Red or Black Kite? (Istanbul/Turkey) (1 Viewer)

[tconzemi]

Trawling images on the web Joern, (presumably correctly ID’d?) some of the Red Kites appear to have a longer P6 than others and where that occurs it appears obviously longer than the adjoining secondary?
Thus what is the determinant factor from an anotomical perspective, ie if P6 is spread as a “finger” and being contrastingly black as the preceding 5 primaries and is longer than the adjoining pale secondary?

Cheers

Ken, I agree that in some individuals P5 (6th finger in BK) is a bit longer and may stay out from the inner 4 primariers, but never as an emarginated or notched finger (look at the inner and outer vane) which actually would make it a finger.
Also all fingers (except for inner vane of inner finger) are unmarked and pure white in RK, compare with BK, also inner primaries are finely barred in RK and boldly in BK up two outer primaries, except in eastern birds

 

[KenM]

Ken, almost all birds, including red kites, black kites, and red/black kite hybrids, have ten primaries. The feather you are referring to next to the sixth primary (numbering them from the outermost) is therefore seventh primary. Secondaries don't have anything to do with it.

Perhaps I’ve got a x’d primary here Richard?
But BK “visibly” has (6 fingers..the hand) the rest of the feathers in the wing are visibly shorter?
On some of the trawled RK images, instead of showing “just” 5 fingers, they appear to be showing 6? with the remaining wing feathers again appearing shorter and because of this variability, I would like to know how the sequential DNA compares with both species. Especially as they appear to hybridise not infrequently.

Cheers

 

[Butty]

Perhaps I’ve got a x’d primary here Richard?
But BK “visibly” has (6 fingers..the hand) the rest of the feathers in the wing are visibly shorter?
On some of the trawled RK images, instead of showing “just” 5 fingers, they appear to be showing 6? with the remaining wing feathers again appearing shorter and because of this variability, I would like to know how the sequential DNA compares with both species. Especially as they appear to hybridise not infrequently.

I think this is saying that 'Some red kites appear to have 6 fingers.' Anything else?

 

[smiths]

Can we see some examples of such Red Kites that appear to show 6 fingers please?

 

[KenM]

Can we see some examples of such Red Kites that appear to show 6 fingers please?

Here’s a few…..

Cheers

 

[tconzemi]

Here’s a few…..

Cheers

Several of these have moulting inner primaries so P5 stands out a bit more, all the others have P5 longer than P4 as usual in RK but not a finger

 

[Butty]

Here’s a few

So these are photos of photos on a screen of photos on a screen. And we thought we'd just get links so that we could see the actual photos . . . 🤔

. . . but not a finger

I can't help wondering if each of us might have our own definition of what this word means - and thus that it's useless.

 

[tconzemi]

From Dick Forsman

 

[Butty]

From Dick Forsman

Indeed. But one frequently (usually?) can't make out emargination as such in photos, and it must be the case that most people's working definition is more along the lines of 'a pointy bit on the end of a wing'. Definitions are all very well, indeed essential . . . but they're only going to be actually useful if everybody is applying - intuitively - the same definition.

 

[KenM]

Several of these have moulting inner primaries so P5 stands out a bit more, all the others have P5 longer than P4 as usual in RK but not a finger

Perhaps as Butty mentioned Tom…..
At day end one is seeing a “hand” constituting 4 or 5 fingers whichever the case may be relative to BK or RK.

That’s why I’m curious regarding these rufous v black kites, I’ve seen classic BK’s in Cornwall (Scilly Isles), Cyprus and Israel, at all destinations they looked the same (no rufous) and with a spread tail at 180 degrees looking slightly convex not concaved like RK.

On the Continent of Europe I’ve seen just a single presumed “rufous” Black Kite in France.
Looking nothing like “migrans”, with a slightly forked tail, no wonder confusion arises.

Hence my question, to what extent is hybridisation occurring in Central Europe, indeed does anybody really know, also how much sequential DNA sampling has been done amongst the rufous Black Kites of this region?

Cheers

 

[smiths]

Interpreting the wing formula of a bird is an art in itself.
One has to take into account the moult stage of the bird, its plumage state, the angle to the camera etc.
Yet, it is a very important feature that has clinched the identification of many a vagrant.
Before you say "the feature is rubbish because I don't see it", try harder?

 

[KenM]

Interpreting the wing formula of a bird is an art in itself.
One has to take into account the moult stage of the bird, its plumage state, the angle to the camera etc.
Yet, it is a very important feature that has clinched the identification of many a vagrant.
Before you say "the feature is rubbish because I don't see it", try harder?

…..where did the last sentence come from certainly not from me?

Anything I can’t see…I question, I don’t just blandly accept it as gospel irrespective of what birding deity has proclaimed it as such.

IMO that’s a healthier position to take.
I have to “try” and see the “salient” points myself and if I fail, I put it into WIP.

I presume it wasn’t intended?….but your first sentence did read a trifle elitist?

Cheers

 

[Butty]

Before you say "the feature is rubbish because I don't see it", try harder?

Not, of course, aimed at me either - because I absolutely did not in any way say that - nor has anyone in this thread said that. You might re-read the foregoing and consider reconsidering.
I agree entirely with your other remarks in that comment.

 

[smiths]

Just saying that if "people are giving their own definition" to a certain feature (post 27), I don't think that renders the feature useless.
I think people (in general) then need to look up the definition and apply it correctly.
Sorry if that sounds elitist. I guess Alex is right to start every post with "hope this does not come off as an offence"!

 

[Butty]

Just saying that if "people are giving their own definition" to a certain feature (post 27), I don't think that renders the feature useless.

I agree - if we all know what each others' definitions are - but we don't. That was the point of my critique of the term - which you seem to have missed.

I think people (in general) then need to look up the definition and apply it correctly.

I agree - but . . . The nature of human nature is such that you can't (sadly) rely on people to do that. Which is why it's always hugely preferable if terms in common use, and on which the sharing of information and ideas relies, are as intuitive as possible - so that minimal reference to definitions is required. Thus, check the definition of 'finger' in the Svensson f/guide: it's substantially different from Forsman's, not just in wording but in fact and meaning - and I suspect that far more people will, without thinking about it, be applying Svensson's definition than Forsman's because Svensson's is the more intuitively obvious.
Personally, I didn't find any of your comments at all elitist - except that in one of them you misrepresented (no offence, etc, etc) what other people had said.

 

[smiths]

If you mean the Collins Bird Guide, it defines 'fingers' as "the spread tips of the outermost long primaries on broad-winged, soaring birds, e.g. eagles, storks, cranes" (page 10), which comes down to exactly the same as what is meant by Forsman, since the outermost primaries of eagles, storks and cranes are always emarginated.

 

[Joern Lehmhus]

Ken, almost all birds, including red kites, black kites, and red/black kite hybrids, have ten primaries. The feather you are referring to next to the sixth primary (numbering them from the outermost) is therefore seventh primary. Secondaries don't have anything to do with it.

oops, discussion went a lot further...
But Yes, that was my point- thanks Richard.
Wether defined as a finger or not it is still a primary , and the adjacent feathers in both directions are also primaries. Therefore Kens statement appeared either wrong or mysterious to me and I asked for clarification - no offence meant

 

[KenM]

oops, discussion went a lot further...
But Yes, that was my point- thanks Richard.
Wether defined as a finger or not it is still a primary , and the adjacent feathers in both directions are also primaries. Therefore Kens statement appeared either wrong or mysterious to me and I asked for clarification - no offence meant

I was focused on the exposed fingers not all the primaries 1-10, for me the “rest” of the primaries were of no consequence when discussing the “hand”…apologies if I mislead.

Cheers

 

[pianoman]

Was the picture taken recently? If I saw the OP here, I would think juvenile RK which has a slightly less forked tail and less well defined wing panel.

 

[Butty]

which comes down to exactly the same as what is meant by Forsman, since the outermost primaries of eagles, storks and cranes are always emarginated

No, it's not the same. Because then you have to define what you mean by 'outermost' and (you are implying) the Svensson definition would be useless unless you also defined which primaries were 'outermost' ( = emarginated, according to your definition of outermost). And you can see from Tom's response to Ken that the disagreement/misunderstanding comes directly out of what constitutes a finger - and that Tom/Forsman counts emargination as key to that (viz. if a feather isn't emarginated it can't be a finger, even if it forms a well-separated point), whereas Ken's finger-counting (not unreasonably, as it's often difficult to see) ignored emargination.
Some of Ken's kite photos clearly have 6 fingers by the Svensson definition but not (apparently) by the Forsman one. So... different definitions, different results. This is my point.