• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Louisiana or Northern Waterthrush (1 Viewer)


Seems like this differentiation is a tricky one. All the guides mention various differences to focus on. Some guides seem to say the main clue is the whiter supercilium that widens as it goes behind the eye on the Louisians vs. the buffer, narrowing supercilium of the Northern.

Other guides say to judge by overall color of underparts--yellowish hues pointing to Northern.

Others mention the Louisiana's pinker legs and longer bill.

I can find evidence to support either!

This was Early February in the Dominican republic. The wintering range of both species.

Any help would give me some peace of mind.



  • Waterthrush.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 109
  • Waterthrush1.png
    186.8 KB · Views: 75
  • Waterthrush2.jpg
    105.1 KB · Views: 73
  • Waterthrush3.jpg
    107.4 KB · Views: 60

JWN Andrewes

Poor Judge of Pasta.
The Louisianas I saw in Belize seemed to have a faint yellowish wash to the rear underparts, but much whiter further forward. The Northerns were faintly buffish all the way underneath. Also I felt the Louisiana were greyer on the front half of the upperperts, becoming browner further back, with the Northerns evenly brown above. Based on that I would tentatively call these (this?) Louisiana, with the caveat that the above are recollections from over a decade ago.

Larry Sweetland

Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
Looking on phone I'm thinking Louisiana. Flared white supercilium looks good, as does buff wash on flanks. Leg colour passable. Throat looks unspotted (but might not on a big screen!). Underparts streaks in general perhaps a little dense and worryingly Northernish, but on the whole, I'd go Louisiana. These can be tough, do get more opinions.


Well-known member
I’m pretty solidly in the Louisiana camp too. Buff flanks contrasting with white belly is distinctive, and the othe characters mentioned are pro-Louisiana. I think the slight blurring of the images may be making the underparts look more densely streaked than normal (for Louisiana)


Wow. This is my first time on this forum and I've gotten so much help already. Thank you to everyone! I appreciate it. I was leaning heavily to Louisiana, but since I am new to birding wanted to get some more seasoned opinions.

I appreciate you all.


Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Are all images of the same bird? I was leaning Northern for the first image and Louisiana on the rest, which obviously is wrong if it is the same bird.



Very active member ;-)
All Louisiana imo. First image shows contrast between colour of supercilium and underparts, as you would expect.
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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