Pipit vs Skylark (1 Viewer)

[Valéry Schollaert]

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.

although no one replied to you about Gos-HB...

 

[JayFeatherPL]

although no one replied to you about Gos-HB...

They did.

 

[HH75]

although no one replied to you about Gos-HB...

Goshawk v Honey-buzzard is only an issue when a bird is too far away to allow plumage to be seen, in my opinion, but there are some slight similarities. In fact, these similarities structurally allow us to more easily separate (juvenile) Honey-buzzard from Common Buzzard, or Goshawk from Sparrowhawk, once we bear them in mind. The more protruding head and neck of Goshawk, which is what makes it look superficially like a Honey-buzzard at range, is one of the best features to enable one to separate Goshawk from Sparrowhawk, at least in my opinion, and especially if solid plumage features can't be assessed.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

When plumage details are not visible, you always have the proportions and especially the flight.

The way they fly is the easiest way to separate them. Even at a distance Goshawks are muscled powerhouses compared to Honey Buzzards. Every wing beat pushes them forward while Honey Buzzards already struggle in a weak wind. And when they keep soaring/gliding you always see the downward bent wings of the Honey Buzzard, the wings of a Goshawk are flat.

 

[jurek]

How can I separate the Pipit from the Skylark apart from the slimmer silhouette in pipits

Wow, lots.

• Pipits have a strong moustachial stripe, which Skylark lacks
• A raised crown like a small crest is only in Skylark
• Larks have a primary projection, unlike common pipits
• Bill really should be distinctive, in Meadow Pipit it is at best marginally thicker than Meadow Pipit; Skylark has thicker bill. Note that a Wood Lark has a thin bill like a pipit, but has a long supercilium to the nape, dark spot at the wing bend and short tail.
• Skylark has a white wing lining.
• Call of Skylark is a modulated melodious 'trirli', recalling a fragment of the song, while pipits have simple peeping calls.
• Skylark has much broader wings.
• Meadow Pipit, but not Tree Pipit, has a very characteristic flight style when flushed, with very deep, irregular undulations, like struggling not to fall down.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

• Meadow Pipit, but not Tree Pipit, has a very characteristic flight style when flushed, with very deep, irregular undulations, like struggling not to fall down.

In grassland, when you can't see the bird on the ground, this is a good characteristic. Skylarks have an undulating flight too but it is more shallow at short distances and much more powerful. They never give the impression that they are struggling not to fall down. Instead, they gain speed easily.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

Thanks everyone for your help I think I'll stick with the sub moustachial stripe as it's most likely to be seen first and this feature is not dependent on the time of the year, migration etc. But the other features are obviously helpful either!
Cheers!

 

[JayFeatherPL]

By the way I've found 2 photos showing a Tree Pipit with a thick bill and a Skylark with a thin bill. As you can the bills of these birds are very variable and the Tree Pipit can have a thicker bill than the Skylark
Tree Pipit
Skylark

 

[twitcherf]

THere is no better solution to these conundrums than getting out into the field and birding. As you bird and get experience, you will find that the distinctions like shape size and behaviour become more and more apparent and important so that seeing the plumage characteristics become almost secondary. Initially, you will not be confident identifying a large percentage but as you see (and hear) more and more definite Skylarks (indeed larks in general) and Tree Pipits (pipits in general) you will realise that this pair really isn't the confusion pair you might think

 

[twitcherf]

By the way I've found 2 photos showing a Tree Pipit with a thick bill and a Skylark with a thin bill. As you can the bills of these birds are very variable and the Tree Pipit can have a thicker bill than the Skylark
Tree Pipit
Skylark

..and yet, the birds in these two pictures look nothing like each other and if you got those views, there would be no excuse for identifying the lark as a pipit or the pipit as a lark

 

[JayFeatherPL]

THere is no better solution to these conundrums than getting out into the field and birding. As you bird and get experience, you will find that the distinctions like shape size and behaviour become more and more apparent and important so that seeing the plumage characteristics become almost secondary. Initially, you will not be confident identifying a large percentage but as you see (and hear) more and more definite Skylarks (indeed larks in general) and Tree Pipits (pipits in general) you will realise that this pair really isn't the confusion pair you might think

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.

And actually, to be honest, I haven't seen many birds out in the field, but I look at them in the guide books or on the Internet so when I see these birds in the field for the first time, I know which species is that, even though I haven't seen it before. The same goes with the birds' songs. Initially, I listen to the songs/calls at home, and then, when I hear such a call in the field, I know what it is.

 

[Jos Stratford]

But you won't get field experience if you're not able to ID a bird.

Yes you will. You start with the closer easier birds and built from that.

And actually, to be honest, I haven't seen many birds out in the field, but I look at them in the guide books or on the Internet so when I see these birds in the field for the first time, I know which species is that, even though I haven't seen it before.

The fundamental message being given to you is that there is no substitute to learning in the field. You are asking for advice on this forum, which is always a good thing, but it is undoubtedly true that all of those who you are asking help from learnt their skills by birding in the field, not on the internet. If you hope to improve, the repeated advice by many of these persons is to follow the path they have, ie built experience in the field.

 

[twitcherf]

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.

And actually, to be honest, I haven't seen many birds out in the field, but I look at them in the guide books or on the Internet so when I see these birds in the field for the first time, I know which species is that, even though I haven't seen it before. The same goes with the birds' songs. Initially, I listen to the songs/calls at home, and then, when I hear such a call in the field, I know what it is.

You are not reading what I write - I said that "Initially, you will not be confident identifying a large percentage" that is because you are learning

You say "you won't get field experience if you're not able to ID a bird" - that is fundamentally incorrect - you will not be able to ID every bird in the field but the ones you cannot ID are the learning ones.

 

[JayFeatherPL]

Yes you will. You start with the closer easier birds and built from that.


The fundamental message being given to you is that there is no substitute to learning in the field. You are asking for advice on this forum, which is always a good thing, but it is undoubtedly true that all of those who you are asking help from learnt their skills by birding in the field, not on the internet. If you hope to improve, the repeated advise by many of these persons is to follow the path they have, ie built experience in the field.

Yes but firstly, I should learn the features using the guide book. Then, when I am familiar with those features I go out to the field and I am able to identify a bird, even if I haven't seen it before, because I read about its features earlier, in the guide book. That's the best way to gain experience in my opinion. First learn about birds' features, then go to the field and identify every bird. At least that's my way to ID birds.

 

[twitcherf]

Yes but firstly, I should learn the features using the guide book. Then, when I am familiar with those features I go out to the field and I am able to identify a bird, even if I haven't seen it before, because I read about its features earlier, in the guide book. That's the best way to gain experience in my opinion. First learn about birds' features, then go to the field and identify every bird. At least that's my way to ID birds.

Respectfully, your posts on this (ID) forum look like you want to argue a point and be correct, rather than glean nuggets of wisdom

You have been given a lot of very good advice on this thread by birders with, it would appear, vastly more experience than you have of birding and you choose to argue that their advice is wrong.

So, my last word on this is take the advice or leave it, but stop arguing with it - I have no interest in arguing this further

 

[JayFeatherPL]

Respectfully, your posts on this (ID) forum look like you want to argue a point and be correct, rather than glean nuggets of wisdom

You have been given a lot of very good advice on this thread by birders with, it would appear, vastly more experience than you have of birding and you choose to argue that their advice is wrong.

So, my last word on this is take the advice or leave it, but stop arguing with it - I have no interest in arguing this further

I don't argue that their advice is wrong. I showed my way of learning. One doesn't exclude another.

 

[HH75]

I can remember the days when I identified my first Reed Bunting locally, and, when I found my first Stonechat in the same area weeks later, I did wonder if my initial Reed Bunting ID had been mistaken. The two species look nothing alike really, but, you know, males of both have black heads and I was very inexperienced back then. I did eventually ascertain that there were Reed Buntings in the area too, just they were less visible, but the fact that I had those moments of confusion allow me to sympathise with your position. But I got through it all, through a combination of accruing field experience, reading the literature and so on. Similarly, I remember spending ages looking at a bird at a site with a lot of Common Sandpipers that looked a bit interesting, and, at that level of experience, it didn't jump out just how different it was until it flew, and the dark underwing and white rump made it abundantly clear that it was actually a Green Sandpiper. I dare say that if I had had those same views on the ground even a few years later I'd have instantly realised that it was a Green Sandpiper, and that's fine. I'd gained experience and ability by then.

Your desire to grow and learn is commendable, but what I want you to know is that there's no need to rush the process either. It will take as long as it takes. Enjoy the journey as well as the destination.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

Totally agree with Harry, apart from the last sentence. There is no destination - it’s all journey, and it’s all the better for that. No-one ever stops learning.

I’d suggest what others have suggested. Take your time, and don’t worry too much about getting things right at the beginning. You can learn just as much by going through the ID process and coming up with the wrong name as you can when you come up with the right name.

Learning features from a book or a photo is fine. Seeing them and applying that knowledge in the field is totally different. A beginner could learn the whole field guide word for word but still not be able to identify real life birds. You need that practice in the field to make the knowledge useful.

 

[HH75]

Hi Mark,
Yes, my wording in the last sentence isn't great, I'd like to agree with you. Perhaps a 'perceived' destination might have been a better concept, that mythical state one might imagine when starting out where one knows 'everything'. That doesn't exist, I agree with you. We're all at different points and we're all learning constantly.