Hi Shorebird Lovers,
Before this news rocks the World I have some comments...
I guess sides and underwing coloration is not as rufus/tawny as it
should be and the belly is quite white which is fine for Little Curlew.
Also the leg projection is not quite obvious on the highly cropped
images. Was it visible on the field? Based on the image the upperwing
doesn't look 'uniformly dark' as Hayman et al says.
Any chance of a top-side view of the flying bird where wing pattern
and rump visible? Could you exclude an abnormal sized Whimbrel?
Don't get me wrong I am not sceptic but having an Eskimo Curlew
record today is not a daily issue. I don't want to start an 'Ivory-
billed Woodpecker-like' discussion here but proper ID is a key.
By the way... a Little Curlew record would also be awesome for the
Gyorgy Szimuly (Szimi)
iChat: [log in to unmask]
On 2008.07.03., at 1:27, Norman D.van Swelm wrote:
Of course Little Curlew crossed my mind, it wasn't like: Oh look
an Eskimo Curlew! Little has a different shaped and shorter bill and
it's legs are projected beyond the tail. Under ideal conditions the
cinnamon may be brighter but this bird was at quite some distance
besides have a look at the skins in the British Museum the cinnamon
is not as bright as in some illustrations in ID guides.
All the best, Norman
> I am curious how you can tell that this is not a Little Curlew
> (Numenius minutus). I have never seen either species, so I don't
> really have any experience. I thought, though, that N. borealis
> had cinnamon wing linings--brighter than the bird in the photos?
> Thanks for any help,
Whately, Franklin Co., MA, USA
[log in to unmask]
From: Norman D.van Swelm <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 6:48 pm
Subject: [SHOREBIRDS] Damn few and they're not all deid!
Have a look here please: