BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Cantelo" data-source="post: 1189804" data-attributes="member: 2844">I'm somewhat bemused by Dave's comments since I just can't see such detail myself .... and wouldn't expect to do so from the angle at which the photos were taken.  Perhaps, in my dotage my eyesight simply isn't what it was - in fact I know it isn't!  Even if I could, then for the reasons already expressed I would treat them with some caution.  To me this bird simply doesn't look that much bigger or bulkier than Common Tern and hence not big enough to be a Royal Tern.  In fact I'm not confident that there's any significant size difference between the two birds- can we be certain that the "larger" one was not, in fact merely a little closer. (Those of us old enough to do so will recall an article in 'British Birds' about size illusion that cautioned that judging size, even in photos, is not always as straight foward as one might suppose).  Having spoken to the photographer not too long after the photo was taken, I understood that he had little time to watch the bird and understandably opted to get a photo.  Anyone who's tried to grab  shot of a passing bird will know full well that it's damn hard to do so and critcally watch the thing!   I would also be cautious of making dogmatic judgements about details of the bird's plumage and/or shape.  Photographs, particularly when using a powerful telephoto lens can distort and mislead.  That said the observer was absolutely adamant that it had an orange bill.  If only I'd driven to Stodmarsh, rather than Grove, that day and I might have seen it myself!John</blockquote>

Verification