Jane Turner
Well-known member
Come on everyone.. at least argue a bit.. make a case for or against!
-
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.
unidentified North American sandpipers (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tomm
- Start date
Joern Lehmhus
Well-known member
Having no experiences with NA sandpipers;
nevertheless I´d say that this seems to be a better fit than all other suggestions.
Joern
nevertheless I´d say that this seems to be a better fit than all other suggestions.
Joern
I probably sound wise after the event (or wise after Jane, which is never a bad idea) but when I first the picture of these waders my reaction was 'Oh Least Sandpipers'. And then I thought 'but with dark legs'.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Chris.. I have been saying consistently that they are NOT Semipalmated.. if you notice I have mostly been saying eep - these don't fit anything properly. I ruled out Least Sands on the legs... then every other Calidrid....
I am now off the fence - I think they are Leasts and the legs are looking darker than expected... whether that is mud or more likely the photgraph. Bills bit least, plumage absolutely fits least.
I am now off the fence - I think they are Leasts and the legs are looking darker than expected... whether that is mud or more likely the photgraph. Bills bit least, plumage absolutely fits least.
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
I'm perfectly perpared to accept that they aren't Semi-Ps Jane, as soon as someone gives me proof. I fully accept that my stubbornness to be swayed away is because I'm sticking with a gut reaction 'jizz-based' i.d. So far we've had a variety of features discussed, all based on the photo. Now let's be honest about this, the photo does not show any features which allow, with certainty, for a conclusive identification to be reached. I knwo where you're coming from with the Least i.d. but until I was certain that the leg colour was being distorted in the photo (and let's be honest here, there's nothing to suggest that it is) then I'll continue to lean toward SemiP.
This is something that we do all too often on the Forums, and I'm as guilty as the next person, too much analysis of a poor photo resulting in some very subjective i.d. claims.
This is something that we do all too often on the Forums, and I'm as guilty as the next person, too much analysis of a poor photo resulting in some very subjective i.d. claims.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Chris... the one thing that is unavoidably clear on these pics is the bill of the birds which are thin based, thin to thinnish tipped and are long. Bill shape is the most consistent ID feature for Semi-P in winter plumage. Yes you do get the occasional odd one, but the long billed ones are also very heavy based and blob-tippesd.
Funny thing is my adamance that they are not Semi P's was initially a jizz-based gut reaction. Its the stint I have spent most time agonising over having blundered into a nearly winter plumaged adult once!
The legs of the back bird are not black.. or at least they are paler than both the bill of the bird in front of it and its own bill. This static view of a slightly iffy pic is actually easier to see plumage features on than a stint charging about in real life...
Almost ready to put the mortgage on them now - since they do have to be one species and nothing else fits.
Funny thing is my adamance that they are not Semi P's was initially a jizz-based gut reaction. Its the stint I have spent most time agonising over having blundered into a nearly winter plumaged adult once!
The legs of the back bird are not black.. or at least they are paler than both the bill of the bird in front of it and its own bill. This static view of a slightly iffy pic is actually easier to see plumage features on than a stint charging about in real life...
Almost ready to put the mortgage on them now - since they do have to be one species and nothing else fits.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Oh and.. if it wasn't for "over analysis" of photographs, there might not have been a record of Southern Grey Shrike on the Isle of Man last year 
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
I think you'll find that the photographs of the Manx shrike were considerably more helpful than just this one shot - there were plenty of them. It certainly wasn't the photo analysis that led to it's i.d. of meridionalis - more many hours studying an individual bird in the field.Jane Turner said:Oh and.. if it wasn't for "over analysis" of photographs, there might not have been a record of Southern Grey Shrike on the Isle of Man last year
Anyways, that's beside the by (and I'll take it in the good hunour it was obviously meant). I stand by my last posting. The photo just isn't good enough.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
It was meant in good humour Chris!
I think the photo is good enough to rule out Baird, Dunlin, Western, Semi-p and White-rumped on the right hand three birds. It seems pretty unlikely that 4 Long-toed Stints or 4 Little Stints could be in Ecuador so they are Leasts!
I think the photo is good enough to rule out Baird, Dunlin, Western, Semi-p and White-rumped on the right hand three birds. It seems pretty unlikely that 4 Long-toed Stints or 4 Little Stints could be in Ecuador so they are Leasts!
Jane Turner
Well-known member
May I redirect you towards the tringa then - there is more to go on on that
Katy Penland
Well-known member
If I may ask a late and non-ID question about this thread (since I'm nowhere nearly knowledgeable enough about peeps to join the fray), why is it labeled "unidentified NA sandpipers" when the photo was taken in Ecuador? And particularly since any of these peep spp that breed in the Arctic can then disperse to Canada, Asia, Europe, South AND North America? Just curious.
Katy,
Even birds which spend at least as much time on migration or on winter grounds as in breeding areas are usually called native to the area where they breed. I called them NA sandpipers because most ID books define North American birds refering to a geographical region in a broader sense, including the polar latitudes.
That answers your question?
Tomm
Even birds which spend at least as much time on migration or on winter grounds as in breeding areas are usually called native to the area where they breed. I called them NA sandpipers because most ID books define North American birds refering to a geographical region in a broader sense, including the polar latitudes.
That answers your question?
Tomm
Chris Benesh
So much work, so little time...so let's go birding
Jane Turner said:
Hi again folks,
Just going through Jane's list of problematic birds in a completely random, piecemeal manner. It would probably be worth all of us revisiting them from time to time, until we can hopefully arrive at a concensus for at least some of them. To me at least, these Calidris seem identifiable. I would agree with Jane's final answer in that they are Least Sandpipers. The plumage to me, appears to be basic (winter), which is what one would expect in December in Ecuador. So with that in mind, a quick check of the upperpart patterning should rule out virtually all of the candidates. Most of the choices have relatively plain-looking upperparts in basic plumage, that is except for Least Sandpiper. Its basic plumage is much more patterned above with many dark centered feathers. Also, the dark wash to the breast is a feature of Least (Baird's and White-rumped too), but not of Semipalmated or Western. The combination of patterned upperparts and dark breast is only shown by Least. The fine tipped bill is a better fit for Least (or Baird's), than it is for a Western or Semipalmated too. I think that the long primary projection Jane originally noted is somehow aberrant (missing or drooped tertial?) as the others don't show it. That's my reasoning anyway. Does that make sense or sound crazy? (o)<
Chris
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Makes perfect sense to me - then it would! Once I got past the leg colour with these it was obvious that they were Leasts. It just took a few days!
JANJ
Well-known member
I agree with Chris on these, they all look like Least. Another character often visible on Least is that the ear-covert patch is situated like an isolated dark patch behind, not connected with, and below the eye, like this:
http://www.backyardbirdcam.com/gallery/sandpiper-least-lg5.jpg
http://www.stanislausbirds.org/Photos/images/Least-Sandpiper.jpg
http://www.roysephotos.com/LeastSandpiper.html
All the subject stints shows this feature.
JanJ
http://www.backyardbirdcam.com/gallery/sandpiper-least-lg5.jpg
http://www.stanislausbirds.org/Photos/images/Least-Sandpiper.jpg
http://www.roysephotos.com/LeastSandpiper.html
All the subject stints shows this feature.
JanJ
woundedmallard
New member
These birds are Western Sandpipers. Looks like they're first year birds since they've already molted into basic plumage. While the drooped tip seems fairly apparent although there seems to be some pixelation on the image, the fact that they taper to quite a thin tip is a decent indicator. While an argument could be made for the "eastern" race of Semipalm 'piper, I think the "barrel chested" physique and larger size head seals the deal as a Western Sandpiper.
Just my 2 cents.
Thomas J. Dunkerton
Titusville, Florida
www.pbase.com/boidpikchas
Just my 2 cents.
Thomas J. Dunkerton
Titusville, Florida
www.pbase.com/boidpikchas
Chris Benesh
So much work, so little time...so let's go birding
woundedmallard said:
Hi Thomas,
What a great avatar!
Thanks for the sandpiper input. I am still curious to know how you arrived at Western Sandpiper, or more to the point, how you ruled out Least Sandpiper in your deliberations? I've attached some links to birds of both species in basic plumage below, including some from your awesome pbase collection. To my eyes, at least, they are a much better fit for Least Sandpiper. Western Sandpipers in basic plumage are very plain above (pale gray scapulars with thin black shaft streaks and little pale fringing), and lack much of any color on the breast. Least Sandpipers in basic plumage are quite patterned on the upperparts (brownish scapulars with thick, dark shaft streaks and obvious pale fringing), and have a rather brown wash to the breast (particularly the sides). The me, the mystery birds fall into the latter category. Do you see it otherwise? Also, to the best of my knowledge, Western Sandpipers of all ages are in basic plumage by December (at which point the only means to age them is by the retained juvenile remiges and scattered wing coverts shown by first cycle birds that have undergone a partial preformative molt instead of the complete molt of later cycles). Oh, and the leg color is just bad lighting in my opinion, as Jane has already pointed out, the legs are paler than the bill at least. I just don't see them as Westerns yet.
Some Western Sandpipers in basic plumage:
http://www.giffbeaton.com/Shorebirds/Western Sandpiper_2004-09-13_0029.jpg
http://www.giffbeaton.com/Shorebirds/Western Sandpiper_2004-12-17_0110.jpg
http://www.giffbeaton.com/Shorebirds/WESA6_2003-10-19.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/33/572333/1/56048815.11.jpg
Some Least Sandpipers in basic plumage:
http://i.pbase.com/v3/33/572333/1/49395193.LeastSandpiper.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/v3/33/572333/1/50242466.LeastSandpiper20.jpg
http://www.giffbeaton.com/Shorebirds/Least Sandpiper_2002-11-08.jpg
http://www.giffbeaton.com/Shorebirds/Least Sandpiper 4.jpg
Chris
Similar threads
