Wigeon (1 Viewer)

[Adam W]

You cant have it both ways, as soon as Tideliner mentioned the speckling as an anti American Wigeon feature you quickly discounted it as simply a photo artefact that not one of the 4 of you saw in the field but no its mentioned as a possible pro American feature all of a sudden you happily except that the phot simply saw a feautre the 4 of you werent able to see because of poor views.
Who knows maybe it is an American Wigeon but you seem to be desperately trying to make it one based on nothing more than the fact it had ann odd head pattern but then so do some Eurasian Wigeon and may or may not have had some speckling that may or may or even be a pro American feature and no mention at all of what is pretty much the only diagnostic feature of female American Wigeon.

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

So now the "camera effect" is being used to not only ID the bird, but also age and sex it.

I spoke to a regular camera user with lens and in poor picure quality (Ron had to sharpen this picture) this effect may happen.
With new evidence from the article, I said
female American Wigeon moult during the breeding season, which may lead to speckling on the side flanks and chest.
Which may lead to speckling on the flanks and chest so it could be a combination of both.

 

[chris butterworth]

With a single photo ( that may, or may not contain artifacts ), the head in the position it is ( there is a subtle difference in head shape between the profiles of American and Eurasian, allowing for the feathers being raised or depressed, of course ) and a poor / incomplete description ( no mention of the axilary colour ) there is no way this side of Hell anyone on here is able to identify the bird in question. Personally? I think the combination of what may be an oily greenish tone to the crown and the marks on the sides of the breast point more towards a Chiloe x 'other species of Wigeon'. In other words, 42 posts on a plastic duck.

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

If you do not think you cannot identfy this bird you have a choice you do not have to post on this thread, you do not have to visit the Bird Identifcation thread.
Is this another one of your many I.D mistakes on here.

 

[DarkFireFalcon]

I think it might be time to stop feeding the troll. But then again, it is amusing..

 

[chris butterworth]

If you do not think you cannot identfy this bird you have a choice you do not have to post on this thread, you do not have to visit the Bird Identifcation thread.

Neither I, nor anyone else, has been able to identify the bird from the lone photograph or your woefully inadequate description. One of the first things people learn, when it comes to differentiating between female Eurasian and American Wigeon is to note the colour of the axillaries. You have convinced yourself it's an American Wigeon so submit it. Unless, of course, you don't consider the local records committee qualifyed or competent enough to review your submission.

Is this another one of your many I.D mistakes on here.

Many? I'm honoured that such a knowledgeable person as yourself would bother to search through my posts in order to comment on my lack of ability. :t:

 

[The Moore-hen]

A few years back now myself and Steve Nuttall found the female American Wigeon at Belvide. I first picked it up as it looked 'a bit different' from the other female Wigeon and while watching it on the shore it lifted it's wings and appeared to show white axillaries. I drew Steve's attention to it, and several times over that weekend, we saw it fly and lift it's wings briefly and it really was hard to nail exactly what colour the axillaries where on 'field views'. Luckily two weeks after my first sighting Steve finally nailed it lifting it's wings on the island on his camcorder and that was that - it did have pure White axillaries. Over the rest of it's stay we really started noticing how different it actually was from Eurasian, especially the grey based but heavily black streaked head and slight 'ghosting' of a drake's dark mask, pale underparts with warm looking cinnamon-brown flanks. The Scapulars were really distinctive in having broad warm buff edges to each feather not the thin gingery edges shown by Eurasian - this feature was what we often used to first locate the bird in the flock when trying to find it for others during it's stay. Based purely on that one photo and the (original) description I'd say this bird has got 'a touch of something in it' most probably a hybrid of some combo including either Chiloe or American (or both!) - I don't think there is any way it can be claimed as a 1st winter female American Wigeon based on the photo and description.

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

A few years back now myself and Steve Nuttall found the female American Wigeon at Belvide. I first picked it up as it looked 'a bit different' from the other female Wigeon and while watching it on the shore it lifted it's wings and appeared to show white axillaries. I drew Steve's attention to it, and several times over that weekend, we saw it fly and lift it's wings briefly and it really was hard to nail exactly what colour the axillaries where on 'field views'. Luckily two weeks after my first sighting Steve finally nailed it lifting it's wings on the island on his camcorder and that was that - it did have pure White axillaries. Over the rest of it's stay we really started noticing how different it actually was from Eurasian, especially the grey based but heavily black streaked head and slight 'ghosting' of a drake's dark mask, pale underparts with warm looking cinnamon-brown flanks. The Scapulars were really distinctive in having broad warm buff edges to each feather not the thin gingery edges shown by Eurasian - this feature was what we often used to first locate the bird in the flock when trying to find it for others during it's stay. Based purely on that one photo and the (original) description I'd say this bird has got 'a touch of something in it' most probably a hybrid of some combo including either Chiloe or American (or both!) - I don't think there is any way it can be claimed as a 1st winter female American Wigeon based on the photo and description.

however reading this arcticle 1st win female American Wigeon was the best match.

Should have been 1st sum, I was saying it was the best match. I put out possible if you can recall.

 

[François Doyen]

It's impossible to ID it with certainty with this single picture lacking key criteria while others could just be artefact. The bird could be Eurasian, American, hybrid between the 2 or with Chiloe. Even if you find after reading an article that 1st w American wigeon is the best match that is still not enough to be 100% sure it's one (which is obviously needed for a rare bird)

 

[Jane Turner]

I'm pretty certain its a Wigeon

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

It's impossible to ID it with certainty with this single picture lacking key criteria while others could just be artefact. The bird could be Eurasian, American, hybrid between the 2 or with Chiloe. Even if you find after reading an article that 1st w American wigeon is the best match that is still not enough to be 100% sure it's one (which is obviously needed for a rare bird)

As stated in a previous post Doyon I am not going to put the record in , fortunatly for the Belvide lads their American Wigeon stopped for a while, so they could read up and focus in on the main points.
If I was a County recorder any doubt I would leave the record out.
We viewed the bird distantly with scopes the light was poor birder Vince Garvey had a camera I believe it was 600 mm lens digital camera, but he could not get anything.
I put the post on here not knowing a picture had been taken earlier when the light was better I should imagine.
I put possible American Wigoen out on Birdorum Staffordsire thread, which means if you are in the area keep and eyeout for the bird, make notes take pictures.

 

[jforgham]

If you do not think you cannot identfy this bird you have a choice you do not have to post on this thread, you do not have to visit the Bird Identifcation thread.
Is this another one of your many I.D mistakes on here.

Whoah! Steady on. Chris's reply offers suggestions as to why it cannot be identified. Perfectly acceptable and certainly a most unworthy, rude and ignorant reply to someone who endeavours to help with many id's. Clearly, apart from yourself, we all get things wrong on here, only offering our reasons as a guide and sometimes, they are erroneous.
In future, when you have already nailed the iffy identification I fear your requirements of this forum to confirm it may not be as helpful as those you have received with this unidentifiable wigeon.
Cheers

 

[chris butterworth]

We viewed the bird distantly with scopes the light was poor..

Having read through the whole thread, and looking closely at the photo, I'm more convinced than ever that the bird is a Chiloe x ? I'll itemize why I've reached this conclusion below.

1. In post #2, before the photo was posted, JHDraytonbassetpits states "I was noticing a Green Sheen to the crown markings", ruling out Eurasian and American ( also ruling out "juvenile" - post #1 - or females ). The photo seems to agree with the presence of a greenish sheen to the crown, so we can probably rule out photographic artifact.

2. In post #18 the OP states "The Wigeon was considered a Chilean (sic) by the photographer", he also added "and now is considered a female American Wigeon or extremely unusualy marked Wigeon". ( The OP doesn't state who, apart from himself, considers it to be either of the other species ). Two things pointing to the influence of Chiloe Wigeon.

3. The clear, sharp scalloping on the sides of the breast ( given the time of year the bird was seen ) would also point towards the influence of Chiloe, so that's 3 for Chiloe influence.

4. The lack of any sign, either in the photo or in what written description we have, of a noticably paler forehead would preclude a 'pure' Chiloe of either sex ( or a male of any age or species of Wigeon, given the time of year the bird was seen ). As 'pure' Chiloe are distinctive, regardless of sex, age or state of moult, the views through telescopes, by up to 4 people, no matter how "poor" the light ( which, it seems, was good enough to see a speckled cheek ) should have precluded the northern hemisphere pair. 1 against it being 'pure' Chiloe.

All things considered there is absolutely nothing in the photo, or description, that points towards Eurasian, American or Chiloe. There are, in my mind, however, enough pointers towards it being a hybrid with some Chiloe influence.

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

Whoah! Steady on. Chris's reply offers suggestions as to why it cannot be identified. Perfectly acceptable and certainly a most unworthy, rude and ignorant reply to someone who endeavours to help with many id's. Clearly, apart from yourself, we all get things wrong on here, only offering our reasons as a guide and sometimes, they are erroneous.
In future, when you have already nailed the iffy identification I fear your requirements of this forum to confirm it may not be as helpful as those you have received with this unidentifiable wigeon.
Cheers

Chris, Suggested I was on drugs what about that nice boy.

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

Having read through the whole thread, and looking closely at the photo, I'm more convinced than ever that the bird is a Chiloe x ? I'll itemize why I've reached this conclusion below.

1. In post #2, before the photo was posted, JHDraytonbassetpits states "I was noticing a Green Sheen to the crown markings", ruling out Eurasian and American ( also ruling out "juvenile" - post #1 - or females ). The photo seems to agree with the presence of a greenish sheen to the crown, so we can probably rule out photographic artifact.

2. In post #18 the OP states "The Wigeon was considered a Chilean (sic) by the photographer", he also added "and now is considered a female American Wigeon or extremely unusualy marked Wigeon". ( The OP doesn't state who, apart from himself, considers it to be either of the other species ). Two things pointing to the influence of Chiloe Wigeon.

3. The clear, sharp scalloping on the sides of the breast ( given the time of year the bird was seen ) would also point towards the influence of Chiloe, so that's 3 for Chiloe influence.

4. The lack of any sign, either in the photo or in what written description we have, of a noticably paler forehead would preclude a 'pure' Chiloe of either sex ( or a male of any age or species of Wigeon, given the time of year the bird was seen ). As 'pure' Chiloe are distinctive, regardless of sex, age or state of moult, the views through telescopes, by up to 4 people, no matter how "poor" the light ( which, it seems, was good enough to see a speckled cheek ) should have precluded the northern hemisphere pair. 1 against it being 'pure' Chiloe.

All things considered there is absolutely nothing in the photo, or description, that points towards Eurasian, American or Chiloe. There are, in my mind, however, enough pointers towards it being a hybrid with some Chiloe influence.

Chris, Regarding post 1..I thought I noticed a green sheen to the head but the other 3 in the hide said they did not.
post 2 photographer thought it was pure bred female Chiloen Wigeon.
Others in the hide were either new to Birding or thought the duck was an escapee.

 

[martin kitching]

If it's Ritalin, you should probably take it to quell your angry posts whenever anyone points out the errors/inconsistencies in your attempts to turn birds into something that they're not.

You're really doing yourself no favours. Dismissing a feature that can be seen in the image as 'none of that spangled effect could be seen, it's a camera effect.', yet shamelessly switching to 'The speckling was noted on the camera photo only which was taken at a much closer range' once you think that it supports your ID of the bird as a female American Wigeon is a cracking example of stringing.

martin

Chris, Suggested I was on drugs what about that nice boy.

 

[JHDraytonbassettpits]

If it's Ritalin, you should probably take it to quell your angry posts whenever anyone points out the errors/inconsistencies in your attempts to turn birds into something that they're not.

You're really doing yourself no favours. Dismissing a feature that can be seen in the image as 'none of that spangled effect could be seen, it's a camera effect.', yet shamelessly switching to 'The speckling was noted on the camera photo only which was taken at a much closer range' once you think that it supports your ID of the bird as a female American Wigeon is a cracking example of stringing.

martin

Your type always pop up on the end.
Remeber the old saying if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire.....Goodbye

 

[martin kitching]

Wise words, indeed :t:

cheers
martin

...if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire...

 

[tittletattler]

An odd looking bird! I think Chris's well measured post sums it up. It quite clearly looks nothing like the wigeon image that Stuart linked (sorry Stuart). I think the dark crown and forehead rule out both Eurasian and American Wigeon? Happy to see links to birds that prove otherwise.

Probably best to look at the bird and not who's posted it. Play the ball, not the man.

Cheers,

Andy.

 

[dantheman]

Have to agree with TT's earlier sentiment a bit tbh ... It's all too easy to get caught up what can become a bit of a witch hunt ... although most of this is admittedly just banter. But there can a fine line (sometimes it's even a diagnostic feature) between banter and getting abusive (and excessive weight of banter).

( ... time to duck out again )