Temminck's Stint in Alaska

[Brian S]

Hi all

Does anyone else have concerns about the image of 'Temminck's Stint' taken by Scott Schuette on the NA stop press? Or am I going mad?

Copied below.

Brian S

[Colin Key]

Brian,

Have seen quite a lot of Temmink's (but never in summer plumage) and trillions of Little.

Apparent pro Little features on this bird are short(ish) tail, dark legs, quite distinct pale eye-stripe and incomplete breast band.

However, it is not a very good image and some of these features could be photo effects: the legs are in shadow and could be paler than they appear, the appearance of incomplete breast band could be due to a highlight/reflection, the length of the bird is rather difficult to assess (seems somewhere between Little and Temmink's to me). The eyestripe is the feature most at odds with Temmink's (but I note that there also appears to be another pale stripe on the crown).

I wonder if this is the only shot?

Colin

[MichaelF]

Legs do look rather dark for Temminck's, but they may just be mud-covered.

[Brian S]

A clue to any possible alternative might be its location - St. Paul Island, Alaska, almost as close to Russia as it is to Alaska - almost certainly not Little Stint.

Brian S

[Colin Key]

So, I presume you are thinking Least Sandpiper?

Is Little Stint a complete "no no" in Alaska?

Colin

[Brian S]

I suppose that given it has pale (brown-yellow) legs and the appearance of long toes, L-t Stint had crossed my mind.

Brian S

[AndyB]

Yes, I had concerns about this bird being a Long-toed when it was first posted but the photo was too small to see much details so let it be. It doesn't appear to be a Temminck's (too brown, split super)

[Jrhough1]

Brian,

You are right - it's not a Temminck's..

hard to say from the photos, but Long-toed is a possibility, but again, it looks odd for this too..

need better photos, especially if the legs are yellowish??

[darrenjhughes]

See what you mean did'nt look that close bit long legged for starters

[shearwater2002]

Scott Schuettes (OP of this bird on ASP) Flickr page is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31007874@N06/

There are a couple of extra pics,one in flight but with legs dangling.The questions to ask are: If the bird was in full flight,do the legs look long enough to extend beyond the tail?,is the tail too white for LToed?,and the back looks better for Temminck's.
Scott also has photos of Little Stint at St Paul's.

[Colin Key]

Scott also has photos of Little Stint at St Paul's.

I have looked at the additional photos and, to be honest, no-one is ever going to get proof-positive I.D. features from these images.

To talk about colour of legs from these shots is ridiculous. Since shearwater has unearthed the fact that the photographer (Scott) also has shots of Little Stint at this locality more or less says it all (to me).

Colin

[W. Ruskin Butterfield]

As of 1978 there was only one record of Little Stint for Alaska while Temminck's was a rare spring migrant. http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/cooper/sab_001.pdf . The photographer has a picture of a Little Stint from September 2008 on his Flickr deal. So what?

[AndyB]

Thanks for the link to the photos. It does look better to me for Temminck's now.

[forktail]

It's very difficult to see enough, as everyone is finding but it looks okay for a Temminck's from the head down, especially the scapulars and the overall colour and shape. I'd expect an LTS to be more rufous above on the feather edges and to have more-solid scap centres. The legs look obviously yellow toned to me. It doesn't convey the rangy jizz of an LTS but it's only one photo... The head does look a little odd with a seemingly split super but the bill looks okay for Temminck's I think.

[Jrhough1]

With a better look at the images, I don't want to rain on Scott's parade but surely this is a Least Sandpiper rather than a Temminck's Stint?

There's nothing in the images that doesn't fit a moulting Least Sandpiper (split super, dark mantle centres, scap pattern and overall jizz better for LESA).

It just doesn't really look like a Temminck's to me and the lack of obvious eye-ring and other features fit better IMHO with Least Sand.

Best,

Julian

[Colin Key]

The photographer has a picture of a Little Stint from September 2008 on his Flickr deal. So what?

So what? - So Little Stint cannot be ruled out of the equation - I would have thought that that was obvious:err:.

Colin

[Colin Key]

The head does look a little odd with a seemingly split super ..........

Which is more characteristic of Little Stint (especially juvenile) than the other options being considered.

Colin

[forktail]

The flight shot seems to show a tail with white sides?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31007874@N06/3695778604/

[JanJ]

I see a Temminck´s Stint. Reasons for that is the yellowish legs, overall jizz, drawn out rear, parttern of scapulars and breast.
Regarding the split super, see the right bird here:

http://www.tarsiger.com/gallery/index.php?pic_id=masa1246910547&lang=eng

JanJ

[Gavin Bieber]

Just a quick note on the status of palearctic stints in the new world. The identification of stints in Alaska has progressed a long way from the mid 70's. Red-necked Stint is annual in small numbers, and has bred in the state. Long-toed stints have been annual in the outer Aleutians and are casual on the Bering Sea Islands. Little Stints are annual in the state as well, with most records coming from the Pribilofs. Temminck's were casual in the outer Aleutians but with a recent decline in coverage due to the closure of Attu in 2001 to birders the number of reports has dropped. Both Little and Red-necked have repeatedly been documented from the coastal western provinces and states, and there are scattered records from inland states and along the east coast as well. In addition Little's have been documented from Baja, Mexico and the West Indies.
On Saint Paul Island, Red-necked Stints are annual, and the three other species occur on roughly 50% of the years (based on the last 14 years of data collecting there).

[Brian S]

Having started the thread, I want to make it clear I am not questioning the integrity of Scott Schuette, the photographer. It was an interesting picture, on which I was struggling a bit, and still am, to see the features by which it is Temminck's.

The features that struck me, were the split super, the breast band that seemed to be quite streaked, the white lower face, and the lack of an eye-ring. Obviously, I can see the black feathers on the brown-grey upperparts (mantle and lower scapulars), which certainly look like Temminck's - on Temminck's the lower row of scaps often have large pale areas near the base - which might just be visible. However, I still can't see the white eye-ring; the lower face on Temminck's is often well-steaked (the 'face' can seem a bit browner sometimes), but here it seems contrastingly white below the ear coverts.

See
http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=4638

http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=3348

http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=2963

http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=22781


I suspect that Scott is thinking it was an obvious Temminck's in the field....

Brian S

[Colin Key]

I see a Temminck´s Stint. Reasons for that is the yellowish legs, overall jizz, drawn out rear, parttern of scapulars and breast.
Regarding the split super, see the right bird here:

http://www.tarsiger.com/gallery/index.php?pic_id=masa1246910547&lang=eng

JanJ

Jan,

It is not possible at all to say anything about the colour of this bird's legs. They are in shadow, the photo is very poor quality, and there is the possibility of mud contamination.

To speak about "jizz" on a static photo I find very curious (as I have stated before in other threads). "Jizz" (general impression of shape and size) CANNOT be determined from a photo, especially a very poor one - you need to see the bird in its environment, how it moves, size relative to other birds or features, etc. JIZZ is not a static phenomenon.

The link which you provide regarding the split supercillium shows a bird with no super at all!!

Colin

[forktail]

Colin,

We're just doing the best that we can with the pics available and even with poor pics a little considered study can be illuminating and working together members of this forum often arrive at a very good concensus of an identification.

I, and obviously others, do seem to be able to see a yellowish cast to the legs, hence people's thoughts of Least, LTS and Temms.

I also have the opinion, again I suspect it is shared by many, that jizz can be apparent in photographs.

The bird in Jan's photos does show a weak split super (it looks like there isn't one due to its colour but there is an obvious line of darker feathers going through).

I'm sure we can agree that the bird's outer tail is (reasonably clearly) white?

F.

[JanJ]

Okey Colin - you have a point.

I know that the image is not one of the best but I diceded to make a quick suggestion and as you say, 'jizz' is not so good a choice. Could therefore structer be a more appealing choice, not that I suggest this as a final identification point. I also find the shape of the breast - with the Common Sand wedge like pattern quite obvious. Plain grey scapulars with as it appears thin dark shaft all the way up to the base, wider at the base in Least, admixed with worn breeding ones - dare I suggest.
What do you mean by 'no supersilium at all'?

JanJ

[Jrhough1]

I re-looked at the flickr photos and viewed them at the "large size "and saw a new image that Scott had posted which threw a whole new light on my thinking.

Based on this, I am happy now, along with the aforementioned posters that the bird is indeed a Temminck's Stint, not a Least Sandpiper as I had previously thought.

In the scaled up versions the bird does seem to show a thin white eyering and other features are more visible that make the bird look much better for Temminck's than I had first thought from the original small images.

As Forktail points out the tail sides are white, though I had not put too much weight on the image since it looked a little overexposed.

Best,

J

[Colin Key]

Colin,

We're just doing the best that we can with the pics available and even with poor pics a little considered study can be illuminating and working together members of this forum often arrive at a very good concensus of an identification.

I, and obviously others, do seem to be able to see a yellowish cast to the legs, hence people's thoughts of Least, LTS and Temms.

I also have the opinion, again I suspect it is shared by many, that jizz can be apparent in photographs.

The bird in Jan's photos does show a weak split super (it looks like there isn't one due to its colour but there is an obvious line of darker feathers going through).

I'm sure we can agree that the bird's outer tail is (reasonably clearly) white?

F.

Hello FT,

I am not trying to be awkward in any way (would I :ohdear:) and I am the first to admit that my knowledge of N American birds is next to zero, although I am always interested in contentious Temmink's since they can be very difficult even from reasonably good images.

My interest in this thread is really in what people are seeing, or claiming to see, in distant, poor quality photos taken in what appears to be bad light; we can't always be certain that relevant I.D. criteria are being portrayed accurately in those circumstances.

Has anyone made direct contact with the photographer (his email address is given) and asked for his first-hand impressions as to why this is Temmink's?

Cheers,

Colin :smile:

[JanJ]

Hi Colin.

You are of course right in that judging from certain photos, even some good ones, is very difficult and unwise but a photo is all we have! (that´s what I keep saying in various forums myself!), so no doubt about that. I think that most birders involved in these matters can´t have missed out on that one. In spite of that it´s done over and over again, we birders is trapped in the urge to identify anything we see (sometime even in really poor photos, where you have to struggle to even spot the bird!), it´s like a disease :wink: Clearly a prestigious race at times when a bad or not so good photo is comming along of a suspected rarity or of some odd plumaged species, quite a natural human behaviour, you just have to control yourself - a bit.
As I said earlier, I decided to make a quick one because I had a clear Temminck´s feel to this one - not saying that I´m right (not such a good image :wink:) - just setting some of you out there more on the move.

JanJ

[Brian S]

In my OP I asked, 'Does anyone else have concerns about the image of 'Temminck's Stint' taken by Scott Schuette on the NA stop press? Or am I going mad?'

Well we have gone full circle, agreed it is Temminck's Stint, so the last question needs answering....

Brian S

[Alex Lees]

In my OP I asked, 'Does anyone else have concerns about the image of 'Temminck's Stint' taken by Scott Schuette on the NA stop press? Or am I going mad?'

Well we have gone full circle, agreed it is Temminck's Stint, so the last question needs answering....

Brian S

Hi Brian

Here (http://www.mental-health-today.com/tests/) might be a good place to start....

Alex

[Colin Key]

Brilliant link Alex; the second one down on the list has me a bit worried!! :ohdear:

Colin :beer::beer::beer:

[Colin Key]

Well we have gone full circle, agreed it is Temminck's Stint, .......

Brian S

Have we?

Colin :err:

[Colin Key]

I managed to download the original large JPEG and did a bit of work on it:

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/Stint.jpg

This is far from perfect but now looks much more like Temmink's (but, on the basis of this image, cannot completely rule out Long-toed). The originally posted image was from a Flickr URL and was subjected to the dreaded "save for web" option which takes a poor photo, compresses it, and makes it even worse.

I think that the apparent split supercillium is an optical (or photographic) illusion - it might not exist, but if it does then Long-toed is still "in the frame". I also think that my re-work (dreadful though it is) does show a complete breast band and that, as I stated in a previous post above, the possible "incompleteness" is just due to an effect of lighting.

Colin

Edit: After playing around with colour saturation and hue, I would concede now that the legs are pale "yukkish" yellow.

[Jrhough1]

Hi Colin.

You are of course right in that judging from certain photos, even some good ones, is very difficult and unwise but a photo is all we have! (that´s what I keep saying in various forums myself!), so no doubt about that. I think that most birders involved in these matters can´t have missed out on that one. In spite of that it´s done over and over again, we birders is trapped in the urge to identify anything we see (sometime even in really poor photos, where you have to struggle to even spot the bird!), it´s like a disease :wink: Clearly a prestigious race at times when a bad or not so good photo is comming along of a suspected rarity or of some odd plumaged species, quite a natural human behaviour, you just have to control yourself - a bit.
As I said earlier, I decided to make a quick one because I had a clear Temminck´s fell to this one - not saying that I´m right (not such a good image :wink:) - just setting some of you out there more on the move.

JanJ

I think JanJ's post sums up our addiction to the challenge...

Nice rework Colin..I did the same but think you did a nice job on the photo and thankls for re-posting..the eyering is noticeable and the overall dunn-grey color is Temminck's..not sure, but is that the tail sticking out beyond the end of the wings?

I think Long-toed can be ruled out on the upperparts pattern and lack of rufous fringes to the dark-centered feathers and the breast band is probably too heavy for that species and the the legs rather short. Bill looks good for Temminck's and so does the tail sides in the flight photo.

Toes, from what I can see don't look too long, but may be hard to judge form the angle.

And, without sending this off on a tangent, I wanted to comment that I think jizz is definitely a factor that can be used in a still image..it sometimes may be misleading depending on the pose captured, but a series of still images definitely portrays jizz of a bird...

J

[Colin Key]

And, without sending this off on a tangent, I wanted to comment that I think jizz is definitely a factor that can be used in a still image..it sometimes may be misleading depending on the pose captured, but a series of still images definitely portrays jizz of a bird...



Hi Julian,

This term "Jizz" is a difficult one to pin down ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizz_(birding) ) and its origins are dubious.

To me it has always involved the way a bird moves (as well as shape, size, etc) and for that reason I find it difficult to apply to a single still image (I note that you refer to "a series of still images"). It might have more applicability to a bird within a flock (terns, gulls waders, etc) but for a single bird such as this Calidrid in an image where it cannot be related to any other entity (bird, vegetation, or anything else), I would hesitate to use the term; "structure", "shape", "apparent size", "posture", yes - but (for me) not "Jizz".

After Googling "Jizz" I am tempted to describe this bird as a "spunky little wader" :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Colin:ohdear: