🚀 go-pugleaf

"Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
news:Xns9683E7F93FB30xnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...
> Helloooo
>
> For those of you (Tina),, that thinks that I NEVER get a descent pic of a
> bird.. see this one :
>
> http://orre.mine.nu/faglar/lovsangare.asp
>
> Thats a..yes..Willow warbler..
>
> //Beng(drunk today..sorry)
>
Oh, for goodness sake, Beng, I didn't say anything of the kind.  I just 
wondered why you didn't use a bird book like most of us do, and just send 
pics of the difficult ones if you were really stuck.

Tina
(not drunk)

"Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
news:Xns9683E7F93FB30xnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...
> Helloooo
>
> http://orre.mine.nu/faglar/lovsangare.asp
>
> Thats a..yes..Willow warbler..
>
great pics... song is definitely Willow Warbler.. but.. and I always have a 
problem separating these two by sight... legs appear quite dark... angles on 
the photo make this difficult but primary projection looks shorter than the 
tertiarys.... you're sure that the bird you photographed is the one who's 
singing you recorded?

I do find the discussions your photos provide quite useful because they can 
draw out the kind of details that need to be picked out in field notes and 
that's always great for helping me learn.

Andrew 

Beng wrote:
> Helloooo
> 
> For those of you (Tina),, that thinks that I NEVER get a descent pic
> of a bird.. see this one :
> 
> http://orre.mine.nu/faglar/lovsangare.asp
> 
> Thats a..yes..Willow warbler..
> 
Hello Beng

What species do map no. 2. (right) represent ?

Not Willow Warbler i think, could it be Chifchaf ??

Mikkel

Jens Mikkel Lausten wrote:
> Beng wrote:
>> Helloooo
>> 
>> For those of you (Tina),, that thinks that I NEVER get a descent pic
>> of a bird.. see this one :
>> 
>> http://orre.mine.nu/faglar/lovsangare.asp
>> 
>> Thats a..yes..Willow warbler..
>> 
> Hello Beng
> 
> What species do map no. 2. (right) represent ?
> 
> Not Willow Warbler i think, could it be Chifchaf ??
> 
Stupid me, must be map explanation. :-)

Mikkel

"Jens Mikkel Lausten" <mlausten@worldonline.dk> wrote in 
news:K6twe.57476$Fe7.189354@news000.worldonline.dk:

> Beng wrote:
>> Helloooo
>> 
>> For those of you (Tina),, that thinks that I NEVER get a descent pic
>> of a bird.. see this one :
>> 
>> http://orre.mine.nu/faglar/lovsangare.asp
>> 
>> Thats a..yes..Willow warbler..
>> 
> Hello Beng
> 
> What species do map no. 2. (right) represent ?
> 
> Not Willow Warbler i think, could it be Chifchaf ??
> 
> Mikkel
> 

Hmm.. the right map explains the colors for the left map.. the MEANING 
of the colors..

//Ben

"Andrew McGleish" <amcgleish.doesnt.dospam@netscape.net> wrote in
news:42c234ff$0$41894$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net: 

> 
> "Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9683E7F93FB30xnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...
>> Helloooo
>>
>> http://orre.mine.nu/faglar/lovsangare.asp
>>
>> Thats a..yes..Willow warbler..
>>
> great pics... song is definitely Willow Warbler.. but.. and I always
> have a problem separating these two by sight... legs appear quite
> dark... angles on the photo make this difficult but primary projection
> looks shorter than the tertiarys.... you're sure that the bird you
> photographed is the one who's singing you recorded?
> 
> I do find the discussions your photos provide quite useful because
> they can draw out the kind of details that need to be picked out in
> field notes and that's always great for helping me learn.
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> 
> 

I'm not sure that the sound is that actual bird.. but I heard it, and it 
sounded exactly like a Willow warbler..

That sound is rather easy I think..

//Ben

Beng
The sound is a very good way of telling the difference between Chiffchaff 
and Willow Warbler.. but I'm not convinced your photo is of a willow 
warbler. Which of the characteristics of the bird did you use to decide? I 
never find it easy to tell the difference visually.

Andrew 

"Andrew McGleish" <amcgleish.doesnt.dospam@netscape.net> wrote in
news:42c38813$0$30820$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net: 

> Beng
> The sound is a very good way of telling the difference between
> Chiffchaff and Willow Warbler.. but I'm not convinced your photo is of
> a willow warbler. Which of the characteristics of the bird did you use
> to decide? I never find it easy to tell the difference visually.
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> 
> 

I used the sound !!

//Ben

"Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
news:Xns9685B43DD3C6Exnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...

>
> I used the sound !!
>

OK, but since you're not sure it was that actual bird that was singing.... 
what other characteristics of the bird make you think Willow Warbler and not 
Chiffchaff. It's possible there was a WW close by singing it's heart out 
exactly as the recording you provided.
Above I've suggested two reason from the photo why I wonder whether it might 
be ChiffChaff rather than a Willow Warbler? Anyone else like to comment?

Good fun this eh?

Andrew 

"Andrew McGleish" <amcgleish.doesnt.dospam@netscape.net> wrote in
news:42c41b3b$0$30836$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net: 

> 
> "Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9685B43DD3C6Exnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...
> 
>>
>> I used the sound !!
>>
> 
> OK, but since you're not sure it was that actual bird that was
> singing.... what other characteristics of the bird make you think
> Willow Warbler and not Chiffchaff. It's possible there was a WW close
> by singing it's heart out exactly as the recording you provided.
> Above I've suggested two reason from the photo why I wonder whether it
> might be ChiffChaff rather than a Willow Warbler? Anyone else like to
> comment? 
> 
> Good fun this eh?
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> 
> 

Well you are right.. I am not 100% sure.. didnt here THAT bird sing..

What make you think its a CC ?

//Ben

"Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
news:Xns9685BBFAF40FBxnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...


> Well you are right.. I am not 100% sure.. didnt here THAT bird sing..
>
> What make you think its a CC ?
>
> //Ben


Dark legs for CC, light for WW...  Also Primary Projection looks shorter. ie 
the length in which the primary feathers stick out when the wing's folded is 
shorter than that of the secondaries.. although the angle of the photos 
makes that difficult to see... Dark legs was the first thing that struck me 
from the photos.. I had to go to the books and the dark legs is not 100% 
reliable since first winter WW may have dark legs... but this bird is 
presumably an adult at this time of year.

Andrew 

Andrew McGleish wrote:
> "Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns9685BBFAF40FBxnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...
> 
> 
>> Well you are right.. I am not 100% sure.. didnt here THAT bird sing..
>> 
>> What make you think its a CC ?
>> 
>> //Ben
> 
> 
> Dark legs for CC, light for WW...  Also Primary Projection looks
> shorter. ie the length in which the primary feathers stick out when
> the wing's folded is shorter than that of the secondaries.. although
> the angle of the photos makes that difficult to see... Dark legs was
> the first thing that struck me from the photos.. I had to go to the
> books and the dark legs is not 100% reliable since first winter WW
> may have dark legs... but this bird is presumably an adult at this
> time of year. 

If its a WW you can't tell if it is a young or an adult. WW's are among the very few birds that undergo two complete moults per year.
I early autum you can age a few old, they start to moult the inner primaries in august. 1st year birds will moult after migration.
If you see a very worn Phylloscopus in midsommer it is most likely a CC.
Legcolors are often to variable to use exept for the extremes. Legcolors on photos are even worse. The bird on the photos seems to have orange (Pic. 1.), then dark blackish legs (Pic. 2-3.).

My best guess will be WW.

Mikkel

"Jens Mikkel Lausten" <mlausten@worldonline.dk> wrote in message 
news:UQWwe.57673$Fe7.189823@news000.worldonline.dk...



>My best guess will be WW.

>Mikkel

Cheers Mikkel, that's useful

Which characteristics push you towards WW from the Photo?

Andrew 

"Andrew McGleish" <amcgleish.doesnt.dospam@netscape.net> wrote in 
news:42c63317$0$17907$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net:

> 
> "Jens Mikkel Lausten" <mlausten@worldonline.dk> wrote in message 
> news:UQWwe.57673$Fe7.189823@news000.worldonline.dk...
> 
> 
> 
>>My best guess will be WW.
> 
>>Mikkel
> 
> Cheers Mikkel, that's useful
> 
> Which characteristics push you towards WW from the Photo?
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> 
> 

This WW/CC-thing has to stop NOW !.. There were 3-4 birds.. each of them 
sounding like WW.. noone sounded like CC.. so it IS a WW !

//Beng

"Beng" <xnews88REMOVE@yahoo.se> wrote in message 
news:Xns96877CBA435A8xnews88REMOVEyahoose@130.133.1.4...
>>
> This WW/CC-thing has to stop NOW !.. There were 3-4 birds.. each of them
> sounding like WW.. noone sounded like CC.. so it IS a WW !
>
> //Beng


Beng
welcome to the internet and to birdwatching.

You don't own this discussion so you can't tell anyone to stop. You've not 
given any reason to identify the bird, other than the song, which you admit 
might not have been from the bird in the photo, so excuse me if I don't 
blindly take your word for the identification. The song is the only easy way 
I know to tell the difference between CC and WW. The next feature I've 
picked up from books is the leg colour, but that has been called into 
question.

I'm carrying on this discussion because I want to learn a bit more about 
separating the two species, I don't really care whether or not you want to 
learn or whether all you want is a tick on a list. If the world expert on 
Phylloscopus species came here and pronounced, I would still ask why... not 
as a challenge to his manhood or her ego but as an aid to my learning... So 
Mikkel, Phil point me in the direction please?

Andrew 

Andrew McGleish wrote:

> I'm carrying on this discussion because I want to learn a bit more
> about separating the two species, I don't really care whether or not
> you want to learn or whether all you want is a tick on a list. If 
> the
> world expert on Phylloscopus species came here and pronounced, I
> would still ask why... not as a challenge to his manhood or her ego
> but as an aid to my learning... So Mikkel, Phil point me in the
> direction please?

It was mainly a question of jizz and colouration for me.The angle at 
which it has been photographed is one of the more difficult ones. In 
general, because of their longer primary projection, Willow Warblers 
to me have a more attenuated, elegant look than Chiffchaff, which can 
look dumpy and dowdy. Generally Chiffchaff looks rounder-headed and 
shorter-billed adding to its compact appearance, and of course the 
colouration is often rather drabber and browner (although one has to 
be careful of moulting Willow adults - the classic bright 
yellowish-green WWs of late summer are in fact immature. Adult Willows 
can look very greyish and washed-out in summer). In the present case 
the pronounced primrose-yellowish tinge and soft grey-green, the 
apparently longer primaries, the yellow-toned ,also quite bright, 
eyestripe, longer bill and flatter-looking head and generally elegant 
appearance made me go for Willow instead of Chiffchaff. Also the legs 
are convincingly light.

Another feature that was mentioned in a previous jog round this topic 
was that Chiffchaffs routinely flick their wings.

I have also found that Willow Warblers chase other passerines more 
regularly than Chiffchaffs do (quite aggressively in fact), and favour 
on the whole locations nearer ground level for feeding and singing.

Disclaimer: I am no expert on this or anything else.

Cheers,

Phil

"Phil Wilson" <philip.wilson@talk21.com> wrote in message 
news:42c6a7db$0$18637$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

>
> It was mainly a question of jizz and colouration for me.The angle at which 
> it has been photographed is one of the more difficult ones. In general, 
> because of their longer primary projection, Willow Warblers to me have a 
> more attenuated, elegant look than Chiffchaff, which can look dumpy and 
> dowdy. Generally Chiffchaff looks rounder-headed and shorter-billed adding 
> to its compact appearance, and of course the colouration is often rather 
> drabber and browner (although one has to be careful of moulting Willow 
> adults - the classic bright yellowish-green WWs of late summer are in fact 
> immature. Adult Willows can look very greyish and washed-out in summer). 
> In the present case the pronounced primrose-yellowish tinge and soft 
> grey-green, the apparently longer primaries, the yellow-toned ,also quite 
> bright, eyestripe, longer bill and flatter-looking head and generally 
> elegant appearance made me go for Willow instead of Chiffchaff. Also the 
> legs are convincingly light.
>
> Another feature that was mentioned in a previous jog round this topic was 
> that Chiffchaffs routinely flick their wings.
>
> I have also found that Willow Warblers chase other passerines more 
> regularly than Chiffchaffs do (quite aggressively in fact), and favour on 
> the whole locations nearer ground level for feeding and singing.
>
> Disclaimer: I am no expert on this or anything else.


Thanks Phil, very useful. thought the legs looked dark though... Lots of WW 
and CC with us just now so I'll do a bit of work with this tomorrow.

Cheers

Andrew 

"Andrew McGleish" <amcgleish.doesnt.dospam@netscape.net> wrote in 
message 
news:42c6d7b7$0$2023$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> "Phil Wilson" <philip.wilson@talk21.com> wrote in message 
> news:42c6a7db$0$18637$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
>>
>> It was mainly a question of jizz and colouration for me.The 
>> angle at which it has been photographed is one of the more 
>> difficult ones. In general, because of their longer primary 
>> projection, Willow Warblers to me have a more attenuated, 
>> elegant look than Chiffchaff, which can look dumpy and dowdy. 
>> Generally Chiffchaff looks rounder-headed and shorter-billed 
>> adding to its compact appearance, and of course the 
>> colouration is often rather drabber and browner (although one 
>> has to be careful of moulting Willow adults - the classic 
>> bright yellowish-green WWs of late summer are in fact 
>> immature. Adult Willows can look very greyish and washed-out 
>> in summer). In the present case the pronounced 
>> primrose-yellowish tinge and soft grey-green, the apparently 
>> longer primaries, the yellow-toned ,also quite bright, 
>> eyestripe, longer bill and flatter-looking head and generally 
>> elegant appearance made me go for Willow instead of 
>> Chiffchaff. Also the legs are convincingly light.
>>
>> Another feature that was mentioned in a previous jog round 
>> this topic was that Chiffchaffs routinely flick their wings.
>>
>> I have also found that Willow Warblers chase other passerines 
>> more regularly than Chiffchaffs do (quite aggressively in 
>> fact), and favour on the whole locations nearer ground level 
>> for feeding and singing.
>>
>> Disclaimer: I am no expert on this or anything else.
>
>
> Thanks Phil, very useful. thought the legs looked dark 
> though... Lots of WW and CC with us just now so I'll do a bit 
> of work with this tomorrow.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andrew
Ok guys please remember...location...location.
This was photographed in the north of God's country :-)
So you are comparing acredula & abietinus of which I have ringed 
1 or 2.
Without biometrics and song I would not normally attempt to 
separate them...though....though... looking at the bottom picture 
I would say the wing is longer and pointed
So I go for L�vs�ngare in fact looking at it again I would stake 
a few �re on it :-)
Bill.... 

Bill Alexander wrote:
> Ok guys please remember...location...location.
> This was photographed in the north of God's country :-)
> So you are comparing acredula & abietinus of which I have ringed
> 1 or 2.
> Without biometrics and song I would not normally attempt to
> separate them...though....though... looking at the bottom picture
> I would say the wing is longer and pointed
> So I go for L�vs�ngare in fact looking at it again I would stake
> a few �re on it :-)

Well, quite. I answered completely ignoring the fact of geography (for 
which I suppose one has to be thankful that I didn't ramble on for 
twice as long). In fact in Aberdeenshire (puzzlingly due for a 'sand 
storm' next week according to the BBC weather site (?!) ) some WWs are 
of a 'northern' grey type (without being treated as being certainly of 
any northern race as far as I know). I must say though that the bird 
in question doesn't look noticeably different in colouration to most 
of the WWs I've seen here. So my remarks should be understood in a 
British context overall.

Cheers,

Phil