Isabelline Shrike, Israel - isabellinus or phoenicuroides? (1 Viewer)

[andreas bruun kristensen]

This male Isabelline Shrike was photographed at Sede Boker, southern Israel, February 13th, 2014.

I have got a few comments as to which subspecies it is.

I think it is most probably an isabellinus based on the pale bill base, pale lore, and pale upperparts. However, the supercilium is quite prominent and the underside is very pale which might suggest phoenicuroides?

The photos were taken around noon when the light was horrible. On the last photo, it seems like there is an orange wash to the flanks.

My impression is that isabellinus - by far - is the most common of the two in Israel. The bird differs markedly from a Turkestan Shrike I photographed in Oman in Februay 2015:
https://cheferneifelten.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/turkestan_aynhamran1.jpg

But can isabellinus show this supercilium?
Any comments to the identification is much appreciated.

Best
Andreas

 

[phil baber]

I'd, with great caution, suggest a female isabellinus..... As the black doesn't touch bill-base. But then is there enough info here for phoenicuroides?

ps But i don't like walking on minefields! :cat:

 

[Jean FRANCOIS]

Pour moi, phoenicuroides.
Manteau sombre contrastant bien avec le dessous
Queue sombre aussi.
Net sourcil blanc.
Flancs seuls lavés de roussâtre.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Pour moi, phoenicuroides.
Manteau sombre contrastant bien avec le dessous
Queue sombre aussi.
Net sourcil blanc.
Flancs seuls lavés de roussâtre.

Your input is always welome, but could you try to post in English as we are an international forum in the English language that is used by people from all over the world. I don't speak French and I think you're talking about a queue of somber Australians

 

[tconzemi]

Your input is always welome, but could you try to post in English as we are an international forum in the English language that is used by people from all over the world. I don't speak French and I think you're talking about a queue of somber Australians

Andy, your translation is worse than a Google translation (if that is ever possible) but some french guys would rather stop posting than using english
difficult difficult

 

[Nutcracker]

Doesn't worry me! I'd rather see posts in French, than no post, or posts in bad English

My translation:

Pour moi, phoenicuroides. — For me, phoenicuroides.
Manteau sombre contrastant bien avec le dessous — Dark mantle contrasting well with underparts.
Queue sombre aussi. — Dark tail as well.
Net sourcil blanc. — Neat white supercilium.
Flancs seuls lavés de roussâtre. — Flanks only slightly reddish.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Andy, your translation is worse than a Google translation (if that is ever possible) but some french guys would rather stop posting than using english
difficult difficult

Doesn't worry me! I'd rather see posts in French, than no post, or posts in bad English

My translation:

Pour moi, phoenicuroides. — For me, phoenicuroides.
Manteau sombre contrastant bien avec le dessous — Dark mantle contrasting well with underparts.
Queue sombre aussi. — Dark tail as well.
Net sourcil blanc. — Neat white supercilium.
Flancs seuls lavés de roussâtre. — Flanks only slightly reddish.

Fair play guys, you have a valid point too. I got the pour moi, 'coz of Plastique Bertrand's "Ca Plan pour moi" in the late 70's?

 

[Brian J Small]

Because of the very prominent white super and pallidly of upper parts, my initial reaction was also pale phoenicuroides or even 'karelini'. However, the last photo with quite an extensive apricot wash on the cheeks is much more reminiscent of isabellinus and worried me. When I look at the other images the tertials look quite pale centred, though the tail looks dark - we are certainly not helped by exposure and this post highlights the difficulties in assigning some records of 'isabelline shrikes' to species.

Very similar to the third image here but is this in fact phoenicuroides? http://www.birdsofsaudiarabia.com/2012/04/five-species-of-shrikes-dhahran-hills.html

Look at the darkness to the centres of the tertials on these phoenicuroides - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r7Smr0Rll...L0/HonnxKW5fFk/s1600/Turkestan+Shrike+(3).jpg and http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-n2_kkbMoO...Ls/ShLKHn9FsTU/s1600/Turkestan+Shrike+(2).jpg

Compare with pale tertials (and dark ear coverts) of this isabellinus - http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/e8ab5d184...abelline-shrike-lanius-isabellinus-dh4142.jpg

Brian S

 

[Tib78]

Very similar to the third image here but is this in fact phoenicuroides? http://www.birdsofsaudiarabia.com/2012/04/five-species-of-shrikes-dhahran-hills.html

I would'nt call this a safe Turkestan. And it seems somewhat strange to me to label that male as a Turkestan while the female just above it is labelled as a Daurian: they would be perfectly assorted to form a pair!
Seriously though, last december in Tanzania I have encountered a male that was quite similar to the Saudi bird, and I didn't know what to call it. Unfortunately it was quite wary and wouldn't let me get close enough for a pic. I did see a few Turkestan shrike around though.

As to Andreas' bird, I am not sure what it is but I didn't get any strong phoenicuroides vibes from any of the pic. And if it was for the last image only, I 'd have call it a Daurian straight away I think (which is not reassuring!). By the way, despite the pales lores I am not sure I'd call this a female, the eye mask look solidly black.

 

[andreas bruun kristensen]

Great with all these expert comments. I think the last photo does the colouration of the bird most justice. The first three photos are backlit. This could be the reason why the underside looks so pale, whereas it looks more "apricot-coloured" in the last photo suggesting isabellinus.

Could be interesting to hear how many accepted records there are of phoenicuroides in Israel.

I guess there have been some ringed Isabelline Shrikes in Eilat which should be able to id.