• 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.

Siberian Stonechat (1 Viewer)

Hard to be sure, esp the second bird. Ad males are actually the hardest to prove, you need to see their underwing!

I didn't think Siberian Stonechat had been split though
 
Jane Turner said:
Hard to be sure, esp the second bird. Ad males are actually the hardest to prove, you need to see their underwing!

I didn't think Siberian Stonechat had been split though
Click to expand...

The second had a very white rump, and has a wide white collar plus reddish only half way down breast. I thought the second was but not the first.
 
The first was taken in the far East so is bound to be! As I said Ad males are actually tricky. Even rubicola can have a white rump. The orange rump on bird two looks good for maura or stejnegeri, you need to see the black auxilliaries to prove it though!
 
Siberian should be accepted as a species by both Clements and by Sibley and Monroe (1996) according to Avibase. I can't say anything for other authorities.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
Siberian should be accepted as a species by both Clements and by Sibley and Monroe (1996) according to Avibase. I can't say anything for other authorities.

Niels
Click to expand...

Niels,
Basically true. The SM played around with the old Common Stonechat (S. torquata) in the 1996 version listing, among other things, the accepted only by them African Stonechat (S. axillaris), as well as this one. They then relumped it with the Common Stonechat. Now, they have again split the old S. torquata into the three Clement's accepted species, i.e., European Stonechat, Siberian Stonechat and African Stonechat. The other authoritative world list (Howard & Moore) does not presently recognize the taxonomic treatment afforded by both the current SM and Clement's. For HM, the three species are all treated in Common Stonechat (S. torquata). Their problem, however, is not so much whether or not they might believe that there should be splits, but rather they are still not certain that the taxonomic treatment of the subspecies associations to the three species is correct and are, therefore, awaiting further scientific corroboration to this effect.
 
Where would indica variegata and armenica sit in that three way split? Not that I can see any white in the tail of the second bird!
 
Jane Turner said:
Where would indica variegata and armenica sit in that three way split? Not that I can see any white in the tail of the second bird!
Click to expand...

Jane,
Here is the current SM and Clement's treatment.
 

Attachments

  • Common Stonechat Splits.jpg
    Common Stonechat Splits.jpg
    76.9 KB · Views: 167
Thanks.

The bad news for Gashead is that you can't be sure that bird two is a Sibechat on that pic, it probably is, but if it were in the UK, BBRC would not accept it without a description of its underwing. A few male rubicola can match Sibechat on collar, extent and colour of belly patch and rump.

If it showed white in the tail it would be variegata or armenica and you would be ok!
 
Jane Turner said:
Thanks.

The bad news for Gashead is that you can't be sure that bird two is a Sibechat on that pic, it probably is, but if it were in the UK, BBRC would not accept it without a description of its underwing. A few male rubicola can match Sibechat on collar, extent and colour of belly patch and rump.

If it showed white in the tail it would be variegata or armenica and you would be ok!
Click to expand...

It's staked out a grass heap for most of this winter so I'll have a look this weekend..........not sure I'm quick enough on the draw for a photo but I'll let you know.
 
cuckooroller said:
Niels,
Basically true. The SM played around with the old Common Stonechat (S. torquata) in the 1996 version listing, among other things, the accepted only by them African Stonechat (S. axillaris), as well as this one. They then relumped it with the Common Stonechat. Now, they have again split the old S. torquata into the three Clement's accepted species, i.e., European Stonechat, Siberian Stonechat and African Stonechat. The other authoritative world list (Howard & Moore) does not presently recognize the taxonomic treatment afforded by both the current SM and Clement's. For HM, the three species are all treated in Common Stonechat (S. torquata). Their problem, however, is not so much whether or not they might believe that there should be splits, but rather they are still not certain that the taxonomic treatment of the subspecies associations to the three species is correct and are, therefore, awaiting further scientific corroboration to this effect.
Click to expand...

I just checked the taxonimic recommendations as of December 2003 of the AERC (all Europe), where the stonechat is in the section on pending decisions. One problem at the time was that BOURC (the British participant) had not voted. In the arguments given, difficulties with the three-way split is listed. Steve's assertion that more data is needed from sub-species that have not been comprehensively studies is probably why the AERC still treats this as pending.

Niels
 
All the BOU need do is read Urquhart's Stonechats (Helm 2002). All the very strong genetic evidence for the split (as already followed by S&M and Clements) is in there

-----

Going by the pics in Urquhart, the bird in the second link (Clive Temple pic) could well be S. maura armeniaca (which has little or no white in the tail according to Urquhart), and is also the race one might most expect to be wintering in the Gulf.
 
Kuwaity had a lovely pic of a female Sibechat taken in Kuwait in a disappeared ID thread on Desert Wheatears.

We speculated long and hard on that one (it was more rusty than a classic maura type and I recall that there should always be some white in the tail in armeniaca . Perhaps though this is more recent information.
 
Nutcracker said:
All the BOU need do is read Urquhart's Stonechats (Helm 2002). All the very strong genetic evidence for the split (as already followed by S&M and Clements) is in there
Click to expand...

I think that the AERC TAC argues that no-one knows yet if there should be a three, four, five, or six-way split, and also some of the subspecies now listed (by e.g., Clements) in maura have been very poorly studied.

Niels
 
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

L
Is this a Siberian Stonechat (Saxicola maurus)? Location - Lithuania
Replies
3
Views
454
MacNara
M
T
Possible Siberian Stonechat South Yorkshire
Replies
4
Views
753
dwatsonbirder
dwatsonbirder
F
Siberian Stonechat - Marsa Alam, Egypt November 2022
Replies
10
Views
782
Gladiator96
Gladiator96
T
Denmark. Siberian chiffchaff?
Replies
6
Views
737
Butty
B
F
Stonechat, Marsa Alam, Egypt.
Replies
4
Views
599
CARERY
CARERY

Users who are viewing this thread

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