Michael Frankis
conehead
That depends on whether they're vegetarians or humanitarians . . .
:king:
:king:
-
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.
Possible/probable Little Shearwater (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter HH75
- Start date
Edward woodwood
Member
sure thing Jason
will prob be Sat evening though before I get chance to post as I hope to be out birding all day Sat!
will prob be Sat evening though before I get chance to post as I hope to be out birding all day Sat!
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Of course if that technology in those combinedbinoculars/digicameras ever makes it into scopes, it will be so much easier. they are always recording the last 30 seconds, so all you have to do is press a button to keep what you saw.
Edward woodwood
Member
Hi Jason, Jason, Jane and H.
well, after a tasty curry and drunken evening B
I can fill you in a bit about the assessment of Little Shear recs.
Of the Little Shear recs that get rejected (and remember there still aren't many sent is - it is a very rare bird - most are from observations made before the observers have got their eye in and when there isn't lots of other stuff is passing through. So if you've got lots of things moving and have been there a while you stand a much better chance. :t:
Seeing the white around the eye is not a particularly supportive feature and may induce some scepticism as it is difficult to observe on anything other than fairly close birds.
So overall, having been there a while and having hopefully observed reasonable numbers of other species means perception of size and flight action is much more reliable. The detailed plumage features are not that important and not actually expected if the bird is over a few hundred metres away. So don't be tempted to embellish your sighting a tad..... :scribe:
Bear in mind too that this is not a statement of BBRC policy just the results of a drunken discussion over a Lamb Makhani 8-P
well, after a tasty curry and drunken evening B
I can fill you in a bit about the assessment of Little Shear recs.Of the Little Shear recs that get rejected (and remember there still aren't many sent is - it is a very rare bird - most are from observations made before the observers have got their eye in and when there isn't lots of other stuff is passing through. So if you've got lots of things moving and have been there a while you stand a much better chance. :t:
Seeing the white around the eye is not a particularly supportive feature and may induce some scepticism as it is difficult to observe on anything other than fairly close birds.
So overall, having been there a while and having hopefully observed reasonable numbers of other species means perception of size and flight action is much more reliable. The detailed plumage features are not that important and not actually expected if the bird is over a few hundred metres away. So don't be tempted to embellish your sighting a tad..... :scribe:
Bear in mind too that this is not a statement of BBRC policy just the results of a drunken discussion over a Lamb Makhani 8-P
Michael Frankis
conehead
. . . . So put your notes in Harry!
Of course the BBRC will have no juristiction over yours, but I'd guess the IRBC will be taking much the same line.
Michael
Of course the BBRC will have no juristiction over yours, but I'd guess the IRBC will be taking much the same line.
Michael
Edward woodwood
Member
yep Jason
good luck H.
good luck H.
Tim Allwood said:Hi Jason, Jason, Jane and H.
well, after a tasty curry and drunken evening B
Well,we had been seawatching for about 2-3 hours before we saw our Little Shearwater,and definitely had our "eyes in"!
That's good to hear,our bird wasn't that close.
Perish the thought!
In vino veritas...?
Harry H
Last edited:
Hi Harry,
Perhaps you might like to consoder submitting the bird as a fluttering shearwater sp. In my experience, both from boats and when seawatching from land, the white face of baroli is normally pretty obvious at a distance - or at least the head looks strangely big and pale. In any case some Manxies do show a white face so it is not everything...
However, there is apparently a specimen record of elegans Little Shear. from Scotland so white-faced baroli is not necessarily the only form that could occur.
Personally I'm sure your bird was no Manxie and therefore must have been something very good. It should be recorded as such even if it can't be accepted as anything specific.
There are some interesting pictures of distant baroli Little Shears here, the almost Redshank like trailing edge pattern is visible on some but I find that this is not always obvious in the field, perhaps due to wear etc...:
http://www.cursorius.com/mac_seabirds.html
Spud.
Perhaps you might like to consoder submitting the bird as a fluttering shearwater sp. In my experience, both from boats and when seawatching from land, the white face of baroli is normally pretty obvious at a distance - or at least the head looks strangely big and pale. In any case some Manxies do show a white face so it is not everything...
However, there is apparently a specimen record of elegans Little Shear. from Scotland so white-faced baroli is not necessarily the only form that could occur.
Personally I'm sure your bird was no Manxie and therefore must have been something very good. It should be recorded as such even if it can't be accepted as anything specific.
There are some interesting pictures of distant baroli Little Shears here, the almost Redshank like trailing edge pattern is visible on some but I find that this is not always obvious in the field, perhaps due to wear etc...:
http://www.cursorius.com/mac_seabirds.html
Spud.
Spud,the problem is that the IRBC doesn't have,as far as I'm aware,a "small shearwater"/"fluttering shearwater sp."/"Little/Audubon's" category,so the bird would have to be submitted as a baroli Little(the only taxon recorded here with certainty) and would surely be rejected?
Brings to mind the Dungeness "Herald Petrel" and a "Softie" that a friend of mine submitted which was rejected only because the views obtained failed to rule out other species of Pterodroma....
I didn't see the pale panel,but the two observers with the best scopes did!
Harry H
Similar threads
