yet another willow/marsh tit (UK) (1 Viewer)

[glennmanc]

Is it possible to be 100% sure about the ID for this photo?

 

[mark clements]

rule of thumb but not always possible to see... shiny head it's a Marsh and if it has a dull head then it's a Willow
soooo I am edging to Willow, where was it, as there are gaps in coverage in UK

 

[lou salomon]

it's a marsh tit. pale spot on bill base. don't use the gloss 'trait' - not reliable!

 

[DaveN]

Marsh Tit for me.

 

[mark clements]

it's a marsh tit. pale spot on bill base. don't use the gloss 'trait' - not reliable!

Thanks for the correction, :t:

 

[glennmanc]

does the very small black bib also support Marsh Tit? Or is the bib size insufficient to confirm ID?
(not my photos, by the way - I didn't see the bird)

 

[lou salomon]

insuficient. only in combination with 'stronger' features. best one is the pale spot on base of lower mandible, others are structure like the bullnecked appearance of willow tit. for british willow tits, darker underparts. most essential in separating these is: CALL! learn their vocalizations, they differ more significantly than anything else.

 

[glennmanc]

That's the problem. The photographer identified the bird as a Willow Tit by its call. That's why I wondered about the photos - I could see nothing that was obviously Willow Tit in the photos (I neither saw nor heard it myself), but I don't want to suggest he might be mistaken unless the photos alone are 100% certain for Marsh Tit.

 

[lou salomon]

i don't think the pale patch is an artefact since it is at the right place and has the right shape. and that one is diagnostic for marsh tit.

 

[glennmanc]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[Gordon]

This topic keeps coming back and the issue of very subjective features like "glossy"/"matt", size of bib etc are constantly recycled. British Birds had an article which debunked the reliability of those features.

"Features such as cap, bib, structure, colour of underparts, habitat and behaviour (except that of extensive nest excavation) appear to have limited or negligible value for identification, owing to the degree of overlap."

Full article at https://britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/article_files/V102/V102_N11/V102_N11_2_14.pdf

 

[mark clements]

This topic keeps coming back and the issue of very subjective features like "glossy"/"matt", size of bib etc are constantly recycled. British Birds had an article which debunked the reliability of those features.

"Features such as cap, bib, structure, colour of underparts, habitat and behaviour (except that of extensive nest excavation) appear to have limited or negligible value for identification, owing to the degree of overlap."

Full article at https://britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/article_files/V102/V102_N11/V102_N11_2_14.pdf

Thank you Gordon
Harry:t: