Eswatini Hlane NP - historical (1 Viewer)

[maplekong]

How about a Wattled Starling? Pale underparts, slightly darker upperparts, black in the wing? Size doesnt seem too bad either and a common bird in the area.

We've picked out the most likely suspect

 

[Frank van Drogen]

I think that if a Bird Forum vote were held, then 'Butty' would win by a huge margin in the category

Certainly Butty would win in the category for most valuable member in bird identification. In the brief time I've been here, I learned a lot from Butty.

 

[Andy Hurley]

It's also possible that, in this case, being 'negative' is also correct and sensible - which is my view. This remark is a personal attack and would have been better omitted. Please stick to giving your opinions of the photo, not of me. Thanks.

Butty, it seems to me you are dismissing all other opinions apart from your own. If someone sees something that you don't agree with, for example,

It just plain isn't. And, apart from being too grey and with the wrong wing pattern, it's bright white right up to the throat, which water thick-knee isn't. It's simply unidentifiable.

and

There's a blob of blackish mush on what might be a head facing in an unknown direction.

No. Just no. There's no visible bill, it's not large, and there's nothing reddish that isn't either background or artefact.
What about the large purple-pink patch on the 'wing'... what should we turn that into?
Difficult to believe this dialogue is even happening.

Your last 2 comments walks all over other people's opinions. Some might take that personally. It not that you disagree, its the way you do it. In my opinon, you are rude and dissmissive, which I think is not conducive to positive debate. You are not the one to decide what other people think.

Most people use terms like "in my opinion" or "I think". You prefer "it just plain isn't" or "no. just no", or even "Difficult to believe this dialoge is even happening".

Of course, that is your right, but equally, it is mine to point it out.

 

[THE_FERN]

Butty, it seems to me you are dismissing all other opinions apart from your own. If someone seems something that you don't agree with, for example,

and

Your last 2 comments walks all over other people's opinions. Some might take that personally. It not that you disagree, its they way you do it. In my opinon, you are rude and dissmissive, which I think is not conducive to positive debate. You are not the one to decide what other people think.

Most people use terms like "in my opinion" or "I think". You prefer "it just plain isn't" or "no. just no" or even Difficult to believe this dialoge is even happening".

Of course, that is your right, but equally, it is mine to point it out.

I agree. If it were the case that someone is never wrong then they would have the right (if not the humility) to be so forthright. I have never encountered such a person... And any case, I'd still respond more positively if they were more self deprecating.

I think the risk for the casual viewer is that they assume more authority is due such statements than they warrant

 

[Andy Hurley]

No legs visible at all - just an artefact of the photo.

It is a Rock Pratincole.

According to Eswatini bird checklist - Avibase - Bird Checklists of the World would put that as a first and make it interesting to the national recorder. Unfortunately I don't know how to contact them.

 

[Andy Hurley]

We've picked out the most likely suspect

Are you agreeing with Dortmundbirder, or saying the ID has already be decided elsewhere?

So you didn't like my suggestion

How about Greater Honeyguide?

It certainly there, Brian.
Personally, and I'm just about to embark on my 10th or 11th birding trip to the Southern Africa region, and unfortunately, I've yet to see one. Of course, there's over 950 birds to find and that includes rarities, pelagics, seasonal, some very small ranges, so its difficult to find them all. Gotta try though, eh!

 

[Butty]

Most people use terms like "in my opinion" or "I think".

Most? Who knows - it would definitely be a close call and we would need one of Macnara's favoured (or dismissed, depending on whether he thinks it will suit his purpose) 'surveys'. But people here commonly state IDs as a fact, even when the evidence is, to say the least, highly equivocal, eg...

It is a Rock Pratincole.

(Wattled starling is clearly a far better bet.)

You prefer "it just plain isn't" or "no. just no", or even "Difficult to believe this dialoge is even happening".

No, I do not 'prefer' this - your comment is an absurd misrepresentation. That specific instance was a case where a very-low-quality photo had been grossly misinterpreted/overinterpreted and needed to be called out as such.

 

[maplekong]

How about we say Butty can be obstinate and strong-willed at times and leave it at that

 

[maplekong]

Are you agreeing with Dortmundbirder, or saying the ID has already be decided elsewhere?


It certainly there, Brian.
Personally, and I'm just about to embark on my 10th or 11th birding trip to the Southern Africa region, and unfortunately, I've yet to see one. Of course, there's over 950 birds to find and that includes rarities, pelagics, seasonal, some very small ranges, so its difficult to find them all. Gotta try though, eh!

Whoops, I thought we maybe concluded it was a wattled starling. At this point the photo's just too vague, it might be better to leave it unidentified than having these arguments

 

[Andy Hurley]

Once again, not every one agrees with the way you dissmiss other opinions.

 

[Butty]

Once again, not every one agrees with the way you dissmiss other opinions.

The credibility of your opinion is not increased by merely repeating it. Bad etiquette.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Most? Who knows - it would definitely be a close call and we would need one of Macnara's favoured (or dismissed, depending on whether he thinks it will suit his purpose) 'surveys'.

Really?

But people here commonly state IDs as a fact, even when the evidence is, to say the least, highly equivocal, eg...

Yeah, true, but they don't go on to rubbish other people's opinions. Eyesight is an amazing thing, but not everybody sees the same thing.

My personal view is if an ID is not yet forthcoming it is sometimes worth making suggestions, even if they are just meant to bring the discussion on. On this thread we certainly had a few qualified suggestions that gave room for thought. Sometimes the way things are discussed (methodology and tone) and are just as important as the answer. Especially if just getting an answer of species XYZ, doesn't really explain the differences of similar species and why others can be safely ruled out. I appreciate that sometimes folk don't have a lot of time to write a lengthy wordy wordy and the quick XYZ puts the OP where they need to be. If they have a field guide, they can go on to discover why themselves. In the age of digital photography and the internet, the chances of getting an answer is far, far higher and gets many more people interested in birding and subsequently biodiverity. Which in my opinion is a positive thing. Getting told in an abrupt manner that you are wrong is not very encouraging to the someone trying to understand the ins and outs and may cause that person to not bother asking again.

 

[maplekong]

I'm tempted to just ask of we can stop going on in this idiotic fashion- not referring any one person- just the chat in general- and please stop arguing.

 

[maplekong]

I do think Butty could be a bit more open-minded to other's opinions though.

 

[njlarsen]

As Jos says, we can't even be sure which direction the bird is aligned in

With an agreement like that, I am in the camp for "unidentifiable".
Niels