juvenile Little Bittern

[Brian S]

Colin has identified this as a juvenile Little Bittern, but the pattern of the coverts are certainly not those of a juvenile -http://surfbirds.com/albums/showphoto.php?photo=6770

See Daniele Occhiato’s images of juvenile here - http://www.pbase.com/dophoto/image/83019141

Though some of the upperparts seem pretty dark-centred, and I would hazard a guess this is a second-summer bird. However, I am unsure if such a plumage occurs in LB; it would imply that LB can retain juv-like plumage into its 2nd calendar year.

Any help?

Brian S

[Colin Key]

Brian,

On reflection, I might go as far as saying that this is actually an adult female. Standard field guides (I had not bothered to do a search of web images) are woefully inadequate as far as images of anything other than adult males are concerned. There was a total of at least eight individuals at Qta do Lago including two obvious adult males and several very "streaked" juveniles (they have bred there this year) but I have to say that at the time I was not conscious of any adult females - simple mental error of anything not being adult male must be a juvenile (I don't normally ignore the ladies:cool:).

My reason for going there was to try and find and photograph the adult and juvenile Little Crake which had been seen near the new hide every day for the previous three days; no luck, but I was told that one appeared and showed very well an hour after I left!! I am going again tomorrow so will also take a closer look at the Little Bitterns.

Colin

[Colin Key]

Have now looked at other shots of the same bird, and would say that this is an adult female (possibly sub-adult, if that is feasible, as in 2nd c.y. and maybe non-breeding?):

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/103069586

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/103069580

http://www.pbase.com/accentor/image/103066738

I was going to say that on the basis of the third image it must be an adult female because of the posture (legs open and expectant, anticipatory expression), but decided that this might cause offence with some of our female members, so didn't say it!!! :ohdear::laugh::smile::beer:

Colin

[JanJ]

Another matter than the subject bird (which isn´t a juvenile) is your gull gallery Colin, very nice indeed! You might vant to change the species name to michahellis instead of cachinnans.

Cheers

JanJ

[Colin Key]

Thanks Jan, there are quite a few updates and corrections in my PBase galleries which I need to make when I get time.

Colin

[Colin Key]

Very windy today and birds not showing at all well. This was the only Little Bittern seen over three hours, and much further away than my previous shots. It could be the same bird, but cannot be certain. Being a Sunday there were quite a few other birders there, including some experienced guys. The general consensus was that this is a female, probably of breeding age, but no-one could (or would) say if this was 2nd or 3rd c.y., or how the plumage of females developed after 1st yr juvenile plumage. So, I think I would say "sub-adult female" and leave it a that. Some less experienced people there today thought that this was a juvenile!! :ouch:

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/0C0J7002a.jpg

Oddly enough, although my original shot has been widely disseminated and commented upon here and there, no-one else has said that it is not a juvenile. :err: This mis-I.D. I think exemplifies a problem: I either go birding or I go photographing, but I never do the two together (even back in my digiscoping days). When I am birding I am looking closely at the birds, when I am photographing (and lugging around a 1D body and 500mm lens mounted on a hefty tripod) I tend to be concentrating on "the shot" rather than the bird. :notworthy:

I did see the adult Little Crake today (lifer) but would not dare publish the two photos here (or anywhere). Had I not already "given the game away" I might have put it in the "Mystery Bird" section.

Colin