Pipits

[Dave Appleton]

He's not forced to be right, but he usually is! In fact I don't remember him being wrong before, but the only people who never make a mistake identifying birds are the people who never attempt to identify birds.

The first photos are, perhaps, too poor to allow a certain ID. They seem to show a dull greyish olive bird which would favour Rock Pipit. The streaking below seems a bit on the distinct side (slightly suggesting Meadow Pipit) but is very thick - especially so along the flanks - it seems more so than I think is possible on Meadow Pipit. But neither of these are clear and could be affected by the photo quality. For me there is not enough detail to gauge the size of the bill, the colour of the legs or any other feature for certain. I'm strongly in favour of Rock Pipit but am not certain. I think it's a Rock Pipit - if it isn't then it's not identifiable with certainty from these photos.

The photos of the second bird seem to be so clear that a certain ID ought to be straightforward, but it is not so easy (as the disagreement so far proves)! At first glance the bird seems to be exceptionally bright - far more so than would be possible on a Rock Pipit. The legs seem distinctly pale and the median covert bar is strong. Meadow Pipit is certainly an understandable conclusion! But if it's a Meadow Pipit, how come the streaking on the underparts - and on the mantle - is so fuzzy? The malar stripe (the narrow one that runs down from the base of the bill) extends into a broad solid triangle and the flank streaking is really thick and indistinct - surely this is more like Rock Pipit? On the right hand photo the mantle streaking seems strong enough for Meadow Pipit but on the left hand photo it looks much plainer and more like Rock Pipit.

So I start to think whether some of the anomalies for one or other species could be down to the photos. An over-saturated over-exposed image could make a Rock Pipit look brighter than normal and more Meadow-like, I guess, and it could certainly emphasise the pale colour in the legs that normally look so much darker. That seems feasible - the leg colour seems more a grubby greyish pink than the brownish pink I'd expect on a Meadow Pipit. The bill might not look as strong as I'd expect on a Rock Pipit, but it's not completely sharp so maybe that's why. It's less easy to see why the photo could make the streaking look so indistinct (though I suppse the slight unsharpness might a bit) - but as the strength of the streaking on the mantle looks so different between the two images I guess it must be able to!

So I struggled with this one! Looking more closely I found a few more things that I thought might help - and these all seem to point to Meadow Pipit. The extensive pale at the base of the bill, more like Meadow Pipit (Rock Pipit also has a pale base, but less extensive). The background colour on the underparts seems paler on the belly than the flanks and it seems slightly yellowy toned on the flanks - that favours Meadow Pipit. Although the flank streaking is excessively broad and blurred for Meadow Pipit, the streaks closest to the centre of the belly are quite distinct - much more like Meadow Pipit. The median covert bar is both much broader and whiter than the greater covert bar - which would, at best, be unusual for Rock Pipit. So in the end I lean towards my initial impression which was Meadow Pipit for the second bird. Am I certain? Much less so than I would expect to be on an image of this quality! If it is a Meadow Pipit then the streaking seems most unusual.

[RoyW__]

All four photos show Rock Pipits.
If I was to quantify how certain I was of this with a percentage I would say that I was about 85-90% certain on the bird in the first two images (the photos aren't great quality, but the jizz strongly suggests Rock and no visible features suggest otherwise), and I am 100% certain that the lower two images show a Rock Pipit (absolutely no doubt at all in my mind about that).

In my opinion there is nothing at all about the bird in the lower two images that is outside of the normal variation of Rock Pipit. Rather than being unusually pale, I would say that the colour of the legs is one that is frequently seen in Rock Pipit - the legs can be darker, but this is a normal colour (not the case for Meadow though, which would only very rarely have legs this colour - if at all).

The amount of yellow on the bill is perhaps at the more extreme end of normal winter variation for Rock, but it is within typical extremes. The bill is also rather long for a Meadow, but a fairly standard length for Rock. As a very indication of the comparative bill lengths, try comparing the length of the bill, from the tip to the furthest left point on the yellow base on the 'subject' bird with the distance from the back of the eye to the back of the head - and then compare with other photos of Rock and Meadow Pipits in similar 'profile' poses. Rock Pipit has a bill length roughly equal to or greater than the distance to the back of the head, on Meadow the bill length invariably falls short of the back of the head.

The amount of streaking visible on the upperparts, and the extent/clarity of the streaking below are also well within normal variation for Rock (with the Scandinavian race sometimes suggested to have better defined streaking than British ones - and individuals of the Scandinavian race are very likely to be present along the UKs entire east coast at this time of year).

Now a couple of more minor, but important points, that haven't yet been mentioned:
Rock Pipits have dark lores (between the base of the bill and the eye), and the pale eyering is broken because a thin black line extends through the eye. Meadow Pipits have pale lores (though this can very occasionally have a somewhat darker appearance due to shadow), and have an unbroken pale eye ring. These features can be clearly seen in the third photo, and precisely fit what is expected for Rock.
A very similar individual can be seen in this photo (note also the colour of the legs of the birds in several of the photos if you scroll down), and an individual with a relatively broad white median covert bar can be seen a few images below (here).


Of course, it is completely correct to say that no one is always right - and I definitely make mistakes!

[PeterB]

Thanks everyone, especially Dave and Roy for this. Fascinating.

[aquila 1]

[see I also think after

[Kingfisher]

"The way you are sounding", "Shot down in flames", "human"? What have I done exactly? You are reading something into my post that isn't there at all. I said I agree with Roy for exactly the reasons he gave (and, I thought, he explained it very well) so no need for me to repeat exactly what he said. Obviously it was my opinion. If you think these birds are golden eagles, fine. Not sure what your problem is and why you feel the need to attack me like that (and openly as well).

[Jynx_69]

.......and relax.......

This isn't Birdforum.net you know - thankfully

[alanjns]

Thanks everyone for your contributions. It's been very interesting and helpful.

Hopefully it wont be too long before I get to see Rock Pipits again and I'll be able to rabble off what ya'll just said!!

I did 'think' they were rockies when I was watching them, but my slowly developing skills could only go as far as 'colouration looks different to what I've seen before (in mipits) and the smudgy streaking!!

I have taken note - thanks again!

[Dave Appleton]

Of course Roy is quite correct about the two new features we'd not discussed - the eye ring and the lores. I knew Meadow Pipits show a complete eye-ring and paler lores so I was careless for not picking up on this myself - they do indeed clinch it as a Rock Pipit (the eye-ring can appear slightly broken on Meadow, but not as clearly so as on this bird, and as Roy's pointed out the lores can look darker at different angles but I agree with him, not to this extent). To my eyes there are still things about the photos that don't look entirely typical for Rock Pipit but I'm quite happy that it is one and I'm also happy to concede that it is a typical one - whether the photos portray that or not! Good call Roy!