• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Small Wader, Fife (1 Viewer)

Gander

Well-known member
I'm already accepting that the photo may not be good enough for a definitive ID, however, I invite thoughts on the bird behind the Common Sandpiper. I don't think I even realised it was there when I took the shot, only noticing it on the computer screen this evening.

Photo was taken today at inland pool.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN3427.jpg
    DSCN3427.jpg
    491.7 KB · Views: 172
Hello,
any more photos? Instant gut feeling was 1cy Redshank (despite beeing not obviously larger than the Common SP). But after downloading the picture I struggled to find reasons.
I cant make this bird into a Dunlin, but I accept that it might well be a pitfall picture of this species.
And after looing at the picture a long time, I thought it might well be a pitfall of a Wood Sandpiper.

Is it possible to suggest two species here? Its either a Redshank or a Wood sandpiper. Happy to be corrected!

Edit: I have more confidence after Butty and Andy said its a Redshank. Thanks!
 
Bill looks shorter than that of the Common Sandpiper, absolutely as well as relatively - is that possible for Redshank? I'm wondering if the notoriously variable Ruff could be an option worth considering.
 
Bill looks shorter than that of the Common Sandpiper, absolutely as well as relatively - is that possible for Redshank? I'm wondering if the notoriously variable Ruff could be an option worth considering.
Face pattern is wrong. Bill of common sand blends into the stony background making it appear longer. The redshank looks to have the longer bill to me (as it should)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top