• 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.

Pipit for discussion (1 Viewer)

Nutcracker said:
Bit absurd, since the BTO New Breeding Atlas shows there's only about 3 sites in the whole of Cumbria where petrosus breeds - corollary, probably 90% of Cumbria's wintering Ropits are likely to be littoralis
Click to expand...

Quite...
 
Mike Pennington said:
Well, I'd accept it.

For further interest, here are some scans of slides of a Water Pipit, caught at a classic watercress bed site in Kent in December 1985.
Click to expand...

Look at that lovely wedge of white in the second outermost TF....


I'd accept it too btw, just the rest of the county committee are abstaining on littoralis!
 
This was the best I could get of any interesting ones at Roa Island, Cumbria today. There was a bird (it may or may not have been this one) with unstreaked pink chest that I had as an extreme littoralis rather than a Wapit for several reasons.

Any views on this one (I know the pics are a bit ropey, it was very windy).

Stephen.
 

Attachments

  • roapip 002.jpg
    roapip 002.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 132
  • roapip 004.jpg
    roapip 004.jpg
    137.7 KB · Views: 143
Three from today, all littoralis:
 

Attachments

  • PtMooar_200305c.jpg
    PtMooar_200305c.jpg
    94.1 KB · Views: 132
  • PtMooar_200305a.jpg
    PtMooar_200305a.jpg
    127.5 KB · Views: 131
  • Ramsey200305d.jpg
    Ramsey200305d.jpg
    124.3 KB · Views: 154
Last edited:
The anti littoralis stance in Cumbria (partly based on ID difficulties, but also in some cases on a fervent belief they just didn't occur) has presumably gone out of the window - a Swedish ringed bird was read there on Monday.


Stephen.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Dunstan said:
The anti littoralis stance in Cumbria (partly based on ID difficulties, but also in some cases on a fervent belief they just didn't occur) has presumably gone out of the window - a Swedih ringed bird was read there on Monday.


Stephen.
Click to expand...

Haha, brilliant!
 
Stephen Dunstan said:
The anti littoralis stance in Cumbria (partly based on ID difficulties, but also in some cases on a fervent belief they just didn't occur) has presumably gone out of the window - a Swedish ringed bird was read there on Monday.


Stephen.
Click to expand...
What anti littoralis stance is this Stephen? Do you mean the cautious approach to their identification (which seems entirely reasonable to me in view of the current state of knowledge) or the less than objective version of attitudes in Cumbria that you have persistently expressed in recent weeks? I've never heard any Cumbrian birder state that littoralis do not occur in the county. As observers from all over the country seem to have joined in your condemnation of the Cumbrian Records Panel for failing to unequivocally accept claims of littoralis, I'd be interested to know how other counties treat such records.

Phil
 
Corollary: what is the status of Anthus petrosus petrosus in Cumbria? Do you treat claims of that race with equal rigour?

I can understand taking a cautious attitude to certain identification of individual littoralis, but the same should also be said of petrosus, with the vast majority being listed as 'unidentified race Rock Pipits'
 
Phil O'Scopus said:
What anti littoralis stance is this Stephen? Do you mean the cautious approach to their identification (which seems entirely reasonable to me in view of the current state of knowledge) or the less than objective version of attitudes in Cumbria that you have persistently expressed in recent weeks? I've never heard any Cumbrian birder state that littoralis do not occur in the county. As observers from all over the country seem to have joined in your condemnation of the Cumbrian Records Panel for failing to unequivocally accept claims of littoralis, I'd be interested to know how other counties treat such records.

Phil
Click to expand...

Yeah, fine, the term 'anti littoralis' was perhaps not the best turn of phrase. But then Phil O'Scopus isn't the best (or most original) nom de plume.

In Lancs the view is that the vast majority are littoralis, don't know about elsewhere.

Regards,

Stephen.
 
Cheshire are not accepting any records of littoralis either.... unless in full breeding plumage... which is also a bit daft since there are 500+ out on the Dee marshes just now and two pairs breed in the county.


I know that in Kent it is accepted that 99.9% (I made that stat up) are littoralis and petrosus is a description bird.

Personally I think its a bit silly that littoralis is deemed unidentifiable and spinoletta isn't. I can say that with complete impunity being part of the county rarities committee.

Just because not all birds are seperable, it doesnt mean that the extremes should be recorded.
 
Last edited:
Some quick research shows the requirement to do descriptions for littoralis in Lancashire was dropped in 2001, because they were found to be the most frequently occurring form based on high tide watching (mainly aimed at finding Water Pipits) in Spring.

Also the ringing recovery from Sweden (1998, reported to Lancs Bird Report in 2000) was probably a factor...

Regards,

Stephen.
 
Mind you Lancs have dropped all sorts from their rarities list which causes problems in Cheshire since we tend to accept birds seen from the Liverpool side of the Dee...

I may have this wrong, but I recall a big debate abut species such as Storm Petrel and Long-tailed Skua not being description birds in Lancs.
 
Jane Turner said:
Personally I think its a bit silly that littoralis is deemed unidentifiable and spinoletta isn't. I can say that with complete impunity being part of the county rarities committee.
Click to expand...

This came in whilst I was posting, I agree.

Identification of pipits has come on leaps and bounds in recent years yet there are some questionable claims of Water Pipits in Cumbrian coast in the past which are still on the official record. If the Cumbrian Panel are looking to be cautious, which despite some of my exasperated comments I do understand, then perhaps they should start with a review of all historic Water Pipit records.

Regards,

Stephen.
 
Jane Turner said:
I may have this wrong, but I recall a big debate abut species such as Storm Petrel and Long-tailed Skua not being description birds in Lancs.
Click to expand...

Jane,

LT Skua is still a dsecription bird in Lancs. Look how many Stormies turn up off the north west coast these days (huge numbers reported off Workington in particular); this was being reflected in Lancs so I think it was a fair decision to remove Stormie.

Regards,

Stephen.
 
Stephen Dunstan said:
Identification of pipits has come on leaps and bounds in recent years yet there are some questionable claims of Water Pipits in Cumbrian coast in the past which are still on the official record. If the Cumbrian Panel are looking to be cautious, which despite some of my exasperated comments I do understand, then perhaps they should start with a review of all historic Water Pipit records.
QUOTE]

I was thinking in particular of the count of 17, which was actually inland quoted in Jake Manson's article in CBC News 13.4 (I'm sure 'Phil' has a copy). However cross-referring to the 1987 bird report I see that Jake has lifted a typographical error, though I don't ever recall this being corrected in a subsequent copy of CBC News.

Regards,

Stephen.
Click to expand...
 
Stephen Dunstan said:
This came in whilst I was posting, I agree.

Identification of pipits has come on leaps and bounds in recent years yet there are some questionable claims of Water Pipits in Cumbrian coast in the past which are still on the official record. If the Cumbrian Panel are looking to be cautious, which despite some of my exasperated comments I do understand, then perhaps they should start with a review of all historic Water Pipit records.

Regards,

Stephen.
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar. My token contribution to the birding literature was a paper in Birding Scotland which summarised the Scottish records of Water Pipit and pressed for a proper review of all Scottish records as the timing of a fair few of them meant that they were at least as likely to refer to littoralis.

Stuart
 
Stephen Dunstan said:
Jane,

LT Skua is still a dsecription bird in Lancs. Look how many Stormies turn up off the north west coast these days (huge numbers reported off Workington in particular); this was being reflected in Lancs so I think it was a fair decision to remove Stormie.

Regards,

Stephen.
Click to expand...

Told you my memory was dodgy..... must have been Pom then!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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.

Similar threads

B
Pipit and swift in moorland of Mt Kilimanjaro Tanzania
Replies
2
Views
526
Valéry Schollaert
Valéry Schollaert
Michał Jaro
Rock pipit
Replies
5
Views
594
KenM
KenM
B
Pipit : Lizard Point SW England
Replies
5
Views
632
BBandW
B
Redmist
Song thrush? Rogaland, Norway 1st December 2023
Replies
7
Views
802
Redmist
Redmist
M
North Macedonia - Water or Tawny Pipit?
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
4K
Mike Earp
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top