• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Todd's Canada Goose (1 Viewer)

jpoyner

Well-known member
Scotland
Just trying to id a "large" Canada seen today with wild Greylags which seemed odd to me. Can anyone give me pointers to key features of Todd's compared to our "feral" Canadas here in uk.
Will post photos when I can get them off the camera.

Cheers,

John.
 
Tim Allwood said:
try David Sibley's online article John

http://www.sibleyguides.com/canada_cackling.htm

whole thing is a nightmare

Tim

Thanks Tim, yep nightmare is the word! Need to get my photos posted and just see what the "experts" make of it I think. As we just don't get "feral "Canadas up here in the Highlands in winter and it seems to be travelling with returning Greylags seems pretty likely that it is a vagrant so be good to try and sort it out.

John
 
Also read what Sibley has to say and yes it does seem a nightmare, but I also believe that some vagrant Canada's can be sorted out.
Best bet is read the two birding World articles (vol 14;2, vol 14;12) on vagrant Canada's in Britain or take a trip over to Islay.
 
THey look like plain old Canada Goose to me. Maybe it is time to to just recognize that that species is expanding and becoming sedentary. I think they are the new "Mallard" :D

They are everywhere.

I saw a pair of very small ones (~ 1/2 - 2/3 the size of the rest of the Canada Geese) and most people still thought they were just regular Canada Geese - I even removed my Cackling Goose tick for this year) and now I have given up on sub-species identification :D Canada Geese are just plain gregarious and, seemingly, omnipresent.

If some have grey legs instead of black legs - so what. They are all Canada Geese to me now - and now they are regulars in Britain too and shouldn't be considered unusual.

You will soon see them eating popcorn out of childrens hands in shopping mall parking lots.
 
mmm dosen't strike me as a Todds at all, head and bill shape seems wrong as well as looking too short necked and not gangly enough for that sub species.

Seems to be smaller than the Greylags in the shots, although dont know if this is a true reflection.

If it was me i'd perhaps go with a Parvipes although I would have preferred to have seen it in the field first before coming to that conclusion.

Might be worth sending them on to Richard Millington who will perhaps pass them on to the lads who wrote the aforementioned articles.

Here's a couple of shots of a presumed Todds I had in Lothian
 
Last edited:
jpoyner said:
Any thoughts???

JP
Hi John

I cannot really see anything in your images that suggest your bird is one of the vagrant forms. The structure and size of the bird looks good for Atlantic type (aka Feral).

Of course I may be wrong!

Atb
Tristan
 
I'd agree with Birdspotter about the appearance of Todd's type based on the two I've seen in the Outer Hebs (one which wintered with Greenland WFGs a few years ago and the one that was with a barnacle goose on Barra last autumn) - snakey necked bird and with head and bill profile reminiscent of whooper swan.

Your bird appears to show a chin strap - a feature that has been quoted as good for Taverner's in the past but I believe from the American literature that chin straps can be shown occasionally by other forms?? Seems to be a lot of variation in populations of Canadas but it could just be a bog standard feral job, if a little on the small side.

Cheers,
Andrew
 
Tim Allwood said:
given Sibley's comments about id of these forms, i'm not sure how much faith i'd put in the Birding World articles...

Tim
Given the the taxonomic issues regarding the Canada Geese forms I would agree that the Birding World articles should perhaps not be taken as 'gospel'. However the articles are IMHO an excellent guide highlighting the main features differenciating typical individuals of the many vagrant forms.

Regards
Tristan
 
Anyone know if there is an ID paper on the way, now that the BOU have done them? I seem to remember Docmartin made a passing reference to something coming - maybe in BB?
 
I can only echo what everyone else says. They are a nightmare, and this doesn't look like a bird 'showing characteristics of Todd's'. The neck looks too much like that of a typical feral bird.

Regards,

Stephen.
 
AStevenson said:
Your bird appears to show a chin strap - a feature that has been quoted as good for Taverner's in the past but I believe from the American literature that chin straps can be shown occasionally by other forms??
Andrew

Hi M8,
You are right about this feature, the presence of a chin strap is not just seen on taverners.
The bird I sent shots of in an earlier post to this thread showed one also, which threw me for a while.

As a matter of interest where on Barra was the Todds ?
 
Birdspotter said:
You are right about this feature, the presence of a chin strap is not just seen on taverners.
Yes this is quite true, one of the richardson's in D&G this winter showed a broken chin strap and I have vague memories of a Todd's I observed in Norfolk some years ago showing this feature.

Whether the presence of a chin-strap on birds that are not taverner's is suggestive of integration I do not know.

Regards
Tristan
 
Birdspotter said:
Hi M8,
You are right about this feature, the presence of a chin strap is not just seen on taverners.
The bird I sent shots of in an earlier post to this thread showed one also, which threw me for a while.

As a matter of interest where on Barra was the Todds ?

29th Oct at Tangusdale - home of the redhead! ;) It was actually with 5 pink-feet and a white colour-ringed Barnacle (which appeared to be paired to it! - Todd's would chase the pink-feet away from the barnacle and they fed close together)

Cheers,
Andrew
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top