A Spoon-billed Sanderling, China. (1 Viewer)

[nartreb]

Has there ever been an example of a bill deformity which is spatulate?

There's usually a twist or one mandible is longer than the other, what are the odds of an almost perfect, miniature, Spoon-billed Sandpiper, facsimile?

I think the odds of this being genuine, are about the same as me, being named in the England squad for the Euros.

Unfortunately, statistics aren't much help in these cases. The odds of any one sandpiper having this deformity? I have no idea, but clearly very small. The odds that if there exists or recently existed,, anywhere in the world, such a deformity, somebody would photograph it (anytime since the advent of digital photography) and post it to this forum (possibly after a lapse of years)? Rather better.

The interesting question is: the odds that such a thing has never been posted to birdforum (or scientific papers known to our members) before.

 

[xuky.summer]

Thank you for your replies.

It seems that more and more people suspect that this is a fake photo. I need some explanation.

I really can't guarantee 100% that the photos are real, after all, I didn't shoot them myself. I personally believe that this picture is true. From common sense, people usually cheat for a certain purpose. The person who took the photo is just an old man who loves photography, does not have any research on birds and bird watching, and is usually a more serious old man.

He posted this photo in a small group inside a certain company, and he thought he had taken a spoon-billed sandpiper. Many people in China have photographed Spoon-billed Sandpipers. Obviously, even if he does it, it won’t attract too much attention. So why did he fake it? If the photo was faked by him, obviously his PS level is not low, so why doesn't he have a more real PS? After all, there is no concept of hybridization in his consciousness, otherwise he would not claim that he had photographed a spoon-billed sandpiper.

I saw this photo by accident and came here to ask you about the possibility of hybridization. If everyone thinks it is a fake and it is not feasible in the wild, I will treat it as a fake. In addition, even if it is a real image, I don't think a single photo has much academic significance. Maybe it can provide circumstantial evidence for similar individuals discovered in the future.

Thank you again for your replies, I am sorry to have caused confusion to everyone. I also conveyed to this old man that everyone suspected that the photo was fake, he dismissed it very much, and the bird species were nothing to him.

 

[MacNara]

I have posted here for a number of years. And I've learned a lot about birds, so much so that I sometimes feel able to help newer posters with sometimes difficult IDs.

But some people who like me, and some who don't, will recognise that one of my bugbears is that people often post photos of birds that they could have adjusted with simple photo software (even on a cheap phone) but they don't.

That is, whatever people may know about birds, they often know nothing about digital cameras and how they work - e.g. there is no such thing as 'the original photo' and 'Camera RAW' is not this either.

 

[mummymonkey]

I really don't see anything to suggest the image is manipulated.

 

[MacNara]

It seems that more and more people suspect that this is a fake photo. I need some explanation.

I really can't guarantee 100% that the photos are real, after all, I didn't shoot them myself. I personally believe that this picture is true. From common sense, people usually cheat for a certain purpose. The person who took the photo is just an old man who loves photography, does not have any research on birds and bird watching, and is usually a more serious old man

I saw this photo by accident and came here to ask you about the possibility of hybridization. If everyone thinks it is a fake and it is not feasible in the wild, I will treat it as a fake. In addition, even if it is a real image, I don't think a single photo has much academic significance.

Thank you again for your replies, I am sorry to have caused confusion to everyone. I also conveyed to this old man that everyone suspected that the photo was fake, he dismissed it very much, and the bird species were nothing to him.

He has been defrauded by someone. So, if you know him - take care of him.

 

[nartreb]

Xuky, for the record, I don't think it's fake. This is either an extremely rare and perplexing record (and therefore important, by birding standards), or an unfortunate coincidence with some other explanation (e.g., something held in the beak). With just one photo and no other useful information, it's hard to see what to do with it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and this doesn't quite meet that standard.

 

[tconzemi]

Sanderling is known for a blunt bill tip, in this picture in the link, it seems at least in this individual also a bit flattened. IMHO the OP bird is an extreme expression of a blunt bill tip and as such a picture of high scientific interest

http://www.birdwords.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sanderling-6-Calidris-alba.jpg

 

[foresttwitcher]

No experience in photography or analysing photographs but, just my opinion and no need to get aggressive in response, is it not more likely that the bird in question has something in or on it's bill tip or a slight deformity that is exaggerated by the presence a water droplet (the latter shown also to a much lesser degree by the bird to the left) than the need to bring up incredibly unlikely hybrids or a deliberate fraud - that the only person on here who knows the photographer considers also unlikely.

 

[pianoman]

No experience in photography or analysing photographs but, just my opinion and no need to get aggressive in response, is it not more likely that the bird in question has something in or on it's bill tip or a slight deformity that is exaggerated by the presence a water droplet (the latter shown also to a much lesser degree by the bird to the left) than the need to bring up incredibly unlikely hybrids or a deliberate fraud - that the only person on here who knows the photographer considers also unlikely.

Lightened the shadows of the subject bird (no other manipulation) - appears to rule out the idea of a water droplet or holding anything in the bill, though possibly still allows for something adhering to the upper surface of the bill

 

[Butty]

may I suggest a visit to Specsavers?

I speak personally here, but... I think that contributors should keep their comments to facts, interpretations and opinions about ID. Not insults, please.

 

[MacNara]

... a deliberate fraud - that the only person on here who knows the photographer considers also unlikely

Not correct - she specifically states that Photoshop manipulation was her first reaction.

I speak personally here, but... I think that contributors should keep their comments to facts, interpretations and opinions about ID. Not insults, please.

You are right. Apologies. But I still find it completely weird that people I respect (e.g. Tom) think this is real.

So here are a few tests.

1. Could Xuky make clear whether the photo is supposed to have been taken in 2020 - per her original post - or 2018 - per her later post which 'reconfirms' (Xuky is not a native English speaker, and I think she means that she checked with her friend(s) and she just means that when she checked with her source, the year had changed). And maybe she could tell us why? Or what were her source's recollections of the day?

2. Could Xuky explain why her source suddenly noticed this exceptional bird (even a real ordinary Spoon-billed Sandpiper would be a great catch) eight months, or possibly two years and eight months after taking it? And why he still had this photo, and bothered to look at it? And the 'chain of custody' of the photo?

3. Xuky says there is only this one photo. If the photographer kept this photo for half a year or two and a half years thinking originally that it contained only nothing-special Sanderlings, then presumably he would have kept all the photos from that day. So he and Xuky could produce the five or ten photos taken before this 'only one photo' and the five or ten taken immediately after? This would at least give context to the original 'only one photo' photo!

 

[rkj]

I am not Xuky, but let me take a stab at possible answers to MacNara's questions and some other issues that have been raised on this thread.

1. What does it matter when the photo was taken? 2018, 2020 - who cares? I myself could not tell you when I took many photos and could easily report the wrong date if it were not recorded in a photo's metadata.
2. I have a friend who recently returned from a trip to Australia with 10,000+ photos of birds. It takes time to examine all the pictures one can take. I sometimes go back over photos I took long ago. This isn't a criminal case and there is no reason to expect a clean "chain of custody".
3. If there is only one photo of the bird with the weird bill there is little reason to post others taken before or after.

Someone claimed that the shadow of the bill was identical to that of another bird in the original photo. Actually, it is not. The spoon-billed bird has a bill shadow with smooth curves on the base on both sides; the other bird has distinct angles on the shadows. The differences may be due to the bills being at slightly different angles to the sun.

It has also been claimed that the spoony tip of the bill looks photoshopped, in particular in having a bluish border. I am no expert at photo forensics, but if you zoom in, some of the other birds in the original photo show similar effects.

If we think about the evolution of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper, I think we would presume that the species evolved from one that did not have an expanded bill tip. If so, it must be that mutations can occur in sandpipers that cause expansion of a bill tip in offspring of parents that were not so endowed. Clearly this does not happen often or we would all see such birds, but it must happen sometimes. I see no reason why the bird photographed by Xuky's friend might not be such a bird.

 

[johnallcock]

I'm sure I remember a thread on this forum a couple of years ago about a Calidris (Red-necked Stint? Sanderling?) in Asia with a slightly spoon-shaped bill. From memory, the discussion also mentioned an observation from longer ago of an Calidris in North America (Western Sand? Semi-p?) with a spoon-shaped bill. The conclusion was that Calidris do sometimes show a mutation that produces a spoon-shaped bill (as rkj mentions as a possible origin of SbS). It's possible that the bird in this thread is another example.

Unfortunately I can't find the earlier thread or the North American record at the moment though.

 

[Grahame Walbridge]

I'm sure I remember a thread on this forum a couple of years ago about a Calidris (Red-necked Stint? Sanderling?) in Asia with a slightly spoon-shaped bill. From memory, the discussion also mentioned an observation from longer ago of an Calidris in North America (Western Sand? Semi-p?) with a spoon-shaped bill. The conclusion was that Calidris do sometimes show a mutation that produces a spoon-shaped bill (as rkj mentions as a possible origin of SbS). It's possible that the bird in this thread is another example.

Unfortunately I can't find the earlier thread or the North American record at the moment though.

John, I found this further example of a putative Spoon-billed Sandpiper x Red-necked Stint hybrid.

(PDF) Unusual specimen of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus

The referenced Birdforum link to the 2012 individual in China no longer works.

Grahame

 

[MacNara]

1. What does it matter when the photo was taken? 2018, 2020 - who cares? I myself could not tell you when I took many photos and could easily report the wrong date if it were not recorded in a photo's metadata.

Because the photo was not taken by Xuky and she reported one date in her first post, and then another completely different date when she 'reconfirmed'. So, as you say, the actual date is not a big deal here, but the fact that she was given two quite different dates for the photo by her source is significant because it calls into question any other information she got from this person. So - Xuky getting a clear date from this person, and other photos from the same 'session' would be in favour of her claims (although to repeat, she herself thought it was a photoshop spoof when she first saw it).

2. I have a friend who recently returned from a trip to Australia with 10,000+ photos of birds. It takes time to examine all the pictures one can take. I sometimes go back over photos I took long ago. This isn't a criminal case and there is no reason to expect a clean "chain of custody".

There is a reason for the 'clean chain of custody' when you are claiming something extraordinary, and when, as we have seen with the date, the source is shown to have made a false claim about one straightforward aspect of the claim then information about other aspects of the source of the photo must be justified.

3. If there is only one photo of the bird with the weird bill there is little reason to post others taken before or after.

The bird in question is a very common bird, and when people take pictures of it they normally take multiple pictures (because it's small and moves around a lot). The 'before and after' photos would provide context and help to convince doubters like me that at least the person who was making claims about the spoon-bill had found this bird later from looking at a number of photos, rather than picking one photo from 'wherever' and then altering it.

Someone claimed that the shadow of the bill was identical to that of another bird in the original photo. Actually, it is not. The spoon-billed bird has a bill shadow with smooth curves on the base on both sides; the other bird has distinct angles on the shadows. The differences may be due to the bills being at slightly different angles to the sun.

Yes, I claimed this about the shadow. As I said, the differences might also be due to doctoring of the original photo. Any difference in angle to the sun is minuscule.

It has also been claimed that the spoony tip of the bill looks photoshopped, in particular in having a bluish border. I am no expert at photo forensics, but if you zoom in, some of the other birds in the original photo show similar effects.

I agree that you are no expert, but still think that the border suggests alterations to the original actual photo.

If we think about the evolution of the Spoon-billed Sandpiper, I think we would presume that the species evolved from one that did not have an expanded bill tip. If so, it must be that mutations can occur in sandpipers that cause expansion of a bill tip in offspring of parents that were not so endowed. Clearly this does not happen often or we would all see such birds, but it must happen sometimes. I see no reason why the bird photographed by Xuky's friend might not be such a bird.

It was me that said this about the evolution of the bill, but as a joke because it is so obviously wrong. If you really 'see no reason why the bird photographed by Xuky's friend might not be such a bird' then this invalidates for me, and I hope everyone else on the forum, anything you might say or think about this or any other issue.

 

[DMW]

Because the photo was not taken by Xuky and she reported one date in her first post, and then another completely different date when she 'reconfirmed'. So, as you say, the actual date is not a big deal here, but the fact that she was given two quite different dates for the photo by her source is significant because it calls into question any other information she got from this person. So - Xuky getting a clear date from this person, and other photos from the same 'session' would be in favour of her claims (although to repeat, she herself thought it was a photoshop spoof when she first saw it).


There is a reason for the 'clean chain of custody' when you are claiming something extraordinary, and when, as we have seen with the date, the source is shown to have made a false claim about one straightforward aspect of the claim then information about other aspects of the source of the photo must be justified.


The bird in question is a very common bird, and when people take pictures of it they normally take multiple pictures (because it's small and moves around a lot). The 'before and after' photos would provide context and help to convince doubters like me that at least the person who was making claims about the spoon-bill had found this bird later from looking at a number of photos, rather than picking one photo from 'wherever' and then altering it.



Yes, I claimed this about the shadow. As I said, the differences might also be due to doctoring of the original photo. Any difference in angle to the sun is minuscule.


I agree that you are no expert, but still think that the border suggests alterations to the original actual photo.


It was me that said this about the evolution of the bill, but as a joke because it is so obviously wrong. If you really 'see no reason why the bird photographed by Xuky's friend might not be such a bird' then this invalidates for me, and I hope everyone else on the forum, anything you might say or think about this or any other issue.

This would be a great time for you to stop posting to this thread. You are clearly not able to consider different opinions to your own without making ad hominem attacks, and have basically injected antagonism into an otherwise cordial thread.

 

[MacNara]

This would be a great time for you to stop posting to this thread. You are clearly not able to consider different opinions to your own without making ad hominem attacks, and have basically injected antagonism into an otherwise cordial thread.

I have given clear and open reasons with evidence for my opinions and it is you who is making the 'ad hominem' attack. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the expression 'ad hominem'. Hint: it doesn't mean 'disagree in a reasoned way with someone because all or some of their ideas are wrong', it does mean 'disagree with someone on all issues because one aspect of their personality, or ideology is different from yours'.

For me, the original photo (and the more I look at it) is an obvious fake (and I have given multiple reasons why) even though it was posted by someone I would normally trust completely. But if others wish to argue that it's real, given that it would be quite exceptional if was, then it's up to them to answer my questions in a convincing fashion.

 

[johnallcock]

Because the photo was not taken by Xuky and she reported one date in her first post, and then another completely different date when she 'reconfirmed'. So, as you say, the actual date is not a big deal here, but the fact that she was given two quite different dates for the photo by her source is significant because it calls into question any other information she got from this person. So - Xuky getting a clear date from this person, and other photos from the same 'session' would be in favour of her claims (although to repeat, she herself thought it was a photoshop spoof when she first saw it).

I don't think the question of date is a big deal in this case. Xuky may have seen the initial photos, known they weren't recent and assumed they were from last autumn. When asking the friend for confirmation of the date, she was told they were from a different year. Or the friend misremembered the date and thought they were more recent. It's an easy mistake to make.

The bird in question is a very common bird, and when people take pictures of it they normally take multiple pictures (because it's small and moves around a lot). The 'before and after' photos would provide context and help to convince doubters like me that at least the person who was making claims about the spoon-bill had found this bird later from looking at a number of photos, rather than picking one photo from 'wherever' and then altering it.

Personally, I think that a common bird may be less likely to have multiple photographs. You find a flock, take a few record shots and maybe don't look closely at every individual until later. Looking at photos afterwards you might notice something unusual and wish you'd taken more photos, but it's too late by then.

It was me that said this about the evolution of the bill, but as a joke because it is so obviously wrong. If you really 'see no reason why the bird photographed by Xuky's friend might not be such a bird' then this invalidates for me, and I hope everyone else on the forum, anything you might say or think about this or any other issue.

The idea that a spoon-shaped bill evolved from a mutation that causes a widening of the bill tip on a species that didn't previously have a spoon-shaped bill is fully in line with prevailing evolutionary theory. It has happened not only in Spoon-billed Sandpiper but also in Spoonbills (evolved from an ibis-like ancestor). See my earlier comments that similar birds have been claimed in the past, and the paper that Grahame has linked above (although that is a putative hybrid).


One point I will make is that the bill is not the same shape as a Spoon-billed Sandpiper. As well as apparently being twisted (as noted by others), the spoon appears smaller, more triangular (not diamond-shape) and closer to the tip of the bill. So for me it seems not to be a case of someone simply photoshopping a SbS bill onto a Sanderling.
Personally I'm not entirely sure what is the explanation for what we see here, whether it is a mutation to the bill of a Sanderling, an illusion caused by a droplet of water at the tip of the bill or an attempted photoshop. I'm not sure we will resolve it from this single photo and it may need to remain a mystery.

 

[Butty]

...then this invalidates for me, and I hope everyone else on the forum, anything you might say or think about this or any other issue.

This is an ad hominem attack. I ask you again: please calm down; please stop it.

 

[Steve]

.