• 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.

Nightingale "THRUSH",Sinai (1 Viewer)

doozer

Well-known member
Had this chap in a friend's garden and we cannot decide which???? The look says nightingale the wings say thrush.Was taken at dusk and is much more grey in the body than the photos would suggest.Any help would be greatly appretiated.
 

Attachments

  • nightingale11.jpg
    nightingale11.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 227
  • nightingale-wing-2.jpg
    nightingale-wing-2.jpg
    79.7 KB · Views: 260
  • nightingale-front-1.jpg
    nightingale-front-1.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 234
  • nightingale12.jpg
    nightingale12.jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 215
Interesting. I'd say nightingale at first glance, but those 8 visible primary tips are unusual.

Undertail says nightingale, but is that a hint of mottling on the breast in pic 3?

There's also the "hint of a stripe" as mentioned by Collins beneath the cheek in the last shot when viewed in thumbnail, but it seems to vanish when clicked on to enlarge.

I'm confused

EDIT. Less confused now that I've read Lou's post.
 
I'm yet to see one, but after this thread I'll know what to look for.


Poland from early May onwards is a very good place!

They are very abundant. Familiarity with the song helps, and a lot of crawling under bushes!

A lot of texts focus on mottled breasts and defined malar stripes. While many Sprossers sport these features, many are relatively clean looking, like Doozer's bird. The heavy grey suffusion, darker tones, and darker rufous tinged tail fit here, as well as the smashing representation of the visible primaries.
 
You know Lou, I'm not so sure. I can't see where the 1st primary ends. (Its easier to prove its long than that its short) In Nightingale its only just past the GCs and its a curved feather. There are 8 vis primary tips, but the last two are bunched (as is quite often the case on eastern Nightingales) - they should be evenly spaced for TN. The under-tail coverts are as plain as its possible to be. The lores are pale and there is no hint of a malar stripe.
 
Hi there,
I share Jane's concerns, not being able to see the first primary clearly in any of the shots, so I am not sure how long exactly it would have been. When one adds the warm, plain undertail coverts and the breast pattern, this could equally be a (Rufous) Nightingale, would need to see more detail on the wing formula to be convinced either way. Seen quite a few Thrush Nightingales in Poland, so was not able to see the first primary, yet all of those looked far more typical for that species than this one, if it is a Thrush Nightingale, that is.
Regards,
Harry
 
I was wondering about hafizi Nightingale too. I've not seen hafizi but recall reading about this form having a tendancy to display a more bush-robin-like jizz than our nominate Nightingales, which seems to be evident from many photos though I'm sure it's not definitive. But I was also noting the other points that Jane raised.

The third photo shows what I think is the first primary. The pale edge is only apparent to about the length it would be on Thrush Nightingale, but as Jane says it's a curved feather and as such it "disappears" into the shade. Applying a bit of fill-flash in PS you can just about see the edge extending further and finally disappearing behind the second primary about level with, or slightly beyond, the tips of the longest primary coverts. But I'm not sure - I don't have enough experience of these.
 
I was wondering about hafizi Nightingale too. I've not seen hafizi but recall reading about this form having a tendancy to display a more bush-robin-like jizz than our nominate Nightingales, which seems to be evident from many photos though I'm sure it's not definitive. But I was also noting the other points that Jane raised.

While I do think that this may yet be a (Rufous) Nightingale, I don't think it's right for a hafizi (now changed to golzii by the Dutch at least): that taxon should show pale tertial fringes, pale tips to the greater coverts forming a thin wingbar, perhaps be less warm-toned above and have a more obvious supercilium. I'm not sure if the nominate occurs as far east as Sinai, and, also, I'm not fully aware of what africana looks like, though I believe that this is somewhat intermediate between the other taxa, perhaps slightly closer to the nominate.

The third photo shows what I think is the first primary. The pale edge is only apparent to about the length it would be on Thrush Nightingale, but as Jane says it's a curved feather and as such it "disappears" into the shade. Applying a bit of fill-flash in PS you can just about see the edge extending further and finally disappearing behind the second primary about level with, or slightly beyond, the tips of the longest primary coverts. But I'm not sure - I don't have enough experience of these.

A pic of the wing held more 'loosely', with the individual primaries more spread as a result, could be very illuminating...
Regards,
Harry
 
I also share Jane's and Harry's concern. Firstly, when judging from first impression with the bold eye-ring, undertail coverts and dark primary tips contrasting with the rest of the wing Nightingale is the impression. However, wingformula (as Harry mentioned), would solve the matter. I agree that the lenght of p1 is difficult to judge - further more I struggle to detect the emarginated p4, which differ from Thrush witch has only p3 emarginated. The emargination on p4 is sithuated further out on the primary compared to the one in p3, so difficult to see (if now there), in these pic. Can anyone? Other differences in wing formula is the lenght of the second primary - which falls shorther (= 4/5 or = 5 (= 5/6) in Nightingale, while in Thrush p2 = 4 (=3/5), quite similar to the difference in wingformula for Lesser and Common Kestrel, in which case Thrush would be Lesser - while Nightingale would be Common.

JanJ
 
Last edited:
Having just seen the 'Nightingale' images I'm firmly in the Thrush camp.

If you look at image 4 you can see a 'hint' of malar stripe contrasting against the pale sub-moustachial. Also there are no buff tones!... on the underparts quite unlike CN. and the grey wash to the breast band although not as heavy as it might be... is nevertheless grey and contrasts against the white throat.
Add to that the greyness of the upperparts and the absence of warmth in the plumage, tail apart.. cosmetically it favours TN.

The first primary which can be seen in the first three images falls short of the coverts.

In the 3rd image...if my memory serves me?...following the ' high-lighted' trajectory curve of the first primary, it could only fall short of the coverts!
 
Having just seen the 'Nightingale' images I'm firmly in the Thrush camp.

If you look at image 4 you can see a 'hint' of malar stripe contrasting against the pale sub-moustachial. Also there are no buff tones!... on the underparts quite unlike CN. and the grey wash to the breast band although not as heavy as it might be... is nevertheless grey and contrasts against the white throat.
Add to that the greyness of the upperparts and the absence of warmth in the plumage, tail apart.. cosmetically it favours TN.

The first primary which can be seen in the first three images falls short of the coverts.

In the 3rd image...if my memory serves me?...following the ' high-lighted' trajectory curve of the first primary, it could only fall short of the coverts!

Nice summation Ken.

I feel the bigger picture is better than focusing on the detail. Image 4 shows, what I feel, to be a grey-blocked breast and a "Malar well defined grey stripe suggestion."

Also heeding the OP's (Doozer's) in-fill of a description? That's also a good point to start.

Harry's comments fit in well with many photos I've now studied of golzii.

"While I do think that this may yet be a (Rufous) Nightingale, I don't think it's right for a hafizi (now changed to golzii by the Dutch at least): that taxon should show pale tertial fringes, pale tips to the greater coverts forming a thin wingbar, perhaps be less warm-toned above and have a more obvious supercilium."

In 5 Summer's constant contact with Sprosser in Poland, I only managed 1 Common Nightingale. As they are at the edge of their range where I was.

Most TNs I stalked were very similar to Doozer's bird. Many had unmarked UT Coverts. And the ones that were marked were subtle. All the focus Western European birders put on obvious dark malar stripe, thrushy streaking, boldy marked UT coverts I found to be an odd approach.

Repeated views of many subjects of this, common East Polish, bird gave me a strong impression that it was a much more subtle proposition. And these features had been emphasised, as though they would stand out and be well marked. Experience taught me that not to be so.

Most birds I saw looked like Doozer's photos!

It sounds crass, but my personal take on TN is that, "...they look like CN rolled around on a dirty gravel road, with a song to match..."

I can see no problem with this bird being a Slowik Szary, or Grey Nightingale in Polish.
 
Having scrutinised the first 3 images another pro TN feature...I believe is the subtle barring on the UTC's which is perhaps more obvious on the 3rd image. Regarding the emarginations p3 is certainly emarginated...as for p4...?
 
I am glad it is not just me with this one,I think another visit with more photos if it is still about may be in order.It seems to be a close call at the best of times and although the photos are not bad they don't give a definate answer.What if I can get them do you think would help other than more P1 shots.

Thanks to all for the help.
 
The emargination on p4 is sithuated further out on the primary compared to the one in p3, so difficult to see (if now there), in these pic. Can anyone?

JanJ

I'm pretty sure I can in one pic - I'll cut and paste in a minute into this post.

The 4th primary appears to have an emargination - it cuts away and is hidden by the un-emarginated 5th primary. The length of the 2nd primary is hard to judge precisely, but I'd be guessing its more in line with Nightingale (5/6) than Thrush. Its certainly less than 3/4
 

Attachments

  • night.JPG
    night.JPG
    14.3 KB · Views: 145
  • night 2.JPG
    night 2.JPG
    8.9 KB · Views: 127
Last edited:
I've just notice that on the close up of the wing detail, you can see the length of the 2nd primary on the far wing - its held naturally and the angle is a lot better for judging length. 2=5
 
Jane Hi,

As a point of interest...'How set in stone' is the 2nd-4th prim ratio?

I only ask because as you are aware Acros particularly of the unstreaked kind commonly have primary overlap, can there also be emargination variability?

When ID-ing 'contentious' species surely one has to look at the 'whole suite' of features cosmetic and structural, when 'stacking' against the 'commoner' confusion species.

cheers
 
Hi Ken, this will give you an idea of the variation

BWP numbers primaries the opposite way round to Svensson... so 1=10


Nigtingale
Wing rather short, broad at base, tip bluntly pointed. 10 primaries: p8 longest, p9*4–7 shorter, p7*0–2, p6*3–6, p5*6·5–10·5, p4*10–14, p1*16–22. P10 reduced, 42–49 (adult) or 40–45 (juvenile) shorter than p8; 2 shorter to 4 longer than longest upper primary coverts in adult (on average 1·6 longer, n*=*17), 3·2 (16) 1·5–5·5 longer in juvenile. In nominate megarhynchos, tip of p9 usually between tips of p5 and p6 or equal to p6 (rarely slightly longer than p6 or equal to p5); in hafizi, usually equal to p5 (Hartert 1910). Outer web of p7–p8 and (more distinctly) inner of (p7–)p8–p9 emarginated

TN
Closely similar to L. megarhynchos, but markedly different in wing formula. 10 primaries: p8 longest, p9*2–6 shorter, p7*3–5, p6*6–10, p5*9–12, p4*12–16, p1*21–25; tip of p9 equal to p7 (n*=*4), slightly longer than p7 (n*=*7), or slightly shorter (n = 3), halfway between p6 and p7. P10 more strongly reduced, stiff and narrow; 53–63 (adult) or 51–59 (juvenile) shorter than p8 , 8·2 (6) 6–11 (adult) or 5·7 (7) 3–8 (juvenile) shorter than longest upper primary covert. Only 1 primary outer web (p8) emarginated (p7–p8 in L. megarhynchos); inner web of p9 distinctly emarginated; inner of p8 sometimes slightly emarginated, 5–8*mm from tip (p8 distinctly in L. megarhynchos, 11–14 from tip).



If a Nightingale is going to show 8 primaries on the closed wing, the second longest will be within a couple of mm of the wing tip and markedly closer than the others. A TN should have the same nearly even spacing.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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