-
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.
Mourning or Conneticut Warbler ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter nikovich
- Start date
cavan wood
Well-known member
First on the scene, means I have a good chance of being shot down.
I would say certainly not male mourning (eye ring and no dark edge on hood). The bold eye ring says connecticut to me, but I've only ever seen one. Female mourning can have a thin eye ring, but that one looks way too bold. If it walks it's connecticut. If it hops its mourning. Now wait for someone that actually knows connecticut warblers.
Scott
I would say certainly not male mourning (eye ring and no dark edge on hood). The bold eye ring says connecticut to me, but I've only ever seen one. Female mourning can have a thin eye ring, but that one looks way too bold. If it walks it's connecticut. If it hops its mourning. Now wait for someone that actually knows connecticut warblers.
Scott
Grousemore
Senior Member
Looks ok for Connecticut to me, from what we can see.
Hi Guys,
No interest in shooting anyone down, but since Mournings & Connecticuts both breed in the woods behind my house and they are a bit of a hobby of mine, I hope I can share some observations and an opinion.
First on behavior, the Mournings are listed as skulky in the guides, but aren't bad on the breeding grounds. They hop around trees all the time, albeit usually say 1-6 feet up, can be a bit noisy, and you if know their territories, not tough to find. Connecticuts are hard to find even when you know exactly where to look, they make Mournings look like exhibitionists in comparion. They stay in the deep cover, almost always under 3 feet in height. They do hop when going from branch to branch, but along the same branch or the ground they walk on those looong legs of theirs. I've never personally seen a Connecticut behave like Nick describes, and it would be unusual to be able to photograph one at that angle without being down on the ground.
For appearance and structure, it helps to be used to seeing birds of both species. In Nick's photo I see a bird with a thin eye ring broken on the entire upper right third, not big-headed like a CT, the throat looks on the light side and subtly yellow tinged in spots (confirmed using eye dropper and saturation tests in PSP), and the yellow underparts look on the dark side, All those characteristics add up to female Mourning in my opinion, particularly in combination with the behavior described.
I remember reading some bander theorizing that most Connecticuts seen out east are actually female Mourning Warblers with particularly strong eye rings, based on comparing RBA report ratios to banding station ratios. I do know that some of the (unmistakable) female Mournings that I see have what appear to be quite distinct and full eye rings, more so than this bird.
No interest in shooting anyone down, but since Mournings & Connecticuts both breed in the woods behind my house and they are a bit of a hobby of mine, I hope I can share some observations and an opinion.
First on behavior, the Mournings are listed as skulky in the guides, but aren't bad on the breeding grounds. They hop around trees all the time, albeit usually say 1-6 feet up, can be a bit noisy, and you if know their territories, not tough to find. Connecticuts are hard to find even when you know exactly where to look, they make Mournings look like exhibitionists in comparion. They stay in the deep cover, almost always under 3 feet in height. They do hop when going from branch to branch, but along the same branch or the ground they walk on those looong legs of theirs. I've never personally seen a Connecticut behave like Nick describes, and it would be unusual to be able to photograph one at that angle without being down on the ground.
For appearance and structure, it helps to be used to seeing birds of both species. In Nick's photo I see a bird with a thin eye ring broken on the entire upper right third, not big-headed like a CT, the throat looks on the light side and subtly yellow tinged in spots (confirmed using eye dropper and saturation tests in PSP), and the yellow underparts look on the dark side, All those characteristics add up to female Mourning in my opinion, particularly in combination with the behavior described.
I remember reading some bander theorizing that most Connecticuts seen out east are actually female Mourning Warblers with particularly strong eye rings, based on comparing RBA report ratios to banding station ratios. I do know that some of the (unmistakable) female Mournings that I see have what appear to be quite distinct and full eye rings, more so than this bird.
Grousemore
Senior Member
Alison G. said:
Any reference for the "chukk" sound relating to Mourning call notes?
Why isn't this MacGillivray's Warbler - am I missing something?
Darrell Clegg
Well-known member
From what I remember, MacGillivray's Warbler has obvious white arcs rather than an eyering. Nikovitch is also perhaps slightly too far east for MacGillivray's
Here is a female compared to Nashville. Don't suppose there is any variation in eye marking? Call is good!
http://mirror-pole.com/sierras/macgill/mac_nsh1.jpg
http://mirror-pole.com/sierras/macgill/mac_nsh1.jpg
Last edited:
MacGillivray??? :eek!: :eek!: :eek!:
Egads, the most difficult challenge in North American warbler ID is telling Mourning from MacGillivray! And you want us to tell from a single photo where we can't even see most of the bird?
Except... all MacGillivrays, all plumages, are supposed to have eye arcs. Indeed "The absence of white eye-arcs is diagnostic for Mourning" (A Field Guide To Warblers of North America, Dunn & Garrett, at the very beginning of a long discussion of separating the two species). The tough separation challenge is because some Mournings can have eye-arcs, not because MacGillivray's lack them. Any weird thing can happen with any one bird, but with the combination of no eye-arcs & out of range for MacGillivray, I don't see any need to be getting all masochistic here... B
Egads, the most difficult challenge in North American warbler ID is telling Mourning from MacGillivray! And you want us to tell from a single photo where we can't even see most of the bird?
Except... all MacGillivrays, all plumages, are supposed to have eye arcs. Indeed "The absence of white eye-arcs is diagnostic for Mourning" (A Field Guide To Warblers of North America, Dunn & Garrett, at the very beginning of a long discussion of separating the two species). The tough separation challenge is because some Mournings can have eye-arcs, not because MacGillivray's lack them. Any weird thing can happen with any one bird, but with the combination of no eye-arcs & out of range for MacGillivray, I don't see any need to be getting all masochistic here... B
Grousemore
Senior Member
Xenospiza said:
So "chukk" is the same as 'HWICK"?...I give up.
LOL, Trevor, the way that I write down sounds, I agree. To my ear, the Mourning Warbler call note sounds like a higher pitched "cheek!" while the Connecticut has a low and powerful "chuck!" for a call note.
I didn't put too much stock in that factor however, because people write down sounds differently, and CTs are usually silent. The only time I'm used to hearing the "chuck" sound is late July through August, when the young have hatched, and the parents are either warning them, or trying to call attention away from the young, not sure which. I've read that sound is only rarely heard away from the breeding grounds. So, the three part image of a Connecticut hopping around a tree ( :eek!: ) calling (not singing) away ( :eek!: :eek!: ) in May ( :eek!: :eek!: :eek!: ) did not add up at all with my personal experience.
Xenospiza, glad to hear that you've had the chance to visit Sax-Zim! I thoroughly enjoy that place and try to get there at least four or five times a year, mostly in the winter months, but it is not my backwoods. I do think that much (though not all) of the reputation of Sax-Zim has to do with the frequency with which it is birded, and the easy accessibility with all the roads there. The forests and wetlands up here are so vast, and Sax-Zim has no monopoly on the good birds! B
I didn't put too much stock in that factor however, because people write down sounds differently, and CTs are usually silent. The only time I'm used to hearing the "chuck" sound is late July through August, when the young have hatched, and the parents are either warning them, or trying to call attention away from the young, not sure which. I've read that sound is only rarely heard away from the breeding grounds. So, the three part image of a Connecticut hopping around a tree ( :eek!: ) calling (not singing) away ( :eek!: :eek!: ) in May ( :eek!: :eek!: :eek!: ) did not add up at all with my personal experience.
Xenospiza, glad to hear that you've had the chance to visit Sax-Zim! I thoroughly enjoy that place and try to get there at least four or five times a year, mostly in the winter months, but it is not my backwoods. I do think that much (though not all) of the reputation of Sax-Zim has to do with the frequency with which it is birded, and the easy accessibility with all the roads there. The forests and wetlands up here are so vast, and Sax-Zim has no monopoly on the good birds! B
cavan wood
Well-known member
Ah Nick! These folks have me pretty much convinced to switch to female mourning and now you're going with connecticut? Oh well, as long as the bird and it's mate know, I guess that's all that really counts.
By the way, it's well know, in very limited circles, that "HWICK" is scandinavian for the Saskatchewaneze word "chukk" (two k's because of the polish origins), which the Americans have americanized to "cheek". All very simple really.
Put them all together and it sounds a bit like part of the courtship song of a woodcock just before it dives.
Scott
By the way, it's well know, in very limited circles, that "HWICK" is scandinavian for the Saskatchewaneze word "chukk" (two k's because of the polish origins), which the Americans have americanized to "cheek". All very simple really.
Put them all together and it sounds a bit like part of the courtship song of a woodcock just before it dives.
Scott
Similar threads
