This bird caught my attention because of the voice (which I attach). Slender, long body, whitish, little buff underparts, rather grayish mantle, whitish supercilium, pale beak ?
Michał Jaro;4016263 said:Hi, thank you very much for the extensive explanations. I am not optimistic about arctic, I wrote about my doubts. However, I am far from chiff chaff. Maybe the voice is not very piercing, but remember that I recorded with weak equipment. In the field the voice was quite sharp. Now I will send a slightly strengthened recording. However, I agree - it still doesn't sound exactly like arctic. What's more - the voice is two-syllable, which I noticed only now. I am sending the spectrogram, it is completly different from the linked chiff caff recording. I also showed 2 syllables.
Michał Jaro;4017574 said:I thought I would write nothing more, but Ken provoked me to make some remarks.
The first: voice - which caused my interest. What can we read about it - the arctic's call is quite unlike other phylloscopus. but this one for sure is similar. So let's assume I was wrong - another bird in the area called - which one? There were, pipits (tree, meadow), yellowhamer, whitethroat, citrine wagtail. None match ?.
Further, the morphological features - there are some that match the arctic, like body shape, long neck, supercilium that doesn't pass on the forehead, long, bright bill. I have one more word in my head - hybrid? is possible ?