jeff Wendorff. I thought Black chinned before I checked IBird and saw the photo.
 
This is an exact duplicate of a photo on IBird of a female Black chinned,

The photo you found on iBird is the photo that is being questioned. The
observer thought it was a Broad-billed, which we agree it is not. I am
thinking Costa's, not Black-chinned.

The original bird is the center for both of these comparisons.

The first series compares to Black-chinned, the second compares to Costa's.
 

Attachments

  • unnamed vs BCHU.jpg
    unnamed vs BCHU.jpg
    186.8 KB · Views: 38
  • unnamed vs COHU.jpg
    unnamed vs COHU.jpg
    198.2 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
The photo you found on iBird is the photo that is being questioned. The
observer thought it was a Broad-billed, which we agree it is not. I am
thinking Costa's, not Black-chinned.

The original bird is the center for both of these comparisons.

The first series compares to Black-chinned, the second compares to Costa's.

IBird is usually pretty rigorous on ID’ing before adding to the site.
When reading a description of the Costa’s there is no mention of the white on the bottom of the tail feathers - from what I can see. While the Black chinned does have the white outer tail feathers which show in the photo and descriptions of birds I’ve seen and in my own photos of black chinned. Why do you think it is not a Black chinned?
 
white on the tail is not a diagnostic for either BCHU or COHU
when the bird is at rest

Costa's and Black-chinned adult females and immature
males/females all have white on their tails.

The comparison photos I posted show that COHU have a
cleaner look

Also look at the inner primaries, BCHU are graduated in width
which does not show on this bird (COHU v BCHU)
 

Attachments

  • COHU v BCHU.jpg
    COHU v BCHU.jpg
    227.1 KB · Views: 36
Upon further reading in Cornell’s All Abouth Birds the two are extremely hard to tell apart.
In the triptych you posted of the Black chinned you cannot see the bottom of the tail on either of the the outer ones. Just curious who is questioning the IBird ID? Are they an expert with abundant knowledge? If so I think they would know it is not a Broad billed?
As an aside if the photo is copyrighted to a person you should state that in your original post of the photo.
 
It is disappointing that both the ID forum and now the hummer
forum can't engage on the separation of species. Too small a
niche I guess. Thanks for your input.
 
I was hoping that over time someone would pipe in.

Just as an FYI, I was given permission to review the picture.

It is disappointing that someone would call out a copyright violation.
Simple research would have shown that critique of work is a valid use.
My original posting does not violate copyright law even without the
permission that I received.

Never, never accept everything you see just because it is on a reputable
website. With that type of approach, a mistake will never be corrected.
 
I was hoping that over time someone would pipe in.

Just as an FYI, I was given permission to review the picture.

It is disappointing that someone would call out a copyright violation.
Simple research would have shown that critique of work is a valid use.
My original posting does not violate copyright law even without the
permission that I received.

Never, never accept everything you see just because it is on a reputable
website. With that type of approach, a mistake will never be corrected.

I didn’t call out a copyright violation, I said ————
“As an aside if the photo is copyrighted to a person you should state that in your original post of the photo.”
And unless given permission by the photographer I will stand by this. I didn’t say it was in violation of the law. But I still feel credit should be given.
 
I didn’t call out a copyright violation, I said ————
“As an aside if the photo is copyrighted to a person you should state that in your original post of the photo.”
And unless given permission by the photographer I will stand by this. I didn’t say it was in violation of the law. But I still feel credit should be given.

As does BirdForum!
 
So let's see if I understand this....

I stated the picture was not mine

Although allowed, one should not critique a photo without throwing the photographer under the bus

When a person asks for help with an ID, a moderator with 28,000 posts can weigh in by simply comparing it to another photo

When a moderator provides incorrect information, as was done above, it is not corrected '"When reading a description of the Costa’s there is no mention of the white on the bottom of the tail feathers".

A rudimentary review of Costa's in Sibley, Williamson's Hummingbirds, Howell's Hummingbirds all indicate white on the female tail. Any knowledgeable person would know that all but two of our western hummers have white on female tails. A picture of a female Costa's (taken by me) is attached.

A moderator mentioning the word copyright, is in fact not concerned with copyright law.

So in typical fashion, let's delete this thread as we only want to call out others mistakes, not our own.
 

Attachments

  • 05 2009041811_49_270057 COHU.jpg
    05 2009041811_49_270057 COHU.jpg
    344.1 KB · Views: 19
So let's see if I understand this....

I stated the picture was not mine

Although allowed, one should not critique a photo without throwing the photographer under the bus

When a person asks for help with an ID, a moderator with 28,000 posts can weigh in by simply comparing it to another photo

When a moderator provides incorrect information, as was done above, it is not corrected '"When reading a description of the Costa’s there is no mention of the white on the bottom of the tail feathers".

A rudimentary review of Costa's in Sibley, Williamson's Hummingbirds, Howell's Hummingbirds all indicate white on the female tail. Any knowledgeable person would know that all but two of our western hummers have white on female tails. A picture of a female Costa's (taken by me) is attached.

A moderator mentioning the word copyright, is in fact not concerned with copyright law.

So in typical fashion, let's delete this thread as we only want to call out others mistakes, not our own.

I will try and take your points in order.
1. Who tried to throw the original photographer under the bus? Not me, I missed you writing that you had been given the photo. No one has critiqued the photo - I didn’t.

I did end up comparing to another photo. I never stated that I was an EXPERT on either of these species. I looked through a large number of photos trying to help you. When I saw the one on another site that matched I did bring that up. Why is that a problem?

Why do you have a problem with someone trying to help? Because I disagreed with you?
Yes, I do have a number of posts. I have been a member for 14 years. I spend a lot of time on the forum. An average of 2,000 posts a year are really not that much. The majority are in the Hello Forum - why does that bother you?
 
Thanks, KC. I reached out to Sheri Williamson, the author of the Peterson Guide Hummingbirds of North America. Hopefully she will provide an answer and this thread can die a quiet death.
 
The bill’s too short and straight for Black-chinned in my experience so my vote goes to Costa’s.

That said, I await with bated breath what Williamson might have to say. . .. ;)
 
Wouldn't a Costa's wing tips extend to just beyond the tail and be shorter than the tip of the tail on Black-chinned? I noticed that in the comparison photos, the birds are not at rest and the wing and tail tips are not seen. Certainly not an expert--just thought that wing tip length was something to consider. I have only seen Costa's twice. I recently got some great shots of one on my property in San Diego county. Thank God it was male! I might not have noticed if it had been female.
 
Good comment on the tail length. Tough to judge on the OP
as the wing is tucked in.

Here is a mix of females or young males to show bill length and shape
for the Black-chinned.
 

Attachments

  • matrix 1.jpg
    matrix 1.jpg
    511.8 KB · Views: 26
  • matrix 2.jpg
    matrix 2.jpg
    527.6 KB · Views: 29
Don't know why I didn't do this in the first place...

Orig Pic V COHU V BCHU
 

Attachments

  • OP v COHU v BCHU copy.jpg
    OP v COHU v BCHU copy.jpg
    314.7 KB · Views: 24
Definitely a difficult call; will be join fugl in the bated breath department. Hope she responds. Excellent idea, Lisa.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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