Bad photo waders and an extra question (1 Viewer)

[Georgebirds]

Frampton Marsh, Lincolnshire. Loads of really good sightings, also some confusing ones too far away which I can't wrap my novice-birder head around - any help would be greatly appreciated!



This one was such poor lighting, looked and behaved Redshanky but I just couldn't tell in silhouette whether the legs and bill had the orange colour - Redshank with terrible pics, or something else?



Another wader at the far far reach of my camera zoom, but I did have a look through someone else's scope (they didn't know the ID either) and could see the legs were yellow, the back very greyish, and the neck-into-chest area had speckles below the darker 'bib' colour.


And as for this.... it's...a bird? I have NO idea what I'm looking at here - it was fluffed up and twisting the head back and forth like it was preening, I wonder if this might be TOO bad a photo even for the impressive experts on here who I've seen can pick an ID out of the worst possible shot!



Greenshank in the foreground, but the one in the middle looks darker, has black markings near the legs and under the tail, so could it be a Spotted Redshank changing from winter to summer colour? And the one at the top right corner, too, please - I'm at the point where I've looked at all the pictures in all my books too many times and can't figure anything out - I really do struggle with waders!



Another Redshank with heavy black mottled pattern, I know these photos are not good (taken from deep shade under trees, sorry)



Finally, I saw some Marsh Harriers over the reedbed, and noticed a big variation between one male and another - are they one of those species which varies kind of at random, or is it regional difference? I've never seen one with such pale wings and tail before, and I do see them frequently in my Fens-to-Norfolk birding area.

 

[Indobirder]

My guesses:
1. redshank
2. greenshank
3. Ruff
4. top-right: wood sandpiper
5. redshank

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Given the length of the exposed primaries projecting clear of the tertials, top right of No.4 + 5 should be the long staying Lesser Yellowlegs, with redshank to the left, and Greenshank in the foreground. Agree with Indo above re. all other ID's.

 

[Harrybongo]

Given the length of the exposed primaries projecting clear of the tertials, top right of No.4 + 5 should be the long staying Lesser Yellowlegs, with redshank to the left, and Greenshank in the foreground. Agree with Indo above re. all other ID's.

Hi. I don't think Lesser Yellowlegs, would have a prominent supercilium, as seen in pic 4.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Hi. I don't think Lesser Yellowlegs, would have a prominent supercilium, as seen in pic 4.

I wouldn't read too much into that particular feature given the IQ (no offence to the OP), see here for example. I'd be interested in any images of wood sand showing such a prominent primary projection however...

 

[Georgebirds]

Thank you for all the IDs so far, so appreciated! I'm reading the debate on the 'third bird' with great interest. Checked to see if it was in any other photos from yesterday, just this one (which isn't any better quality, but may as well share incase it's useful!)

 

[Georgebirds]

Still mulling this one over, I'm thinking of putting it down as a Wood Sandpiper going on the evidence discussed so far and the two-to-one vote in the answers I've got here. Wood Sandpipers have been reported and photographed at this reserve, most recently two days before my visit, so they're around.
I know my dreadful pics aren't the best to analyse, but the legs don't look AS bright, the supercilium eyebrow shows, and I checked out google images and there do seem to be a few where the feather tips project past the tail (here's one, from a blog post featuring how to tell exactly these two species apart), so I'm going to side with the majority and tick it off as a Wood Sandpiper
Although not entirely certain, it's still MORE likely to be right having had advice from birders than in past years where I've just had to go by books and google images and not had anyone to ask. So pleased I joined this forum!

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Still mulling this one over, I'm thinking of putting it down as a Wood Sandpiper going on the evidence discussed so far and the two-to-one vote in the answers I've got here. Wood Sandpipers have been reported and photographed at this reserve, most recently two days before my visit, so they're around.
I know my dreadful pics aren't the best to analyse, but the legs don't look AS bright, the supercilium eyebrow shows, and I checked out google images and there do seem to be a few where the feather tips project past the tail (here's one, from a blog post featuring how to tell exactly these two species apart), so I'm going to side with the majority and tick it off as a Wood Sandpiper
Although not entirely certain, it's still MORE likely to be right having had advice from birders than in past years where I've just had to go by books and google images and not had anyone to ask. So pleased I joined this forum!

It's your list ultimately, so whatever you are happy with, go for it. I've no idea of the other contributors experience of LY, only my own, so I can only offer on the basis of that (though note I make as many mistakes as the next person!). As you're happy to go with the majority, hopefully others will contribute

The photo you've linked is a juvenile Wood sand rather than a spring adult, so not really compatible, but it does a fine job of perfectly demonstrating my point - LY shows a long primary projection (PP = length of exposed tertials) whereas WS shows a short PP, which only just projects beyond the tertials. Structurally the bird is wrong for WS too (too leggy and robust), and in addition the size looks to be roughly a fraction smaller than the redshank, whereas WS is roughly 2/3 the size. The bill also looks a bit too long (and perhaps is all dark) for WS.
Hope this helps!

 

[Georgebirds]

Yeah, this one's only a debate for my personal list, I wouldn't have added it to ebird as a sighting when there's this much doubt. Anything I'm not sure of I just leave off, well aware I'm still a new birder learning unfamiliar species all the time, and not wanting to be responsible for any false reports!

Those are all really good points, well explained, and I hadn't even considered the size! All of which has put me back to taking Wood Sandpiper off my life list (luckily I do a typed one before writing anything down on paper, so it's easy to delete and I won't have scribble in my actual notebook over this, hah)

 

[Southern Viking]

Looks like a Lesser Yellowlegs to me

 

[Butty]

PP = length of exposed tertials

I'm sure you didn't mean that... Primary projection is actually the distance between the tip of the tertial feathers and the tip of the primary feathers (athough in waders it's sometimes more sloppily used to mean the extension of the primaries beyond the tail; this terminology issue has been discussed in these columns before).

Topography - BirdForum Opus

www.birdforum.net

Structurally the bird is wrong for WS too (too leggy and robust)

We all have our own ways of seeing these things - but I'd say the robustness thing works the other way round, viz. that wood sandpiper is the chunkier one and that lesser yellowlegs is slimmer and more elegant (as in the OP's bird).

 

[Southern Viking]

I'm sure you didn't mean that... Primary projection is actually the distance between the tip of the tertial feathers and the tip of the primary feathers (athough in waders it's sometimes more sloppily used to mean the extension of the primaries beyond the tail; this terminology issue has been discussed in these columns before).

Topography - BirdForum Opus

www.birdforum.net

Pretty sure he meant it as the PP is equal to the length of the exposed tertials, not that the PP means the length of exposed tertials!

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Pretty sure he meant it as the PP is equal to the length of the exposed tertials, not that the PP means the length of exposed tertials!

^correct, though noted that Butty has articulated what this actually means better than I'd written... Dyslexia strikes again!
At least that's evened the "scores" in terms of who thinks it is a LY...

 

[Butty]

that's evened the "scores" in terms of who thinks it is a LY

I haven't done any counting (nor do I see any value in that approach in these debates - it's the force of the ID points that's important, not the numbers of votes on each side), but I'm not to be included. I meant (and said) that the OP's bird looks to me more slim and elegant than chunky and robust - but I wouldn't identify it on that.

 

[Rotherbirder]

FWIW, the 'problem' wader looks like LYL to me too. Apart from the comments already made and accounting for size illusion, the bird looks too big for Wood Sandpiper compared with the foreground Greenshank and closer in size to the accompanying Redshank than Wood Sandpiper would look - if that makes sense?!

RB

 

[Alexandre]

Hello,
Elongated rear end caused by pointed primaries projecting well beyond the tail, plus clearly 'leagy' appearance (plus other more or less subjective details as already said too) make this bird a Lesser Yellowlegs for me too.

Regards,
Alexandre