Willow Warbler vs. Chiffchaff, Tuscany november 2021 (1 Viewer)

[ricLI]

Is the first Willow Warbler and the second Chiffchaff?
Thank you

 

[Alexander Stöhr]

Hello,
the second bird is a Chiffchaff. Please note:

• black legs and black feet
• a very short pp
• a contrasting white lower eye-ring. It is the only white part of the head. This is rare (or scarce?) in Willow Warbler

 

[ricLI]

Hello,
the second bird is a Chiffchaff. Please note:

• black legs and black feet
• a very short pp
• a contrasting white lower eye-ring. It is the only white part of the head. This is rare (or scarce?) in Willow Warbler

Thanks Alexander, so the first is a Willow Warbler?

 

[Butty]

Alex carefully said nothing about pic 1!

 

[Alexander Stöhr]

yes, first bird is harder for me and I downloaded the picture. And I hoped for others to jump in, and I am still hoping. but as you asked I will share my thoughts:
Do you have more pictures? I see

• a pp that might be just within variation for the longest winged Chiffchaffs, but is it within variation for a WW. At first I thought no, but its hard to judge pp with confidence in this picture. I would judge it at about 60 or slightly more %
• a blackish blop instead of the malar stripe and a blackish eye-stripe
• a orangey tinge to the legs, that might well be the result of backlit conditions
• pale ear-coverts, slightly better for a WW, but within variation for a Chiffchaff
• a stubby bill, that results in a strange jizz of the head. Yes, within variation for both species and the shortest billed WW gives this impression to me /Chiffchaff too? I am not so sue at the moment)
• you saw the bird and identified it as a WW. There is more to be seen and judged than is visible in just one picture.
• its rare to find a Chiffchaff with whitish hues in the fore-supercilium, lacking clear yellow hues there and a clear yellowish supercilium behind the eye. Right or wrong?, but this came into my mind.
• is it possible to see the original or a better resolution picture, where emargination can judged?

When I only look at the thumbnail I get the impression of a Willow Warbler. And yes, if forced, I would opt for a Willow Warbler here, but with a bad feeeling= hope to be corrected. Reason:

• the appearant short pp for a WW
• quite dirty hues for a WW. Yes, easy within variation for a WW
• I cant loose the feeling that this is clearly one for more pictures, that might well alter crucial features. I was surprised here on birdforum and elsewhere before.

 

[KenM]

One looks like a Willow Warbler, appears to have four emarginations.
A recount now only shows 3 😩
Cheers

 

[ricLI]

yes, first bird is harder for me and I downloaded the picture. And I hoped for others to jump in, and I am still hoping. but as you asked I will share my thoughts:
Do you have more pictures? I see

• a pp that might be just within variation for the longest winged Chiffchaffs, but is it within variation for a WW. At first I thought no, but its hard to judge pp with confidence in this picture. I would judge it at about 60 or slightly more %
• a blackish blop instead of the malar stripe and a blackish eye-stripe
• a orangey tinge to the legs, that might well be the result of backlit conditions
• pale ear-coverts, slightly better for a WW, but within variation for a Chiffchaff
• a stubby bill, that results in a strange jizz of the head. Yes, within variation for both species and the shortest billed WW gives this impression to me /Chiffchaff too? I am not so sue at the moment)
• you saw the bird and identified it as a WW. There is more to be seen and judged than is visible in just one picture.
• its rare to find a Chiffchaff with whitish hues in the fore-supercilium, lacking clear yellow hues there and a clear yellowish supercilium behind the eye. Right or wrong?, but this came into my mind.
• is it possible to see the original or a better resolution picture, where emargination can judged?

When I only look at the thumbnail I get the impression of a Willow Warbler. And yes, if forced, I would opt for a Willow Warbler here, but with a bad feeeling= hope to be corrected. Reason:

• the appearant short pp for a WW
• quite dirty hues for a WW. Yes, easy within variation for a WW
• I cant loose the feeling that this is clearly one for more pictures, that might well alter crucial features. I was surprised here on birdforum and elsewhere before.

Very great examination! I'm going to see if I've some better photos for this ID

 

[ricLI]

Very great examination! I'm going to see if I've some better photos for this ID

Unfortunately I have only two photos. this one is with a bit crop enlargement no post production color correction and any noise reduction. Hope this help. Thank you. ric

 

[KenM]

A better shot!…and I can only see 3 emarginations thus Willow Warbler for me.

PS…Don’t drink and count emarginations. 😂

Cheers

 

[Alexander Stöhr]

Hello,
thank you for the new picture. It helps to ID the bird as a Willow Warbler, I agree with Ken. Please note:

• better visible/judgeable dark lower boarder=frame to ear-coverts. Therefore, head pattern looks better for a WW in this shot.
• If this bird has only 3 emarginations, it is a WW
• it still is a quite short-winged WW, but yes within variation.

Sorry, I am tired now and I hope to see this bird on a better screen tomorrow