You would have to have been living on the moon lately to not know that England appears to be experiencing a surge influx of large-billed Parrot type Crossbills, with Holland and Germany also reporting large Loxia.
There is an interesting thread (with links to sub thread) HERE on Birdforum, with some comments from yours truly (you will need to sign in or register to view the thread). It is funny how these things usually revert to Scottish Crossbills and whether they exist or not !
One of the latest posts questions can crossbills be identified by the depredated cones they drop ? Well, sometimes but it would be generalisation, albeit with over 90 odd percent confidence limits in my opinion. It really depends on the cone - is it a closed green cone, is it a 'dried' closed brown cone, how wet the weather has been etc.
A Scottish Crossbill 'worked' cone, with Commons it would tend to be the anterior portion of the cone that would be worked:
A female Parrot Crossbill, October 2006, Deeside, the cone showing the 'split' scales that can be diagnostic:
In another few weeks, depending how wet or dry it is, the Scots Pine cones will begin to partially open. Parrot Crossbill has it's breeding season synced in with this event, the young usually hatching to coincide with more easily available seeds. Here in Deeside in 2013 we had an almost 'year zero' with a very poor autumn 2012 Scots pine crop throughout much of the region and consequently breeding was nominal and numbers of crossbills have 'crashed'. At a study site in upper Deeside approximately only 1 in 10 Scots Pines produced a reasonable crop of cones, but in most cases the vast majority of cones were 'stunted', the cone directly below the 10 pence coin is 'normal' sized (Deeside, Feb 2013) :
With cones so small Parrot Crossbills would certainly find these too difficult to work as well as unprofitable. Abnormal weather patterns may have been partially responsible for this, but this is just speculation.
Looking ahead, I wonder if any of the English Parrot types will attempt breeding in late February through to April this year ? Sure fire signs are singing males, fighting males, courtship feeding and of course nest building (birds flying with twigs, grasses etc).
A nice illustration here of how body size is a distinguishing feature in separating Crossbill types (scroll down a bit, and warning, there are images of dead crossbills):
Notice how the the juv female Parrot, as it is sitting (alive) on the fence wire, does not have an apparently massive bill. Yet in the hand it is considerably larger than Common Crossbills. It does show the sometimes evident "small eye" syndrome though ! In the field it is often difficult to judge overall body size unless you have the luxury of a mixed group, though Commons to me are similar in size to Greenfinch (or just bigger than Chaffinch, which are often nearby). Parrots by comparison are just a bit smaller than a Starling or (smallish) Waxwing (eg. about 50-55g). Bill structure can seem to be in proportion to body size in many specimens thus some Parrots could potentially be confused with larger billed Commons without calls and without a strong idea of body size (indeed they were on Bird Forum a few years ago, though many of the birds had wide bills with strongly decurved culmens as well as "strong" necks.
I had the pleasure on Monday 1st October of attending a talk on " The Crossbills of Scotland" by Ron Summers as part of the winter talk season organised by Aberdeen SOC branch. A very professional and informative presentation by RSPB Scotland's Chief Scientist and it was very well attended and received by the attending members.
Then....the questions ! Invariably, one questioner got on to "can I, a birder, identify Crossbills in the field with any certainty" ? Well, of course, by using sound recording equipment and producing sonagrams was Ron's response. And then the questioner raised the issue about how, in our local bird report (The North East of Scotland Bird Report), especially the latest one, that it seemed to be "only one individual [me] going around with recording equipment and getting records accepted", and what is the point of submitting any records ! For those who don't know I write the species accounts for NESBR and have done since 2004. Well, I have no idea who this guy was, but I can fully sympathise with his dilemma and the point he made. I politely pointed out that this was not actually the case - records for Common Crossbill were accepted (though as a side note perhaps they shouldn't be as they could potentially be confused with Scottish) and that the large-billed records were accepted per the recommendations in Martin Collinson's crossbill paper in the 2002 NESBR, basically advising that, in order to differentiate with any confidence, 'Large-Billed' Crossbill records for NESBR should be submitted with acoustic or biometric evidence.
As I consider myself a reasonable open minded guy who listens to criticsim, and the fact that feathers are apparently getting ruffled over this, a few points to clarify the situation:
1) We do receive 'non-verified' Scottish/Parrot Crossbill records each year for NESBR and these are very welcome and are actually still very important whether they make the publication or not. They remain 'on file' in the database and are a record of Crossbill sp. for any future researcher or project.
2) The Scottish and Parrot records/sightings that are published are accurate with regards to the current taxonmic criteria and nomenclature. I would think this was desireable/preferable for those who might want to see them or know where they occur. A few of the locations are 'vague' to protect important and sensitive breeding sites and Ringing Stations used by members of Grampian Ringing Group. This is actually standard BTO practise when submitting sensitive data, and if it offends people then I apologise for this inconvenience. Trapping sites have been compromised by photographers, incuding one of my own, so we reserve the right to slightly supress this info. It is not too difficult to read between the lines though, and with a bit of research it should put you in touch with your target species !
3) In all the years of compiling the species accounts for NESBR I have never received an accompanying sonagram, audio file or biometric (including colour ring bird sighting). If I did then these records could be considered pending whether the site is 'sensitive' (c.f 2 above).
I should add that I do get sent sonagrams and audio files, usually from birders South of the border. I always respond to these and help as best I can. One of the most memorable was a birder who was a friend of a NESBR colleague who managed to record "new" Scottish calls at Linn of Dee last year. I have lost all that info due to a Window's Live crash but will contact the friend who lives in Aberdeen and will incude it for the 2011 report.
4) Without sounding like I am blowing my own trumpet, because believe me I am not, if you read the Crossbill accounts prior to 2004 there are often very few records at all nor very much substance. None are 'verified'. Merely stating a fact.
5) I have written under three Editors, I hope they don't mind being listed: Paul Baxter, Ian Francis and currently Nick Littlewood. All absolutely first rate experienced birders and all have been supportive of this approach with Crossbill accounts and I was asked by Paul back in 2004 to do the species accounts as I was doing a lot of work on crossbills in terms of ID via calls.
This said, if there was consensus to include 'non-verified' records, either at editorial level or via public demand, then I could do this. Personally, I only see the point of this with regards a particularly interesting record or in a 'slow year'.
So, in response to the gentleman from Monday night what can local birders do to provide more information for their NESBR Crossbill records ?
In no specific order of importance:
1) Record the calls ! Even on a phone, camera, Mp3 - I have grapped identifiable sonagrams from such machines. The calls of birds as they fly is good as are any alarm (toop) calls they make. By ear is fraught with difficulty for all but experienced crossbill workers - EcC is easily confused with EcE and EcA is confusable with EcD. Flight calls, other than "new" Scottish would confuse most birders without adequate practice !
2) Record which tree species the bird(s) are feeding on. With a date, this can be helpful. The way the crossbills "work" the cones can tell a lot, but some people put too much generalisation in to this - it depends on the status of the cone (green or hard) and the time of year.
3) Are there "streakie" juvenile birds present with adults ? If so are they dependent or feeding by themselves ? Streakie juvs from Oct through to March would most likely be Common Crossbill progeny, though some attempt breeding in the spring. Parrot juvs can occur (in my experience) from April, but usually May through to August (second broods permitting).
4) Moult stages and plumage descriptions of adults and sub-adults. Many 1st or 2nd cy Common's males have "golden" plumage. Females can be distinguished by having dark centres to the crown feathers.
5) Photos, especially "face on" can be helpful as this shows the bill mass and width. Audio is more useful though.
6) If in flocks, the ratio of males to females can be helpful as more males suggests females are nesting, and the nesting periods are more distinct but overlap at the edges. However, it can often be difficult to see all the birds in a tree and females are harder to see and more 'cryptic' anyway.
I hope this helps local birders with their crossbill dilemma - if anyone has any questions or points to raise I can be reached via Bird Forum PM service. Please keep submitting the records as all are useful and important !
Mmm...Parrot Crossbill eyes up Norway Spruce.....so much for selective feeding !
S'been a while, I know. Very busy with work and catching up with all my crossbill data as the massive write up of all my data over the last 8 years continues. I am also digistising the remainder of Alan Knox's Crossbill Recordings ( from 1/4 inch tape !) after Magnus Robb kindly provided the first batch. These also need analysed...then collated with all my stuff to provide a 30 plus year call lexicon for Deeside. It's all exciting stuff and there will be a few twists.........
To keep all crossbill addicts going meantime here is a wing moult pic of a rather lurvley second calendar year male Common Crossbill from Finzean in Deeside:
Note the old greater coverts (fringed with buff edges), old tertials and pretty trashed outer primaries.
Stay tuned, more to come on calls, biogeography, ecology and what Devo Max and Independence will mean for the Scottish Crossbill (EDIT content removed to avoid offence to those of a weak disposition..apparently).
Lindsay
A retrospective example of a genuine Scottish Crossbill to compensate for all those published pictures of Parrot Crossbills on the web and publications. Taken with Nikon D300 and Nikon 300mm f4 lens, upper Deeside Spring 2009.
Been a while but have been really, really busy with work and other commitments - apologies to regular LF readers who may have missed their fix of Crossbill nonsense.
In June I was lucky enough to spend a week over Glen Affric/Beinn Eighe way, primarily to look for Odonata but of course I was on the look out for Crossbills and had recording equipment with me. Turned out to be a really bad year for dragonflies - even seing a couple of Large Reds was a welcome sight some days. That said, in the end the only target species we missed that way was White-faced Darter, but we picked them up at a reliable site in Abernethy on the way home. Dragonfly highlight was Azure Hawkers at Loch Maree:
And even some blue form Azure Dragonfly females:
And a 'blue' form female and male together so you can see the difference (female on left):
There were actually several of these blue form females at this site and we did wonder if it was a result of the particularly cool Summer we had been having up till that point - to date it has been the worst Summer I can recall, winds and wet weather have made it very difficult to do any serious ringing on my days off which has been really frustrating. It is worth pointing out that at this site we had blanked Azures on two previous visits - the day we got them in good numbers was sunny and warm.
Quite a lot of these going around:
And another highlight, Northern Emerald:
I had flocks of Common Crossbills every day arounf the Beinn Eighe Visitor Centre and surrounding woods. Many juveniles were present and the birds were feeding on Scots Pine. Regular reader will already know of my concern at the interpretation of certain crossbill flight calls and here is a good example from Beinn Eighe:
There is a juvenile begging call in there ( "teet-ow") but look at the adult flight call and how it 'morphs'. At the far left it almost resembles classic published Scottish Flight Call (fc3) with its extra trialing component. Then the extra component disappears and the second call in is a typical Fc1 ( choopy or parroty variant as I call them) but the last 4 fcs all have that quite strong trailing component ala Scottish Crossbill, and which give the call a flutey quality when appraising them aurally. These birds were definitely Common Crossbills - I had a really good chance to examine their plumage, body proportions and bill structures.
The flock flying off (14 birds) and clear Fc1 (parroty variants):
On the way home we discovered a really big feeding flock of Common Crossbills at Dinnet in Deeside. These too were feeding on Scots Pine. And, another "morpher":
This bird is a Fc1 Common Crossbill. But, how many would classify it as a Parrot on the second, third and fourth calls ? How many would classify it as a Scottish on the last call ( a two syallable structure) ?
This sequence adds in a variant Crossbill call I have been recording since last year:
The third call in from the left ( and replicants at the end of the sequence) looks like a Fc1B (or parakeet)type on the sonagram, but aurally they sound very like Fc4 (or glip) type Fc's ( due to the higher frequenct trailing tail). The corresponding Ec does seem to be EcB so I am classifying them as 1B types but aurally they really are like Fc4's ! To me 1B "parakeets" sound really "cheepy" whilst these jobbies sound quite "clippy", a big difference. I don't think it is safe to assume these ones above are "parakeet" types, vocally.
A "real" glip to compare, from lower Deeside 31st July 2011:
And on the same day a Fc1 with extra component (ala Scotbill ???):
I am pretty sure that Crossbills add these 'artifacts' as a result of their double syrinx - they can produce more than one note at a time and thus can easily produce two different notes at two different times as above ( I think it may be a 'resonance' of the first note through the second chamber of the syrinx, exaggerated when calling particularly strongly - but this is just a hunch). I am prety sure that in the lexicon of published data this call might have been good for Scottish......
If anyone wants copies of the sonagrams then just ask - don't copy and fob off as your own please !
As a subscriber to Birdwatch and as someone who was consulted by David Callahan for his excellent article on Crossbill Taxonomy last year I read with interest the piece “Crossbills: New Challenges” by Andy Stoddart in Issue no.228. As a ringer and researcher spending much of my spare time studying the crossbills of NE Scotland some of the content contained in the article raised certain issues with me and there are also parts of the article that I feel are worth further comment. Firstly, I must state that I have every respect for Mr. Stoddart as an author and as respected and experienced birder whose all round experience is clearly extensive and not open to question, however I do know Crossbills very well so I hope my comments are received constructively and in the good faith that they are offered. My main reason for writing this response is that possibly up to 100 times more people will read Mr. Stoddart’s Birdwatch article than ANY scientific paper on Crossbill research, therefore I feel it is important that the facts and information are presented clearly and responsibly and that any speculation or personal hypotheses are also made clear and also in context.
Mr. Stoddart raises the point that the movements of our native birds “are not fully documented, notably the extent to which Scottish and Parrot Crossbills may wander from their breeding areas”. This is not true for Scotland, which is where these birds are resident, as RSPB have conducted two extensive surveys including a Scottish Crossbill Survey. On a similar point later in the article it is claimed that crossbills have been trapped in England during the irruption of 1990-91 that had measurements that “fell well within the range of Scottish Crossbill”. Whilst this may be true there are two factors worth considering and adding as caveats; first, that individual observer bill depth measurements can vary significantly potentially over-estimating the bill depth measurement, and that this, combined with the fact that some Common Crossbills can have long wings, could make large-billed Common Crossbills appear ‘Scottish’. Secondly, there is considerable variation in crossbill biometrics within ‘types’ and perhaps this was ‘exaggerated’ by a bigger sample size during an irruption. Another important point is that, as far as I know, the all important vocalisations were not taken on these birds. In other words to infer that these Crossbills could have been Scottish Crossbills is speculation without foundation - the article that was referenced actually suggested the opposite eg. that some birds in the study considered to have been Scottish on bill size may actually have been Common !
A 'big' Common Crossbill with Bill depth 11.2mm and wing 99mm....
Another assertion that I strongly disagree with is the statement that the work on crossbill vocalisations that has most relevance to British observers is that of Magnus Robb in particular in Dutch Birding (2000). Not to take anything away from the pioneering work then (and now) by Magnus I feel it was a bit of a major omission not to reference or include (or cite !) the extensive work carried out by Dr. Ron Summers on UK crossbill vocalisations and distributions, and in some cases abundance indices are available for all the various crossbill call ‘types’, though again with a particular focus on the Scotland - we are still part of the UK as far as I am concerned regardless of any recent Nationalist 'sucesses'. Ron and his colleagues also matched biometrics with vocalisations, something that Magnus didn’t and which in part may have accounted for some of the Parrot calls on the Dutch Birding CD then being mistakenly classified as Scottish Crossbill. To recommend this to British birders is therefore somewhat errant as presumably they will want to accurately ID both Parrot and Scottish Crossbills. The Chapter on Crossbills in the “Sound Approach to Birding” corrects the calls for Scottish and Parrot and would, in my opinion, be a more appropriate and accurate resource for a UK based birder than the Dutch Birding CD and is readily available. However, the Common Crossbill material in the Dutch Birding CD is indeed comprehensive and worth owning for this alone, and I concede this point.
Given that a major focus of the article was to be on Crossbill Identification I feel more could have been made concerning the differences between Scottish and Common and Parrot and Scottish but I understand that only a general overview was being given. The moult patterns of crossbills can at times be useful in diagnosis as can the temporal presence of streaked juveniles, though some overlap can occur. There were a few comments on Parrot Crossbill and Scottish Crossbill that I found puzzling and one which I challenge. Mr. Stoddart warns and fears of another irruption of Parrot Crossbill where he “[see’s] a future plagued by arguments over digital photographs and whether the bills ‘look big enough’.” Personally I don’t see a problem with this – it seems to happen with other rarities and anyway separation of Parrot Crossbill from Common Crossbill in any location is relatively straightforward in the vast majority of cases. However, regarding Scottish Crossbill I do not understand why a photograph of a perched Parrot ‘type’ bird was used in the final page montage. If one compares it to the Finnish Parrot directly to its left, to me the bill structures look similar – the Scottish bird has its head and bill tucked down which gives a different postural appearance. I am confident if it was in the same posture as its neighbouring photograph the bill structures would look very similar eg. it is a Parrot Crossbill. I questioned photographer on the identification of the bird in this photograph at the time (2007) on Birdguides when it was posted and received no reply as to the methods of its identification eg. presumably no sound recording. Given that, in my opinion, the vast majority of photographs of ‘Scottish Crossbills’ on the web and in even in some publications (some who should know better) appear to be Parrot type crossbills this action actaully compounds and perpetuates this situation further rather than improves it. I also think the rather flippant comment “this species [Scottish Crossbill] – assuming it is one” is very unhelpful and possibly a tad cavalier. Scottish Crossbill IS regarded a full species by BOU following scientific research by several different workers - like particular laws some people may not like this fact but it is what it is and again the article perpetuates the scenario of “it’s not a real species” comments on the Birding ‘web’ which almost seem to ‘self prophesize’. When Mr. Callahan contacted me for his article I sent him several photographs of Scottish and Parrot Crossbills both ‘in hand’ and ‘in situ’. These birds were either identified by biometric measurements (and sightings of known colour ringed birds) and/or sonogram analysis of flight/alarm call and thus have some provenance regarding speciation. I would have been happy for any of these to be used in the present article by Mr. Stoddart and indeed could have offered more in the knowledge that an article can cite such facts to thoroughly inform readers and birders. I was not contacted. There are no such facts or information provided for any of the photographs in the article so how do we know how these birds were identified ? This needs to change or the problems that Mr. Soddart indentifies will merely continue to be perpetuated.
On the subject of vocalisations, an area of particular interest to my own studies, I have to raise several points. The article raises the question of whether the key to Parrot Crossbill identification lies in the diagnostic recognition of its vocalisations. Well, this is certainly extensively documented so yes it is diagnostic. But as someone who primarily studies Parrot Crossbills here in Scotland I take major issue (and even offence) at the statement “ ..but few-if any- British birders will be well practised in this art”. As someone who can confidently (and accurately) classify crossbill calls to type or species by ear (where they are classified calls) I invite Mr. Stoddart to come out into the field with me some time to bear witness! Perhaps I wouldn't be regarded a 'birder' ? ! There is also another statement that perhaps shows a lack of understanding of the situation : “Following Robb’s elucidation of the different call types, it is clear that several of these at least are resident or reaching Britain, but a precise elucidation of their status remains a long way off”. Again, there are existing publications and articles which show distribution of Common Crossbill call types, origin of sampled birds using stable isotope techniques and there is work in the pipeline by myself and other workers concerning Common Crossbill call distribution and biometric classification.
A Crossbill being ringed and processed.......it is being done in UK, honest !
The last point, and arguably the most important, is that the article seriously underestimated the fact that there are already quite a lot of people in the UK sound recording crossbills, either seriously or casually. Two weeks ago I was sent a crossbill call recorded in Glenmore of a call 'type' that I hadn't seen before - sounded quite Scottishy but most likely a variant Parrot call (possibly even a bird call syncing to a Scottish mate - it looked like a blatant Parrot in the photo). This call was recorded by someone visiting the area on holiday from England. I receive many such communications and correspond with recordists as much as I can. Some of these correspondences are actually on this blog - I am not sure if Mr. Stoddart is aware of Loxia Fantastica, but 20 odd thousand other people are...........
New Scottish Flight Call......discovered by actually going out and looking !
So, whilst a potentially interesting opportunity to discuss the Loxia complex, for me the article was a bit of a disappointment and I say this as a fully paid subscriber to the magazine first and as a crossbill researcher second - it wasn't a case of "New Challenges" but rather "Old Hat" or "Business as usual" for some of us !
No, I haven't lost my mind, but rather a short discussion of phonetic crossbill calls ! I get many references in emails describing crossbill calls in the field using phonetic descriptions. Most existing phonetic descriptions in the crossbill literature, other than those by Magnus and Sound Approach, are errant or misleading in my opinion, particularly for Loxia scotica. They also may not reflect the 'current' evidence either. Actual audio recordings are preferable, however the following may offer some clues in separating Parrot Crossbill from Scottish Crossbill in the field.
Parrot Crossbill
Flight Calls are a distinct "Choop" or "Chup", emphasis on the "oo" or "u". These can also sound 'flutey' (a term often wrongly used to describe Scottish flight calls) due to a pronounced harmonic that is often present ( and which can make them appear on sonagrams like published Scottish flight calls). Birds may also give a more subdued "tip, tip, tip" call when in 'cryptic' flight (similar to those given by Bullfinch). They sometimes give these on release after being captured and ringed. These can appear as single descending streaks on sonagrams.
Excitement calls are a lower pitched (than flight calls) 'cluck' reminscent of a Blackbird alarm call, or more closely a Jackdaw (and between the two in 'pitch' and timbre). Aurally, Parrot excitement calls sound very similar to Common Crossbill EcA ( or "British" ala Sound Approach) and it takes much experience to separate them by ear in the field. In such cases a look at the bill should help diagnosis, but not always it would appear !
Scottish Crossbill
Recent evidence that I have collected and matched with biometrics shows intermediate billed (Scottish) give a 'di-syllabic' flight call sounding as a "t-reep" or sometimes a 'lispy' "th-reep". This is much higher pitched than Parrot flight call and in fact can not be confused aurally with ANY commonly occuring Loxia in the UK ! NB. THESE CALLS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED !
Scottish excitement calls are much more 'hollow' than Parrot Crossbill, and sound like a "tonk, tonk" or "tunk, tunk" - I think it sounds more stacatto (abbreviated) than Parrot and timbrally similar to wooden claves or woodblocks being struck (for any would be percussionists out there !). In the field it is VERY similar in tonal and timbral quality to Common Crossbill EcE or "glip" excitement call, especially if the harmonics are less pronounced ( which makes the call look very similar on a sonagram too !). This is a RARE call, by far my rarest recorded Crossbill Excitement call, suggesting this call, like the flight call, may be in a state of flux - time will tell.
One word of caution. Often people describe large-billed crossbills giving very 'deep calls'. In cases like this, assuming they are correct, they are describing Parrot Crossbills as both Scottish flight and excitement call are higher pitched than Parrot, and typically much more like those for Common Crossbill. It is worth reiterating that 90% of photos I am sent or see on the web of presumed 'Scottish Crossbills' are in fact actually Parrot Crossbills (in my experience) ! My advice: leave the camera at home, buy a mic and recorder, think about the above, and learn about the vocal dialects of the crossbills in your area.
As many readers may know House Sparrow numbers are in sharp decline and the species is now Red listed. In my own garden in central Aberdeen I used to get up to about 60 at once but here too the numbers seem to have decreased in the last few years, and there is maybe a population of around 40 to maybe 60 in the area. Last year I know that they had several broods so juvenile survival must be very poor, either that or the birds are dispersing locally. I have ringed about 90 House Sparrows (with little effort) and have so far only had two retraps, and reckon at the moment there are only two or three metal ringed birds visiting.
So, I have just started a RAS project organized and sanctioned through the BTO to study my local House Sparrow population - RAS stands for ' retrapping adults for survival'. By colour-ringing the birds and reading the combinations in the field it is possible to get 're-traps' without physically re-catching the birds. By ringing enough birds and by getting as many re-sightings of individuals as possible we can deduce the mortality within the population. Over and above this I am going to colour ring as many of the newly fledged juvenile birds as possible to try and work out some numbers for juvenile mortality (and the time scale of this), as well as measuring any localised dispersal. The presumption is that the Sparrows will continue to visit the feeders so should be seen again (if they are not predated or die from disease). Dispersal can be measured by checking feeders and Sparrow perching sites in the neighbourhood. Disease may also be a significant factor in mortality- I rescued a male House Sparrow in December last year suffering from avian botulism, but sadly this bird expired ( horrible stuff, I hope none of you have to deal with that). I should add that this bird was a mile from my house so not my feeding regime causing the problem.
The bird in the photo is an adult male A01, now getting the distictive black bill of the breeding season. I am using Interrex acrylic rings designed and manufactured in Poland. The rings are sealed with cement to safely secure them and to prevent removal and are fitted so they can't extend below on to the foot or above the tarsus 'knee' joint. They are easily read with binoculars on perching birds ( when facing the right way !) or can be image grabbed from digital photo sequences.
I know many birders don't rate Sparrow but I can't understand this - they are very 'happy' social finches, the males striking when in breeding plumage and I for one can't imagine the dull silence that would prevail if there were no House Sparrows chirping in my garden. Let's hope the streets and fields don't fall silent.
Contact details have been added in my profile on the right. This is for use of any genuine enquiries and for colleagues who have been unable to get me at my old email address eg. Ringers, crossbill sound recordists, birders in Northern Isles who are sighting and collecting crossbill call data, people with dead or injured crossbills, or people with sightings of colour-ringed crossbills.
Unfortunately, due to time constraints I can't respond to general enquiries about crossbills or location requests for Parrot and Scottish Crossbill. This includes identifications from photographs so please don't send any - sorry. Such emails will not be responded to so to avoid potential offence please don't waste time writing them ! I also can't spend time writing extensive emails advising on sound recording equipment - I recently did such an email to an RSPB researcher, took me an hour and I didn't even get a reply saying "thanks" so no more I am afraid. There is now plenty info on the web on this, but for those interested I have used the following since 2006:
Telinga Stereo DAT and Twin Science Microphones
Telinga Pro 6 Handle
Fostex FR2LE recorder
Fostex FR2 recorder
Sennheiser ME67 (occasionally)
Sennheiser ME62 (occasionally)
Sony MZNH900 Mini disc recorder (with Telinga Power Box)
Sony MZRH1 Mini disc recorder
Beyer Dynamic DT990 'phones
Raven Lite and Raven Pro Software
Adobe Audition Sound Editing Suite
Misc Leads and connectors from FEL Communications http://www.felmicamps.co.uk/ (excellent stuff btw guys)
Quite an arsenal when you see it written down.....
Sorry I can't respond to every enquiry but I do also have a job running my own business as well studying crossbills in any spare time !
I changed ISP provider some time ago, and although I thought all my mail was being forwarded, including from other sub-accounts, it has been brought to my attention recently that this is not the case ! So, if you have contacted me over the last year and have had no reply from me please accept my apologies, but I have not received your mail. Some have got through, however, so it appears sporadic depending on which route the mail is forwarded.
I will be putting updated contact details on here soon, possibly a specific hotmail account. However, I am very wary of doing this as I will no doubt receive requests for information on where to see Scottish and Parrot Crossbills, as well as general Spam ! I NEVER give out this specific information as these locations are sites where I or two of my colleagues in Grampian Ringing Group ring Crossbills and are thus very sensitive. So to avoid potential offence (by being ignored) please do not ask for this !
I can also be reached on (ahem!) BurdForum - I keep a very limited profile on there specifically to gather and respond to Waxwing colour-ring sightings on behalf of GRG. My handle is "Bombycilla". Please note I rarely log-in to pick up PM but the email address on there does appear to work. Now I have put this out, I will probably be banned again....... I also have limited presence on Twitter ( see column to the right).
Coming soon on LF, a short article on Crossbill Wing Moult:
Following on from the post several days ago I have now got some pics, audio and revelations to share about 'unusual' Bullfinches....or perhaps just 'Bullfinches'. Might be worth reading Mark Lewis' recent post on his 'funny' Bullfinch as well.
It is worth re-iterating here that not ALL Northern Bullfinches give trumpet calls - there is another type that sounds very like our British sub-species pileata.
Okay, here goes, lots of pics, sonograms and audio ( a first for Loxia Fantastica) !
Wednesday 22 December 2010
We managed to find 3 Bullfinches feeding on nettles at the same location a the previous day. They were all males, including this 1st Winter bird:
The photograph shows it has only replaced an innermost greater covert ( grey-white tipped contrasting with buffy tipped ones). Interestingly, like the bird yesterday ( most likey an adult following reappraisal) this specimen also has a white edge to P9 (outermost large) and the other adjacent PP are edged white below the emarginations. Notice that is has the 'stuck on' beak rather than the 'howker' that Northern birds would have ( however, the bird is puffed up which could diminish the proporations of the mandibles). There is a pale line beneath the eye.
Also present was this larger, bright male:
The alula looks like it might have grey-white edging so possibly and adult. The outer-most greater coverts, although not extensive in their white-grey tips, nevertheless appear more adult than short, buff juvenile ones ? Like the juvenile above, this specimen also has the white edging (quite extensive) to P9 and the adjacent inner PP are also white edged on the emarginations:
And here too:
That outer greater covert looks a bit dodgy in this pic ( but still too extensively grey-white tipped - possibly a retained adult feather ?). Alula looks very brown here as well - again adult retained or possibly juvenile ? If it is a 1st winter bird it has undergone an extensive post-juvenile moult (unlike the first bird above). Based on this and these other features I'm sticking with adult. Pale line under the eye with this one too - is this as a result of the feather tracts being displaced by the bird puffing up ? Mark's last post mentions primary projections - not sure how consistent that would be in the field but possibly useful enough to distiguish between pileata and pyrrhula combined when with other factors. On that basis, these two have short primary projections consistent with pileata.
The birds were not very vocal but I did manage to get some recordings (with Sennheiser ME67 and Fostex FR2). This recording has "tip" contact calls ( often given in flight or pre-flight), some "pee-u" calls and near the end a "buzzy" toot call ( not like Northern, but similarish):
A sonogram of the muted contact calls and a typical (?) pileata "pee-u" (timings don't necessarily match the events on the recordings):
Notice the strange component under the main descending note ?
From the same recording here is the muted contact call followed by a single buzzy whistle note ( appearing as a horizontal line on the sonogram below):
The other decent recording I got had pileata type contact calls:
On the sonogram these appeared to be two elements super-imposed over each other, but nevertheless giving the pileata descending structure:
So, a summary of birds seen this day (3 males):
All three had white edged primaries.
All had "stuck on" bills.
None had white on tail.
None gave 'trumpet' calls, or it seems the other 'Northern' type call ( which is similar to pileata but lower piched and more 'mournful' sounding - think Chaffinch v. Willow Warbler).
= none were pyrrhula !
The Pennington/Meek BB article is quite right to highlight some of these shared traits between pileata and pyrrhula, and what might otherwise on first reading seem like a conservative possibly non-commital paper actually turns out to be a very well researched, useful and accurate essay on the type. Get it if you don't already have it.
The big question is: was one of these birds from today the big 'tooting' male we saw on Tuesday ? Well, read on...
Thursday 23rd December
This started off with good intentions by taking the Remembird (except it switched itself off, without me knowing so no recordings - amatuerish, I know). Found 3 males at a different location and was able to ID the juvenile male as the same one as yesterday ( due to a plumage feature on the flank). These birds allowed me to get withing 4 feet of them feeding on nettles - very confiding, or just very cold and hungry to otherwise give a damn ?
Friday 24th December
After yesterday's er... equipment failure time for the nuclear option: Telinga Stereo DAT and FR2LE, the major crossbill gear. We found three birds at the same location I had them yesterday, but this time there was a juv female in tow with two males, so not the same 3 but possibly two of them.
Things started of promisingly, the juv begging for food and then these "sotto voce" toot calls (at 6 seconds on recording):
On the sonogram these appear as horizontal flat lines, have harmonics but unfortunately don't sound like Northern trumpet calls, being higher pitched and different in timbre:
Could these be the same sotto voce tooty "honking" calls we heard from the bird on Tuesday ? Possibly. Are these calls being heard by other observers and being confused for Northern trumpeters ? I don't know, but possibly.
However, the big male then called and this was pileata-like, but didn't sound quite right - on the sonogram directly underneath you can see the component under the main element, and again this call has harmonics un-like those presented and described in the Sound Approach for 'British':
Again, these have double elements (which make the call sound flutey) and the harmonics also give it a hollow timbre. These do not sound like any of the various Bullfinch calls I have been listening to on-line and on the CD's I have. I am not claiming it is a new type, merely commenting on the apparent variation that seems evident here.
So, where does this leave us all ? Well, for me, wishing I was out recording some crossbills ! Funnily enough I was surprised by how many of the Bullfinch calls were crossbill-like !There seems a lot of variation in Bullfinch calls considering I am recording a very small population within a stones throw of my house. I am >95% certain the Bullfinches I have observed and recorded over the last few days are British pileata types. The large male on Tuesday gave a call similar to those B1452 above - it was the only call we heard it give and it was very different from the bird "pee-u" ing next to it. With no recording of it to reference it is not a leap of imagination to deduce that on recall (from memory) it could be confused with those Northern trumpet calls, as it appeared to "toot" - I initially thought our bird on Tuesday sounded like the second type on CD2 track 95 of Sound Approach. Listening to a recording these sotto voce toot calls, assuming they are the same as the ones we heard (and didn't record), sound closer to the "second type" calls on the SA CD2 - track 98 but are quite different in timbre and pitch.
To sum up "All that glitters is not gold" and "All that 'toots' is not (necessarily) Northern" !
Would definitely appreciate feedback and comments and if anyone has heard British Bullfinch give these sotto voce toots or double-element variations to the main call. The former call seems intermittent though the bird above today gave several repetitions of the call. Could this call be being confused by other birders at trumpeters ? Given the 'overlap' of other features this may be a concern. Are they normal calls for pileata ?
It seems getting good field audio recordings may become a requirement for rarities commitees when considering Northern Bullfinch.......
.....I am glad I was conservative in my diagnosis on Tuesday !
Meantime, I think I'll stick to Crossbill vocalizations !
Merry Christmas to Everyone, hope it's a good one !
The very bad recent snow has, just like last year, considerably hampered Crossbill activities so birding has been confined to whatever is withinin walking distance of the house. My last couple of local walks have produced several Bullfinches and Bramblings which is always nice in the absence of Waxwings (or Crossbills).
Today on the Old Deeside Railway Line by our house we had a male Bullfinch (British) pileata type "pee-u"-ing and feeding on dead nettles. Further along a female Brambling was associating with Chaffinches near to someones garden feeders (why do they go to someone elses feeders and not mine ? !). A walk through Allenvale Cemetery produced not at lot other than Common Buzzard being mobbed by gulls and crows.
We decided to go home back down the railway line and I am glad we did. WARNING ! - there are some photos to follow and I must add that they are not great quality having been shot in poor light with a consumer compact, however, they do show the diagnostic features that I would like to discuss.
The first bird we saw on the way back was another small pileata British type male Bullfinch with a narrow wing bars and giving the soft Brit "pee-u" call. However, it was associating with this striking male, and the first thing that alerted me something was different was the size, very obvious seeing the two birds together - this male appeared massive compared to the male that was feeding nearby. I would liken it to a Common Crossbill v. Parrot Crossbill eg. a significant size difference. Here is the 'big' male:
All photos are as they came out of the camera - no contrast or colour editing has been carried out only a slight unsharp mask. This bird is clearly a 1st winter male - juvenile 'brownish' primary coverts and alula can be seen in the photo.The other thing that was noticeable in the field, and can be seen in the photo, was the fairly wide white wing bars on greater coverts, and that these were 'saw-toothed', as well as pinky breast and pale grey upperparts and white that extended well up on to the belly and a very white and extensive rump, all good indicators of Northern Bullfinch. The black 'cap' also appears not to extend so far back on to the nape, and consequently the grey nape appears more extensive. I am not sure if this is a feature of Northern Bullfinch but Mark Lewis photographed a bird that looks identical to our one at Girdleness - could it even be the same individual ? ! :
A much better photo than ours - hope it's okay 'borrowing' it Mark ! Possibly our one doesn't have quite as 'saw-toothed' greater coverts and there is a deeper black chin bib on ours, but the 'cap' looks the same and Mark's also looks like a 1st Winter male. Ours maybe has more grey around nape, though this could just be the angle ?
On getting home I dug out the comprehensive article on Northern Bullfinch invasion 2004 by Pennington and Meek and sat down to look at the photos that we had. For those that don't have the Pennington and Meek British Birds article (BB, January 2006, Vol.99) a good discussion of Northern Bullfinch features is available at http://www.abc.se/home/m4046/angarn/domherre/bullfinch.htm
White on primaries can also be good for Northern Bullfinch and ours seems to show this ( and see first photo above), click on photo to enlarge:
And here too ? :
Extensive white underparts may also indicate Northern Bullfinch, not sure if this would quailify, also check light pink breast:
Note the faint pale line under the black cap under the eye. Mark's bird also had this feature. The article I linked to above suggests this is a feature in some Northern birds - not sure of the source though. The white on the coverts doesn't look very wide as a result of the acute angle.
One more for luck:
It is also worth checking Martin Garner's fantastic blog that pushes back the frontiers of birding, and also Northern Bullfinch identification. Martin also has a recent article on Birdguides regarding Northern Bullfinch ID but I am no longer a subscriber (£40 a year !!) so I can't check it - maybe you can.
Calls
The bird (thankfully) did call, and this was very different from the soft "pee-u" that the (much smaller) bird it was accompanying gave. The big male gave a harsher, more "tooting" call in what we muso's would call sotto voce ("in an undertone"). I checked the recordings on the fantastic Sound Approach Book/CD when I got home a few minutes later and the calls our bird gave very closely matched those on track 95 CD2 - you should all have this book to have a listen, and if you don't you should ask Santa for it ! Trawling the internet I found calls HERE (for "trumpeting Northern Bullfinch") and these match what we heard today, if somewhat a bit more forced (than ours).
So, is this bird a Northern Bullfinch ? Well, like Mark I can only suggest it has some features and a call that seem consistent with pyrrhula, or at least a European Bullfinch eg. not British:
a) Large size, compared directly with smaller bird it was with.
b) Tooting call; very different from bird it was feeding with.
c) Wide wing bar with "sawtooth" edging on greater coverts; White edging on primaries.
d) Extensive white on underparts; extensive white rump.
e) Pink breast seems to match photos of the type.
Seeing the two Bullfinches together today this bird certainly had 'the presence' that pyrrhula is suggested as having and again we were able to hear the calls of both birds in the field, which were different, and thus compare them. I would certainly appreciate feedback, opinions on this bird ! Maybe it is just an 'inbetweeny' one ?
Tommorrow I will try to get better photos and more importantly decent sound recordings and will report back......maybe the results will be a surprise !
Apologies for paucity of posting lately - catching waxwings, catching up with work, catching colds yada yada...
After my revelatory "new" Scottish Crossbill call announcement, which to my dismay has not yet featured on the front of "Time" magazine, "New Scientist" or the Graham Norton Show, I thought it would be helpful if I posted an 'old' Scottish Crossbill call (click to enlarge):
This flight call was recorded at Glen Tanar NNR on 8th August 2004 with my then trusty Monocor Shotgun mic direct to Sony 710-MD. This call is very much per the literature (Summers et al, 2002) in that it matches frequency and structure for Fc3 = Scottish Crossbill. Note that it appears to show the all important trailing element behind the main "up-down" components of the first element. This is the feature that is generally used to categorize scotica. However, it is very different in visual spectogram appearance and in sound to the 'new' type one I posted on here ( a few posts down). The "new" call is higher piched and the second element is usually higher in energy than in the "old" one. It is as if the call has evolved ....or perhaps it is the crossbills that have evolved ? !
My view ? Well I am not for one minute saying that the example of the "old" Scottish Crossbill from Glen Tanar is not a 'Scottish Crossbill'....except that it seems consistent with birds that I have handled and sound recorded that would be classified as Parrot Crossbill, albeit at the lower spectrum of minimum bill depths (11.9 mm upwards). It also doesn't sound like the 'new' call types ( which appear to biometrically match scotica) - if we take away the second element, which possibly appears to be a harmonic trace of the main call, what we effectively have is a Parrot Crossbill call = Fc2, in fact many caught and released Parrots give a call that contains these type of 'traces':
Not all Parrot Fc's are inflected in the main downward component ! The harmonics here are admittedly much fainter than the Glen Tanar example above, but in terms of sound this is negligible (compared with the new Scottish call). In Parrot, most of the energy is in the main downward component of the first element and it is this, and the lower overall frequency, that avoid confusion with the Fc1 variant I call the "parroty" Fc1. Here is a Common Crossbill call, a Fc1 "Parroty" type that also contains the harmonic artefact:
In essence the'trace' element appears and sounds as an artefact not a feature of the call. In the 'new' Scottish call the second element cannot be a 'harmonic trace' because, if you look at it closely, it modulates whereas the intial element (that it would be tracing) doesn't:
This may be as a consequence of the bird using its double syrinx ? You can really see that these calls look nothing like anything else on this page ! I should add, that although I refer to these particular Scottish calls as 'new' I have actually recorded them since 2004, they are new in that they don't seem to have been described proviously and certainly not matched to biometrics. In the 'new' call the second element functions as a feature of the call, ideed it is the most important structure in giving the call its particular timbre and resonance. To me, this new call sounds completely different, and more importantly it matches the bios and ecology of Scottish Crossbill. However, some Common Crossbills here in Scotland may also give di-syllabic calls that closely resemble these 'new' Scotbill types - the clincher here seems to be that the second element is higher in frequency in relation to the first element with Scottish, though this is pers.obs based on in the hand bios. Time will tell. A final word on harmonics if you use fine microphones ( I use Telinga Stereo DAT, Twin Science and Sennheiser ME67) these harmonics are usually more apparent, especially at closer distances.
So, rather appropriately for this time of year "in with the new out with old" ? But remember folks, I am the one that thinks that the (Scottish) Parrot Crossbills are the REAL (relict) Scottish Crossbills, so I don't know where that leaves us with regards to "old" and "new" 'Scottish Crossbills' that currently occur in NE Scotland ? Perhaps they are emerging "species" or morphotypes (is that a real word) ?
Next up, a discussion (including audio examples !) of variant Common Crossbill Fc1's as this really needs addressing.
As most readers will know there has been a big influx of these fantastic winter vistors over the last few weeks with numbers soaring to the thousands and widespread distribution. As members of Grampian Ring Group we are pre-conditioned to target these birds as Aberdeen is the Waxwing capital of the UK and by colour-ringing the birds we get fantastic re-sightings that describe the movements of these berry munchers (without the need to re-trap them). Birders and photographers seem to like the winter challenge of checking birds for rings so this is a mutually beneficial activity.You could also add to this that Waxwings are simply fantastic birds to handle and work with, so you can see that we don't need to be asked !
I am perfectly placed as I live right next to a city cemetery that attracts Waxwings in numbers, and often can see hundreds wheeling about out of my back window, and occasionally in the trees at the bottom of the garden. Last year was a no go for me as there were no birds at the site, but I was hopeful this year given reports in advance from the Northern Isles and Scandanavia.
On Friday 29th October I speculatively set up a fixed net at a preferred feeding tree and caught a single Waxwing within two minutes, the first mainland caught and colour-ringed bird for the winter. This tree was literally 100 yards from my back door !
On Sunday 31st October myself and a couple of other Grampian ringers caught 43 Waxwings at the same tree, and other GRG members caught 15 elsewhere and 43 at Ballater the previous day, so quite a haul and great team effort !
Numbers of birds increased and by Tuesday 2nd November there were over 1000 at Kincorth, south of the river Dee. This was quite some sight especially when they were in the air ! With up to 400 visiting the cemetery efforts continued from Tuesday 2nd through to Saturday 5th with a further 49 Waxwings caught in the south of the city near my house. Undoubtedly, the highlight on Friday 5th was this Swedish ringed juvenile (which we subsequently colour-ringed Left Leg Orange-Lime-Orange):
This is apparently only the third Swedish control for the UK ( Riksmuseum have been contacted with catching details but I am still awaiting information as it appears a recently ringed bird). It was the first bird caught on a slow morning though we went on to catch another 16 and a very reddy-brown female Sparrowhawk ( that chased a Waxwing in to the net before it too got caught - both unharmed). This Swedish ringed bird, like approx 90% of the birds we have caught, was a juvenile in its first winter:
Sadly, on Thursday evening I was informed that this bird had been found dead on 10th November after striking a window about 3 miles North of where it was ringed. Waxwings are apparently notorious for flying in panic into windows and strikes are a common occurence, often resulting in death. We were all looking forward to receiving sightings of this bird as it made its way south over the winter and the fact that it is a Swedish ringed bird would have no doubt created more interest. Oh well, such is life.
We have continued to catch on a limited basis this week and managed another 9 birds over two mornings - much harder going as the flocks have dispersed and the birds change feeding trees. So my total (on my rings) is 102 from the overall current total of 205 birds GRG have caught to date which is a pretty good total. This should result in numerous reports of colour-ringed birds as they move through the country so do keep checking and report sightings to us via our site at: http://grampianringing.blogspot.com/.
Thanks to Euan, Callum, Walter and Derek (who came all the way up from Fife !) for help catching and processing birds over the last two weeks.
