|
Post by steve pryor on Apr 10, 2017 14:11:12 GMT
Nice to see you back, Steve! Thanks Romy. It has been years since I have been able to get back home to Italy where all of my ornithological stuff is. I must admit that I am way behind on all of the taxonomic changes after Tobias threw his Nuclear Bomb! I hope to gradually upgrade myself so that I can be useful again, but it will probably be a hard slog.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Apr 9, 2017 0:22:49 GMT
Desmond Allen made a reply on Facebook: Desmond Allen Ramon, Ely, this IS a male! Note the all black head. Western Mindanao birds are all yellow. They are orange over in PICOP and seem to intergrade/be variable in the Davao area. I don't think any philippine sspp are truly Scarlet but then they will be a good split at some point when someone gets round to studying them closer. The calls are very different from Thailand etc As Des mentioned, this is a male. The race at Mt. Apo is johnstoniae, and this appears to be without any intergradation. Nice shots.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Oct 31, 2013 18:58:16 GMT
Yep, this is surely the same image. Romy, not the first time one of yours have been falsely attributed. I recall another one, a sunbird if my recollection serves me right, that I first found on TrekNature.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Aug 30, 2013 20:51:29 GMT
got some help from avian website and he confirms above two are juvenile Pied Bushchat (Saxicola caprata). You got your help from me. I probably check the flickr ID thread more than I do this site so upload them there, and then advise me.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Aug 24, 2013 10:55:29 GMT
Ely, The last one: Pachyramphus aglaiae latirostris - female bird.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jun 26, 2013 11:15:35 GMT
Bob is right generally speaking on the Tit. By many now considered a split from the Great Tit. So, it is either Parus major minor (Great Tit), or Parus minor minor (Japanese Tit). This is an immature bird.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jun 2, 2013 15:49:01 GMT
Great Shots!
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jun 2, 2013 15:41:31 GMT
I note that the Little Bronze-Cuckoo (Chrysococcyx minutillus) is not listed in the Kennedy Guide. Rare capture! Congrats! Ramon, True, not as such. The Kennedy Guide gives us a juke, and lists it as Chrysococcyx russatus, P. 167. It is the same bird.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jun 2, 2013 15:19:35 GMT
Okay. I see there is some controversy about the common name. As I am sure everybody in Phils knows better than I do, Ibon simply means bird in tagalog.
Until the about last ten years or so some of these old common names were applied to familially unrelated birds simply for convention, and for ignorance.
Hypocryptadius, also known as the Cinnamon Ibon used to be thought an aberrant Zosteropidae (a White-eye), and the name Ibon was also applied to the Philippine ranging Lophozosterops (i.e., the bird talked about in this thread). In the last decade much has been learned about the true relationships of many bird groups. Zosteropidae (generically called White-eyes regardless if they have a white glabrous zone around the eye, or not) are now considered related to Babblers (pending revision of all Babbler-related taxa these birds still retain family status = Zosteropidae).
A couple of things happened along the tortuous road taken to give these birds more appropriate common names given their revised genetic relationships. First, the Cinnamon Ibon was found to not be a Zosteropidae, but rather an aberrant forest Sparrow, a Passeridae. It was decided to keep the name Ibon associated with this bird. However, it was also decided that Ibon should have been kept for Lophozosterops species (including those in Indonesia where tagalog is not spoken). A lot of people noticed this rather illogical name association, including myself, and started complaining to the IOC. The IOC, once realizing the mistake, and taking into account the more established usage of Ibon for the Cinnamon Ibon, now a Passeridae, decided to take the bull by the horns and leave Ibon only for the Cinnamon Ibon. Therefore, no more name Ibon for any family white-eyes species. Now, unless there were already established common names different from 'White-eye', all Zosteropidae are now all White-eye, regardless of whether or not they actually have the glabrous whitish circumocular ring, or not! A compromise to be sure, but a compromise made to decrease the confusion engendered by different birds with different geneological relationships sharing the same common name.
It should also be mentioned that many of the birds from the Philippines formerly considered true babblers (but not Zosteropidae) have now been found to be closely associated with the Zosteropidae, indeed, they have been moved into Family Zosteropidae but because of past usage of common names they are still called Babblers of one sort of another (I am speaking of all of those philippine babbler-related birds that used to be all treated within genus Stachyris - now Zosterornis, Dasycrotapha, Sterrhoptilus, etc.)
One last thing, the IOC calls the bird object of this thread, the Mindanao White-eye.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Dec 23, 2012 19:22:28 GMT
where?
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Dec 23, 2012 19:14:28 GMT
Ramon, A minutia. The ICZN has invoked the rule of First Reviser for the spelling of the generic name. It is now spelled Macronus.
I am still waiting to see any photo of the now split bird Macronus bornensis cagayanensis (but who is going to venture out to Cagayan Sulu just to find it!). 15 hours by motorboat from Brooke's Point.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Dec 23, 2012 18:51:03 GMT
Ramon, Your instinct is right for the Oriole, an immature male transitioning. Not a female.
By the way, Aethopyga shelleyi is now monotypic. Everything else formerly associated (all the other races) with it went into Aethopyga bella.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Dec 23, 2012 18:38:32 GMT
Romy, If you want to see some really reptilian appearing birds, google genus Philemon.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Dec 23, 2012 18:14:58 GMT
Hi Ramon, I am wondering about the second image of the Harpactes. The third image (apparently female) does not seem the same bird, and I am wondering about some of the features demonstrated by the second bird. There is a persistence of a horn color on the anterosuperior aspect of the upper mandible which could indicate immaturity (not a juvenile however). I am also wondering about the difference of the color of the crissum (vent + undertail covert area) which appears to have an orange wash (this could be a lighting artefact). Could it be an immature male bird?
Now that I have looked through the Forshaw (Trogon monograph), I also am starting to have some doubts about the sex of the third bird. The problem is the apparent blackish coloration of the head. Prout Forshaw, the adult male H. ardens linae has the most diffusely blackish head coloration of all the races, and the adult female linae is supposed to have the head coloration of the adult female ardens ardens, that is, dark olive-brown. None of these photos would seem to have birds with dark olive-brown heads. So, I just have questions.
Would appreciate Des's input on this. I spent a lot of money on what proved to be a rather huge coffee table monograph on Trogons, and I hope that the information in it is worth something!
By the way, the Spiderhunter is now considered a Philippine endemic. Orange-tufted Spiderhunter, Arachnothera f flammifera..
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Aug 11, 2012 15:01:02 GMT
Hi Ely, For the Trogons. First thing to look at is the presence of an eye-ring distinguishable from the coloration of the surrounding feathering. These have one, and moreover, it is blue. Therefore, the first three photos are, yes, Baird's Trogon. I presume three shots of the same bird. The bird is a male bird, however, it is not an adult. The whitish undertail of the adult male Baird's is not acquired until later, until that time, the immature birds, such as this one, has the fine transverse rectrical barring on the outside vane of the tail feathers that resembles the undertail of the female.
The last photo of a Trogon is not a Baird's. It seems to me to be Trogon massena. The color of the eye-ring is wrong, and the Baird's never has this sort of shiny appearance of the wing coverts (i.e., the shoulder here). This bird looks to be adult, however a young adult. The full adult would have the eye-ring of a more conspicuous reddishness, and the bill would also be redder.
As for the Raptor. On instinct, I would exclude genus Circus (i.e., a Harrier), and I would exclude genus Accipiter. It appear buteonine to me, possible a juvenile Grey Hawk (Buteo nitidus), but I need more time to look at the possibles.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jul 2, 2012 21:44:56 GMT
Hi Des, Is the climate of the Palawan IBA essentially distinguishable from the rest of the Philippines?
I looked through the races and they are all separated only on the characteristics of the tone of the blue, and on the distribution of the zones of blue and white respect to one another. Quite a number of the races are insular and certainly this has an influence on the facility with which many of these races have been considered good races once described. In Phils, there are supposedly only two races, the nominate, and catarmanensis (deeper blue than the nominate). It is not inconceivable to me that the birds of the Palawan IBA might not be a separable race from the nominate if this bill size is reflected among the other birds of the IBA, and not simply an individual variation, i.e., just one particularly big snozzed female. Also to be considered is if there are noticeable differences within the IBA, i.e., Palawan -vs- Calamian group. I don't have access to the skins, and I can't do the morphometrics on the bill size, but you might have a look the next time you are near Tring. Certainly, this is a huge bill. I am wondering how this bill compares with other nominate race birds on the other islands.
The first time for me that I have been thrown off on any Hypothymis.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jul 2, 2012 5:57:02 GMT
Ramon, About the male and the rufous, it is probably age-related. I will try and find information on the appearance of the juveniles (where the sex would not be determinable on gross morphology). In the interim, this may be a subadult/young adult male bird still this side of full expression for the rufous.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jul 2, 2012 5:50:39 GMT
Yes, we can presume that. Offhand, I can't really recall instances of bird females, at least in the wild, that breed with their own offspring (though as everything, there is probably some exception to the rule). One would think that there are mechanisms of "contact inhibition" to use improperly an embryological/cytological terminology against such occurences.
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jul 2, 2012 5:44:15 GMT
Thanks a lot Steve for correcting my errors and for your invaluable opinion and comments. I had simply relied on the bird guide's identification of the birds (except for the pitta which was a flagrant error of mine). Yes, let's see what Des has to say. Again, I want to express my profound gratitude. Steve, I photographed the same bird and nest the same day. Tirso's photo does not show the bird's nape. Here is my photo of the back of the bird's head, which appears to show a black nape. Could female Blue Paradise-Flycatchers have black napes? Having seen and photographed 5 BPFCs in the area over 4 days, I noted that this bird was noticeably smaller than the BPFCs. So, I also thought this was a female Black-Naped Monarch. For your and Des' consideration. It probably is the female Hypothymis. The tone of the blue of the head is better for the Hypothymis. However, I would still like Des's observations about the bill. Maybe we just have a Hypothymis with a huge schnozz!
|
|
|
Post by steve pryor on Jul 1, 2012 17:49:23 GMT
Hi Tirso, The Pitta is a Hooded Pitta.
The "female Hypothymis azurea" looks like a female Terpsiphone cyanescens. Always look at the bill strength, it is the first distinguisher for the two species. However, I would like Des's comments about the bill. The reason is that I am not used to seeing this much black at the superior bill base of the cyanescens. The bill looks too massive, too long to me for the Hypothymis. The shape of the nares of the hypothymis is rounded, here it looks oblong, and it looks like it is set into a depression that extends onto the lateral bill base of the upper mandible near the bill insertion. Looking at comp photos this feature looks better for the Terpsiphone. Further, this bill has a conspicuous "nail" (i.e. that little hook extending down from the tip of the upper mandible), and this feature should be also better for the Terpsiphone.
The FP is a juvenile (a fledgeling really). Will look later. Possibly the young of the Prionochilus.
|
|