How to separate great cormorant from european shag? (1 Viewer)

[EdvardH]

Hi!

I was watching some birds the other day (west coast Norway), which I can't make up my mind about whether is grear cormorant or european shag. Both are known to be in the area. I would perhaps suspect them to be cormorants, as I've heard that they can often be found at that spot, but how do I tell? I can't decide from the drawings in my bird guide.

 

[gareth_blockley]

Both are Great Cormorant

Gareth

 

[dantheman]

Agree. Cormorants are larger, thick-necked and thicker billed (without the noticeable forehead of Shag). The clean white area around the gape is also useful. Breeding adults very different. Experience and seeing the two together in direct comparison would be helpful to you.

(Admittedly the 2nd photo looks thin-billed, but this is because of 'burn-out' in the photo)

Which bird guide are using? - A good guide eg the Collins should show/point out the main differences to look for.

 

[EdvardH]

Which bird guide are using? - A good guide eg the Collins should show/point out the main differences to look for.

Thanks!

I'm using a norwegian version of a swedish guide book called "Fågelguiden". That might very well be an excellent book. It is rather more likely that I am not good at using them!

One thing about it that I am unsure of is the use of drawings instead of photos. Why do they do that? From my, admittably very short, experience - I've found it more easy to ID birds from photos than these drawings.

 

[_pauls]

Thanks!

I'm using a norwegian version of a swedish guide book called "Fågelguiden". That might very well be an excellent book. It is rather more likely that I am not good at using them!

One thing about it that I am unsure of is the use of drawings instead of photos. Why do they do that? From my, admittably very short, experience - I've found it more easy to ID birds from photos than these drawings.

Photos can be misleading due to lighting, pose, colouration etc but in a good field guide like Collins the drawings should be a good representation based on lots of different observations. As pointed out above, a bright background will make things appear much narrower than in real life - a good drawing will give a truer reflection in many cases.

 

[rosbifs]

I guess photos are very dependant on light etc. and also there is sometimes great variation in colours, plumage i.e. it is difficult to photo graph a 'typical' individual.

A drawing can show a typical or average bird easier. They can also show comparative poses more easily than photos. Collins uses three artists (if I remember) and their initials are at the bottom of the page. I guess it could actually be cheaper to use artists than an array of photographers although I doubt that it is the reason for doing 'sketches' (bit unfair term because they are better than that. Collins is regarded the best....

There is a north american book with has multiple images of birds in more typical situations. Unfortunately, I don't think it has been extended to european birds.

balls - looks like I took too long to type 'pauls' beat me to it - or maybe I waffled more...

 

[EdvardH]

I see those points. And it's unfair to compare them with google's image search which of course gives a vast more results than in a book

 

[_pauls]

True - as in all walks of life there's no such thing as consulting too may sources.... a good field guide plus google image search will certainly point you in the right direction.

What you need to be aware of is that google search will throw up dodgy results as well though... if I post a picture on flickr of a lesser scaup and incorrectly tag it as a greater scaup that will show up in the same search.

Google is great but be prepared to question its results!

 

[Jack Dawe]

In addition to the neck and the bill I find forehead shape very useful. Shag tends to show a steeper forehead with more of an angle between the forehead and the bill. Cormorant tends to show a much smoother profile with much less of an angle between the two.

 

[bobf711]

In addition to the neck and the bill I find forehead shape very useful. Shag tends to show a steeper forehead with more of an angle between the forehead and the bill. Cormorant tends to show a much smoother profile with much less of an angle between the two.

That, and also where the 'high point' appears to be on the bird's head.

On a shag its just above the forehead, whereas on a Cormorant its nearer the back of the head, adding to the sloping effect from bill to crown.

 

[Enji]

Just want to add that "Fågelguiden" is the same book as the Collins refered to above.

 

[njlarsen]

Regarding google searches: remember that there are a lot of mislabeled photos on the web. What I do instead is to go to the birdforum Opus page for the bird (e.g., http://www.birdforum.net/opus/European_Shag), and then click the link at the bottom for more images from the bf Gallery. (not error free, but better than the general web in my experience).

Niels

 

[EdvardH]

Thanks again people. I am very aware of the dangers of trusting google search, so evaluating the source remains important. Nevertheless, I usually google birds I am unsure of, because I find it easier to be sure if it is the same bird by comparing with a photo than with a drawing. Although it's impossible to see from my very poor images of distant birds, I actually do much photography - so I see myself as fairly capable of taking the light of the photo into question. That helps too.

As stated before, I am not trying to blame my guide book. But I am a beginner, ans so far finds it easier to ID from photos than from drawings.

 

[EdvardH]

Still working with this!

In this case, I find the head shape to be rounded, which is supposed to be a a way to ID it as a Shag, compared to the more angular shaped head of a Cormorant?

Am I onto something?

 

[stevethehydra]

Those are still all (Great) Cormorants. A Shag is much smaller (size comparable to Little Egret, vs. GC to Grey Heron), tends to look more greenish-black as opposed to brownish-black, has a much thinner bill (think Red-breasted Merg vs. Goosander), much less bare skin on the face, and is overall much slimmer and more "elegant" in shape. Also they are much more solitary than the very gregarious Cormorants, are really only found on the coast (GC often inland, at least in the UK) and tend to fly right above the surface of the water (rather than higher up) and to perch on cliffs rather than on the ground.

Attached is a Shag from Flamborough Head (Yorkshire, England) last summer:

 

[stevethehydra]

Here's a good pic of both together: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=398908

(although Shag doesn't usually show such an extreme crest, but even in my pic above - which is probably of a Shag looking at its most Cormorant-like - you can see the hint of a tuft on its forehead...)

 

[Andy Hurley]

Shags have a green head in breeding plumage which contrasts to the rest of the body

 

[occasional]

I guess photos are very dependant on light etc. and also there is sometimes great variation in colours, plumage i.e. it is difficult to photo graph a 'typical' individual.

A drawing can show a typical or average bird easier. They can also show comparative poses more easily than photos. Collins uses three artists (if I remember) and their initials are at the bottom of the page. I guess it could actually be cheaper to use artists than an array of photographers although I doubt that it is the reason for doing 'sketches' (bit unfair term because they are better than that. Collins is regarded the best....

I think that fotos are used because they are a lot cheaper than a good artist.

The surprising thing is that some people prefer fotos.