• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Confirm ID - Red-tailed Hawk? Round Rock, TX, US (1 Viewer)

erisian.pope

very amateur
Taken today, in a field near a pond. I see the short tail / long wings (so Buteo). I see the red "shoulders" on the leading edge of the undersides of the wing, I see a reddish tail and head, and I think I see windows on the wings (separating the first few primaries from the rest of the wing). I see speckling, but that's kind of near the head as opposed to being on the belly, which made me think Swainson's at first.


Thanks!
Christian


EDIT: Added another shot that shows the tops of the wings and the face.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8061.JPG
    IMG_8061.JPG
    136.2 KB · Views: 96
  • IMG_8058.JPG
    IMG_8058.JPG
    144.1 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_8050.JPG
    IMG_8050.JPG
    145.9 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_8049.JPG
    IMG_8049.JPG
    146.5 KB · Views: 84
Last edited:
The red tail and the patagial marks (i.e. the black highlights on the leading edge of the underwing near the body mark the bird as a Red-tailed Hawk. The speckling on the underside is in the correct place for Red-tailed Hawk as well.
 
This could be a "Fuertes" (B. j. fuertesi) sub species or race. For those interested, it fits the description in Wheeler's Western Edition at page 321. Particularly "WINGS (ventral).-White or pale tawny with a large dark brown patagial mark."

And yes, nice photos indeed!
Bob
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for the confirmation. And thanks for the comments on the pictures. I got lucky that the bird circled low for a bit. My lens is pretty mediocre (canon 55-250) and bird shots always push its capabilities.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top