Pipit vs Skylark (1 Viewer)

[JayFeatherPL]

Hello!
I know it may be a very basic question on layman level, but I'd like to ask anyways How can I separate the Pipit from the Skylark apart from the slimmer silhouette in pipits (as it can be sometimes subjective)? Is there any objective feature in the plumage, which helps to ID the bird as a Pipit and not a Skylark or the other way around? Or maybe there's a constant and unambiguous feature in the silhouette of either a Pipit or a Skylark?

And I mean the Tree Pipit here, because it has a more prominent supercilium and a stronger bill, which resembles the Skylark that also has a distinct supercilium and a quite thick bill.

When I see a Pipit I "automatically" exclude the Skylark, but nevertheless it's always better to have at least one, constant and trusty feature just in case (in order to have something to pay attention to), because there might be e.g. bad conditions for watching (I'm not a fan of identifying birds "by feel")

So thank you in advance for all the answers under this dumb question!
Cheers!

 

[JayFeatherPL]

I've noticed that pipits tend to have a sub moustachial stripe. Do skylarks also show a sub moustachial stripe? Is it a good way to separate these two by looking at that stripe?

 

[Jinac]

Behavior in first I'd say,
And eyebrow which go to the back of the head for the skylark, and the projection of primary (I don't know the English term... sorry) longer for the skylark

 

[Stonefaction]

Well, I've never seen a Skylark in a tree..... They (Tree Pipit and Skylark) both have rather different habitat preferences, (though I suppose they can turn up in untypical areas on migration). I don't recall ever mistaking Skylark for a Pipit, or vice versa - though it took me a long time to get my head round the differences between Pipit species, but from your posts on here I think you and I 'see' or 'look at' birds differently, so although they do 'feel' very different to me, that isn't going to be helpful to you. The markings overall are rather different - though superficially similar (tones, general patterns etc). I'd suggest watching videos of each species, or compare photos/illustrations side by side, and see what stands out most for you.

 

[foresttwitcher]

The differences in bill shape should be the main clue.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

When they are not migrating... where and how they land.

Tree Pipits land in trees or on poles, Skylarks land on the ground. Sometimes they choose a large (heather) bush.

Skylarks stay away from forest edges. Tree Pipits can be found in a few trees on an open field. But still, they stay close to the trees. Recently I saw one that landed on the ground, but after that he preferred a tree, again.

The two who actually meet are Skylarks and Meadow Pipits. In grassland you can't see them very well. Skylarks are quite bulky and may hover with fast shallow wingbeats before they land. Meadow Pipits look much more vulnerable and let themselves fall to the ground.

When you can see their heads above the grass, the Pipits are much more nervous.

Luckily their calls are totally different. They both are noisy when flying over short distances and then it's really easy.

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Larks have a primary projection, sometimes short, but never absent in Europe. All Motacillidae (pipits, wagtails) have no pp, except the rare Petchora Pipit that has a small one.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

The differences in bill shape should be the main clue.

Yeah, I've also heard about this feature. But doesn't Tree Pipit have the bill as thick as the Skylark? Meadow Pipit has a thinner bill, but Tree Pipit?
I wrote about it in the second paragraph, that Tree Pipit resembles Skylark more, because of the strong bill and the prominent supercilium.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

Thanks everyone for the answers!

 

[Jos Stratford]

(I'm not a fan of identifying birds "by feel")

This is generally called field experience. Many of the pairs of species you highlight in various threads tend not really to be confused (eg Goshawk/Honey Buzzard, Tree Pipit/Skylark), but actually can be with species that are, in reality, much more similar in the field (Goshawk/Sparrowhawk, Meadow Pipit/Tree Pipit, etc).

Incidentally, if you are in north-east Poland, a fairly safe way to separate Tree Pipit from both Meadow Pipit and Skylark at the current time is that Tree Pipits have already migrated out, but plenty of the latter two still.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

This is generally called field experience. Many of the pairs of species you highlight in various threads tend not really to be confused (eg Goshawk/Honey Buzzard, Tree Pipit/Skylark), but actually can be with species that are, in reality, much more similar in the field (Goshawk/Sparrowhawk, Meadow Pipit/Tree Pipit, etc).

Incidentally, if you are in north-east Poland, a fairly safe way to separate Tree Pipit from both Meadow Pipit and Skylark at the current time is that Tree Puputs have already migrated out, but plenty of the latter two still.

But you won't get field experience if you're not able to ID a bird. In order to gain experience, you have to be able to separate the easiest species and you must know the features to separate the birds. I won't gain experience in identifying pipits if I cannot separate them from the Skylark first.
I always prefer to have at least one feature, that helps you to separate apparently non-confusable species.

"Many of the pairs of species you highlight in various threads tend not really to be confused (eg Goshawk/Honey Buzzard, Tree Pipit/Skylark), but actually can be with species that are, in reality, much more similar in the field (Goshawk/Sparrowhawk, Meadow Pipit/Tree Pipit, etc)."

I've already said that, but again: You have plenty of features that help you separate Goshawk from Sparrowhawk and you have plenty of features to separate Meadow from Tree Pipit. With that amount of helpful features you won't be able to confuse these species.
And yet, you don't have any features to separate Gosh from HB and pipits from Skylark. Field guides don't compare this species, even though they have many features in common (e.g. both Goshawks and HBs have long, rounded tails, long necks, short fingers...and both Tree Pipit and Skylark have brownish plumage, streaked breasts, streaked backs, white supercilium, strong bills...).

If guide books don't compare such apparently non-confusable species, I ask people here in order to have something to pay attention to when I observe that bird (=to gain experience).

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

But you won't get field experience if you're not able to ID a bird. In order to gain experience, you have to be able to separate the easiest species and you must know the features to separate the birds. I won't gain experience in identifying pipits if I cannot separate them from the Skylark first.
I always prefer to have at least one feature, that helps you to separate apparently non-confusable species.

"Many of the pairs of species you highlight in various threads tend not really to be confused (eg Goshawk/Honey Buzzard, Tree Pipit/Skylark), but actually can be with species that are, in reality, much more similar in the field (Goshawk/Sparrowhawk, Meadow Pipit/Tree Pipit, etc)."

I've already said that, but again: You have plenty of features that help you separate Goshawk from Sparrowhawk and you have plenty of features to separate Meadow from Tree Pipit. With that amount of helpful features you won't be able to confuse these species.
And yet, you don't have any features to separate Gosh from HB and pipits from Skylark. Field guides don't compare this species, even though they have many features in common (e.g. both Goshawks and HBs have long, rounded tails, long necks, short fingers...and both Tree Pipit and Skylark have brownish plumage, streaked breasts, streaked backs, white supercilium, strong bills...).

If guide books don't compare such apparently non-confusable species, I ask people here in order to have something to pay attention to when I observe that bird (=to gain experience).

"don't have any features to separate Gosh from HB"

This list is so long that it is overwhelming. Thin vs thick neck, 5 vs 6 "fingers", light vs heavy belly, slow and elegant vs fast and power flight action, long vs short wings, irregular vs regular bars/stripes on the chest and very simply darker tip of "fingers" vs fingers as pale as the rest of the wing (show on the attached pic). If you have seen a dozen of each in your life, you won't need a second to separate them. It is extremely easy.

 

[wheatearlp]

This is the only link I can find that deals with Tree Pipit & Skylark together. Even then, the comparisons are mainly made to Meadow Pipit & Woodlark respectively, rather than directly with each other. However, the pictures do show the main differences.

Tree Pipit has: pinkish (& slimmer) bill, no crest, longer tail projection, slimmer & less bulky look overall and is smaller overall. Where you see them should also help separate the two.

Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis) -> Skylark (Anthus trivialis) - BirdID's Bird Guide - Nord University - Birdid

www.birdid.no

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

This is the only link I can find that deals with Tree Pipit & Skylark together. Even then, the comparisons are mainly made to Meadow Pipit & Woodlark respectively, rather than directly with each other. However, the pictures do show the main differences.

Tree Pipit has: pinkish (& slimmer) bill, no crest, longer tail projection, slimmer & less bulky look overall and is smaller overall. Where you see them should also help separate the two.

Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis) -> Skylark (Anthus trivialis) - BirdID's Bird Guide - Nord University - Birdid

www.birdid.no

it is not a good idea to separate species of different families directly. It is much better, on a didactic point of view, to identify first the family, then the species (and the genus, inbetween, if it is a large family).

Here it is simple as we have the primary projection as I explained above. No pp, pipit ; pp lark. Once we know it is a lark, for instance, then we go to specific features such white tailing edge, outer tail featers, striped breast, etc.

This apply to all birds. A Tringa sandpiper with un upturned bill is a Greenshank, right ? But if you don't know your bird is a Tringa, then the upturned bill is useless, you bird can be a godwit, a Terek Sandpiper, an avocet, etc.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

"don't have any features to separate Gosh from HB"

This list is so long that it is overwhelming. Thin vs thick neck, 5 vs 6 "fingers", light vs heavy belly, slow and elegant vs fast and power flight action, long vs short wings, irregular vs regular bars/stripes on the chest and very simply darker tip of "fingers" vs fingers as pale as the rest of the wing (show on the attached pic). If you have seen a dozen of each in your life, you won't need a second to separate them. It is extremely easy.

I think I made a wrong statement. I didn't know any features to separate Gosh from HB. Now, I know because I made a thread about it and I've learnt about those features. Unfortunately, as I recall you didn't write such a list then, which would help me a lot then
As I stated above, your list is very helpful but I've got a few remarks (If I can have some).

"5 vs 6 "fingers" "
Will I really be able to tell if there are 5 or 6 fingers while observing the bird with binoculars? Because usually, I observe the bird with binos first. Then, if the bird is not moving away, I take my camera. And while watching with binoculars I won’t be able to count the fingers, especially if the difference is just ONE finger. If it was 3 vs 6 fingers then ok. But 5 vs 6...impossible to judge in the field.

"irregular vs regular bars/stripes on the chest and very simply darker tip of "fingers" vs fingers as pale as the rest of the wing"
In most cases, while watching birds of prey, you can see the silhouette only. If you see the silhouette only, you can see neither colours nor pattern. So, while watching raptors, the only really useful feature is the shape, silhouette. Pattern (in raptors) can be a useful hint if the bird is close enough. And if we're already talking about separating these two raptors by the pattern, the carpal patch in HB is also a very good feature (Goshawks don't have a carpal patch), but as I said before: when the bird is soaring high, you will see no carpal patch, no bars/stripes and no contrast between fingers and the rest of the wing.

But as I've already said: very helpful comment. It's a pity you didn't point these features when we were discussing about Goshawks and HBs.
Cheers!

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

I think I made a wrong statement. I didn't know any features to separate Gosh from HB. Now, I know because I made a thread about it and I've learnt about those features. Unfortunately, as I recall you didn't write such a list then, which would help me a lot then
As I stated above, your list is very helpful but I've got a few remarks (If I can have some).

"5 vs 6 "fingers" "
Will I really be able to tell if there are 5 or 6 fingers while observing the bird with binoculars? Because usually, I observe the bird with binos first. Then, if the bird is not moving away, I take my camera. And while watching with binoculars I won’t be able to count the fingers, especially if the difference is just ONE finger. If it was 3 vs 6 fingers then ok. But 5 vs 6...impossible to judge in the field.

"irregular vs regular bars/stripes on the chest and very simply darker tip of "fingers" vs fingers as pale as the rest of the wing"
In most cases, while watching birds of prey, you can see the silhouette only. If you see the silhouette only, you can see neither colours nor pattern. So, while watching raptors, the only really useful feature is the shape, silhouette. Pattern (in raptors) can be a useful hint if the bird is close enough. And if we're already talking about separating these two raptors by the pattern, the carpal patch in HB is also a very good feature (Goshawks don't have a carpal patch), but as I said before: when the bird is soaring high, you will see no carpal patch, no bars/stripes and no contrast between fingers and the rest of the wing.

But as I've already said: very helpful comment. It's a pity you didn't point these features when we were discussing about Goshawks and HBs.
Cheers!

"Will I really be able to tell if there are 5 or 6 fingers while observing the bird with binoculars?"

You have to train, then it will become easy. However, if you train a bit, you won't need it. I don't need binoculars to separate a goshawk from a HB, naked eyes are enough, even at a long distance. You won't neither if you go in the field.

"It's a pity you didn't point these features when we were discussing about Goshawks and HBs"

It is a pity you expect others to spend time for you, but you refuse to spend time to help others when they need ; I told you, I need it. I'm surprised you dared to write that.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

It is a pity you expect others to spend time for you, but you refuse to spend time to help others when they need ; I told you, I need it. I'm surprised you dared to write that.

I've already told you why I cannot help. It is you who keep ignoring this. Even though I explained you everything you seem not to take no for an answer and to ignore my explanations. Can't your answers be unpaid? Do you have to get something in return for your help?
If you don't want to help me, because I cannot help you - just don't answer me. I know ornithologists who do help me and they don't want anything in exchange. They don't have time, they answer me later. Sometimes I have to wait but I do get an answer.

 

[wheatearlp]

it is not a good idea to separate species of different families directly. It is much better, on a didactic point of view, to identify first the family, then the species (and the genus, inbetween, if it is a large family).

I'm aware of that, hence the difficulty in finding info separating pipits from larks.
However, JF is having difficulty with the above, so I posted something that may help.

 

[GMS]

This is generally called field experience.

It all comes down to this. Go out birding, take a book, have a detailed look at common species and things will fall into place. Of course reading up will help but it's no substitute.

Forgot to say - if you have a chance to tag along with someone experienced it's also invaluable.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

If you want a plumage feature, Skylark has a white trailing edge to the wing, visible in flight. The pipits don't.