5. Field Notes – it’s about the journey, not the destination!

Thanks for all the great feedback on the “exercises” I set in the previous two posts (both in the comments section below and via Facebook). Being willing to share your efforts with the world can be a scary thing – so I take my hat off to each of you!

Which brings me to an important point. It is very difficult (perhaps impossible?) to avoid comparing oneself to others. Many of us look enviously at the accomplished drawings of others, conclude that “I could never be that good” and give up, or at least be tempted to do so. But taking field notes is emphatically not the same as making art! The point is not to end up with a beautiful final product, but to learn through the process of disciplining yourself to describe what you see.

For example, I bet that every one of you who attempted the exercise of making field notes on the Eurasian Tree Sparrow in the previous post, no matter how “bad” your final effort was, now know what colour its legs are. Or whether its underparts are white, grey or brown. Or whether it has one wing bar or two. And I also bet that very few of you could have remembered those points before doing the exercise.

The reason is simple. Expression improves impression. The process of receiving information via your eyes or ears to your brain, and then retrieving and translating that information from your brain through your fingers or mouth to a page of a notebook or a recording device deepens the impression it leaves in your long-term memory. The key is that is a conscious cognitive process of seeing, noticing, articulating.

‘Before’ sketch from memory; ‘After’ sketch with reference to photos and videos. Kang Woei Ong.

Here’s an example. Woei Ong is a very accomplished young artist who has trained himself to notice details through the discipline of regular sketching (so DON’T COMPARE!). His sketch from memory has an amazing amount of detail (much more that mine). Even so, there are significant ‘gaps’ where even his memory failed him (e.g. around the eye, the underparts, the wings). Now, as a result of having made notes from a “field observation” (online!), his memory of what a Tree Sparrow looks like will have improved markedly.

Making a sketch is probably the most time-efficient way of making notes. Even if it’s a really bad sketch, as long as it’s honest (ie you don’t try to “fill in” bits after the bird has flown and you have forgotten what you saw), it will likely store and convey more information than written notes alone.

At this point I can hear a chorus of “But I can’t draw!” What I understand from that is “I don’t draw.” It’s like when I say, “I can’t cook”. What it really means is “I don’t cook”. True, you may not be the world’s greatest artist, but even the world’s greatest artist was not the world’s greatest artist when they started.

Can’t see any date, but I was probably about 16 years old when I did these field sketches. These are quite basic, and I include them as an encouragement to those of you who say “I can’t draw!”

I said in a previous post that I am not advocating going back to carrying a notebook and pencil around every time we go birding. I’d be a hypocrite to say that, as I don’t! But, I do think it is a very useful to sometimes put the camera down and concentrate on observing a bird, trying to notice and describe what you see. It will not only help you get to know that particular species better, it will improve your observational skills in general.

Chris Gibbins and I were discussing this topic recently and he made an astute analogy (as a professor in a leading UK university, he is well qualified to make it). He said “Some students seem to want to get the degree without doing the work. And it’s difficult to conceive a way of doing that without devaluing the degree. In the same way, it’s difficult to conceive of a way for people to become really proficient at identifying birds without doing the hard work of taking field notes. You can’t have the end-product without the hard work.”

Looking back over almost 50 years of birding and being around birders, I’ve been fortunate to meet many really ‘expert’ birders. I can’t think of a single one who didn’t at some point in their development as a birder make a regular practice of taking field notes. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true. I have met and still meet people who have been birding for many decades and still make elementary errors in identification, because they have never trained themselves in this way. Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but I’m talking about people who consistently misidentify birds which, quite honestly, they should know, after all their years of experience. You can’t get the degree without doing the work.

This time of enforced ‘backyard birding’ might be the ideal time to start (or to restart!) trying to take field notes. After all, there’s a limit to how many photos you want to take of bulbuls and sparrows, etc, isn’t there? So, this post’s challenge for you is to take some time in the next few days to sit down in the backyard with a pen or pencil and a piece of paper or sketch book (hint – the bigger the better – most people make the mistake of making sketches which are far too small) and your binoculars (or just bare eyes) and try to make some notes and sketches of one or more birds. Don’t forget to include aspects such as their behaviour, the sounds they make, their habitat, etc.

Feel free to share what you learned through the process.

4. Field Notes – making yourself look at what you see!

When I start talking about field notes, some of you will groan inwardly, while others (possibly older!) will applaud loudly! Since I don’t really want to “preach to the choir”, let me begin by saying that I am not advocating a return to a bygone age where we all start carrying field notebooks and pencils around with us (though some of us might want to do that, and that is definitely OK!).

The most compelling argument I know for attempting to take field notes is that the process forces you to really look at what you see! You may say, “But I already look at what I see!”

So, let’s try a little experiment. I’m assuming you see Eurasian Tree Sparrows almost daily. So you know what they look like, right? (If you live somewhere where ETS are not common, choose another really common species where you are, and try to write a description of it or draw it from memory).

1. Print out a copy of the image below.
2. Without looking at any references or actual live birds, fill in as much as you can, either sketching or using written notes. The aim is not to produce a work of art, but to add as much detail on colours, blocks of colour, patterns etc. as you can, from memory.
3. Once you’ve done as much as you can, click on this link and see what you missed.
4. If you’re really keen, print another copy of the outline, and try to take field notes while watching the video (or, even better, a live bird).
5. Have fun! And let me know what you learned from the experiment in the comments below.

3. Documenting a record – it’s like painting a picture

When I think of documenting a record, the image which comes to my mind is one of those hilarious and much-caricatured police reports – “The suspect was observed proceeding in a westerly direction” (best read in a nasal voice!), or equally hilarious ‘fotofit pictures‘.

Nonetheless, what you, the witness, sorry, the observer, are trying to do is to recreate, as much as you can, a “picture” of what you saw, so that the reviewer can confidently agree with you.

So, back to the examples in the last post. What sort of mental picture does each description give you?

As Gretchen wrote in her response, descriptions 1,4 and 5 are helpful in that they give us some clue what the observer saw. The rest really don’t provide any useful information at all. Yet examples such as 2, 3, 6 and 7 are overwhelmingly the commonest kind of “description” which eBird reviewers encounter in Malaysia.

So, what makes a good short description?

Description 1 (above) tells us what kind of bird it was (a cuckooshrike), its size (large) and the diagnostic details noted (grey, barred belly, pale iris). This eliminates all other possible confusion species which occur in Malaysia.

Description 5 gives us habitat (rubbish dump near a road), relative size compared to other species present (smaller than other crows), diagnostic details (dull black with pale nape and upper back) and observer’s previous experience of the species (have seen this species many times in KL). This description easily eliminates other possible crow species.

Description 4 is slightly less conclusive. It gives us behavioural details (with other terns) and one diagnostic detail (distinctive orange bill). By checking the rest of the checklist, we can see what the other tern species present were. Of the species which occur in Malaysia, Lesser Crested is unique in having an orange bill, but sometimes perceptions of colour can be “off”, so it would have been helpful to have a bit more detail on this one.

Getting Technical

Description 1 & 5 used some ‘technical terms’ to describe where blocks of colour were on the birds – belly, nape, upper back. Just as in any description, becoming familiar with some technical terms will greatly enhance our ability to describe a bird well. Terms such as head, back, wings, upperparts, underparts, tail, eye, legs and bill are simple terms, which should be part of most people’s vocabulary, that describe parts of a bird.

For each of these, there are various aspects which can be described – including colour, pattern, size, length, shape, etc. And, bear in mind that you want to make clear why it was this species and not another, similar one, so especially focus on the ‘diagnostic details’.

So, have a go yourself. Imagine that you saw this but did not get a photograph. Now you are submitting the record to eBird and it asks you to supply some documentation. Try writing a short description of the Lesser Crested Tern on the left in comparison with the Greater Crested Tern on the right. Click on the photo to enlarge it, and then write down some brief descriptive notes. Post your description in the answers below. I won’t be a harsh critic, I promise!

2. Documenting a Noteworthy Record

Documentation of a noteworthy record, or “writing a description” as it used to be known, is separate from the skill of writing field notes, but closely related.

I’ll look more at the nitty-gritty of making good field notes in a separate post. In this one, I will concentrate on what makes a good “description” or documentation of a noteworthy record.

At the end of the last post, I asked, if you were in the position of a reviewer who is attempting to validate other people’s observations, what questions you would want to ask and have answered.

Here are some of the answers you gave: Date, location, features of bird, behaviour, calls, habitat, interaction with other birds, type of optic used, distance from birds, familiarity or previous experiences with the species, time of observation and number of birds of that species seen.

All these questions will hopefully uncover information to help the person validating the record build up a clear picture in his or her mind of what you observed. Most Rare Bird Record forms will have such questions in them.

But the most basic question every reviewer wants to answer is: Can I be confident that this person really saw/heard what they think they saw/heard? And in particular: Can I be confident that they saw/heard that species and not a similar but commoner species?

All other questions (such as those given above) are attempts to build a case to answer this basic question. Here is part of the standard eBird Reviewer’s email template sent to observers requesting further information:

For an unusual species, could you please edit your checklist to add field notes or a description of the bird in question and other information about how you identified this species? Essential things to cover include size, shape, color pattern, behavior, vocalizations (if heard), and habitat. Notes on how similar species were eliminated are especially important. Photos and audio recordings are the best possible supporting information, so if you do have those please do upload them to your checklist.

It follows that a good description does not necessarily need to be long. It just needs to show that a) the observer is aware of the potential pitfalls of similar, commoner species, and b) has seen enough to discount them.

How detailed a description needs to be will depend on a few factors, such as:

1. How rare the claimed species is
2. How similar it is to other species
3. The amount of diagnostic details on photos and/or audio recordings obtained

For most “description species” on eBird, if there are no photographs or audio recordings, a sentence or two which highlight the diagnostic features observed will be sufficient. These species are mostly ‘scarce’ rather than ‘rare’, and the reviewer just wants to be sure that the observer has definitively ‘eliminated’ commoner species.

Here are 7 examples of supporting notes provided on eBird of ‘locally scarce’ species seen in Malaysia. In each case, the locality and date given were appropriate to the claimed identification. Below, identify which are “good” examples of supporting notes (in the black boxes) and which are not, and say why.

1. Field Notes – Obsolete Nicety or Absolute Necessity?

1. These days, digital cameras are more affordable, more available and of higher quality than ever before.
2. Many people with an interest in birds buy a camera before they buy a pair of binoculars.
3. A camera can document in a fraction of a second more than most of us could hope to describe in any amount of words or field sketches.

So, is the ability to write “field notes” no longer necessary?

A Disclaimer: It is not the intention of this post to say that you can only be a birder if you take field notes. Of course, one can enjoy watching birds without taking field notes.

However…

1. The discipline of training yourself to observe and note what you see will likely make you a better birder. The opposite is also true. If you don’t train yourself to observe well, years of experience will not necessarily result in improvement of identification skill.
2. The eyes and ears notice (or can be trained to notice) more than a camera or microphone can record. Photographs and sound recordings do not replace notes, but supplement them.
3. If you want your observations to benefit others, the birds themselves and the planet, you will need to learn how to document your observations so that they can be validated by someone else who did not see or hear what you did. Sometimes photographs and/or audio recordings alone will not be sufficient.

Why am I writing this post?

As someone who has been involved in assessing/reviewing/validating other people’s records for many years, I have realised that:

1. Many correctly-identified observations are ‘unacceptable’ because of inadequate documentation. I hate to discard a record, not because I believe the person misidentified the species, but because they did not present enough evidence of what they saw. Relatively few people know how to write a good description of what they observe.
2. Everyone, including myself, makes mistakes. Nevertheless, a shockingly large number of photographed or sound recorded observations are misidentified, because observers have not observed “well” what they saw.

But why does it matter?

You may be thinking, why does it matter whether other people agree with my identification or not? Why should someone else “validate” what I saw?

It doesn’t matter at all if all you want to do is get pleasure from watching birds, as a purely self-oriented pursuit.

But if you want to give something back by contributing your observations to a larger database, then ‘external validation’ is what establishes scientific credibility.

Birdwatchers have always recognised the importance of pooling their observations. Establishing the ‘status’ of bird populations in any given area is one of the foundations upon which conservation and protection measures can be built. How else can we know which areas and species should be priorities for finite resources allocated to conserving the natural environment? Very few bird books could be written without the meticulous and regular contribution of thousands of observers to a central pool of data.

In our generation, more than any other, bird populations and the habitats upon which they depend are under threat. In such a context, as one well-known conservationist has said, “Failure to contribute one’s observations to a regional or national database borders on the immoral.”

So – assuming that we agree that some form of external review process is necessary to maintain accuracy and credibility of bird observations – here’s a question for you.

If you were a reviewer of other people’s records (or maybe you already are one), what questions would you want to ask about someone’s observation? Please write down your suggestions in the comments section below this post.

The last 15 years – the Highlights

It’s Day ?? (lost count already!) of the COVID19 Lockdown, so, to amuse myself, and to relive memories of some happier times, I’ve decided to update a post I first wrote in 2014 looking at the best birds I’ve found, or been involved in the finding of, over the years.

Finding ‘rarities’ is not what every birder lives for, but for many of us, it’s what keeps us going out, come rain or shine. And, when it happens, there’s little that compares with the adrenaline rush of “finding a big one”. The ultimate is to find a “national first” – a species never previously recorded in the country. In well-birded countries like the UK and the US, it’s a heady experience that few ever savour. Here in Malaysia, with a relatively far smaller population of birders, the odds are higher.

Nowadays, it’s possible to “find a national first” without ever leaving your living room, if you scan enough photos on Facebook. But this post will be confined to birds actually found in the field, starting with one way back in 2006…

2006 Small Buttonquail. Alamander Estate, Kulim, Kedah. 10 July 2006

This was an odd record in every way. The finding of it was odd, for a start. I was on my way home from a birding trip when I saw a large flock of Oriental Pratincoles and Brown-backed Needletails feeding on emergent winged ants. I pulled over and walked across a large area of bare earth which had been cleared to make way for a housing estate. On my way back from observing the needletails and pratincoles, I flushed a tiny buttonquail, which I eventually managed to photograph. I had no idea what it could be at the time, but I eventually concluded, after consulting my Robson, that it must be a Small Buttonquail, formerly known by a name so odd it was a dream-bird of mine in my youth – Andalusian Hemipode! Oddest of all was its presence in northern Peninsular Malaysia. Robson records that it is a ‘scarce to local resident’ no closer than Central Thailand, but that it is ‘subject to some movements’. Subsequent observations at the site found at least 4 birds to be present, and breeding was noted, before the last record on 2 July 2008, after which the habitat became unsuitable. Subsequently, Small Buttonquail has been found to be a sparse but widespread resident of Peninsular Malaysia, with additional records from Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Perak and Selangor.

2007 Rosy Minivet. Bintang Hijau Forest Reserve, Perak. 1 January 2007

The year 2007 was barely 10 hours old when Tan Choo Eng and I set eyes on a strange minivet with pale yellow underparts, which we identified as a Rosy Minivet, in a flock of Ashy Minivets, as we birded around a logging camp close to the Thai border. The flock moved rapidly and we had a hard time keeping the bird in sight long enough to get photos and notice salient details. We relocated the flock and the bird later in the day, and Choo Eng came back and photographed a male at the same site on 11 Feb. A fuller account of our visit is here, and a here’s a better photo of the original bird by Choo Eng.

There have subsequently been single records from Perlis and Pulau Pinang.

2008 – a blank year!

At least as far as national firsts was concerned. However, this was compensated for somewhat by publishing, with Peter Kennerley, the first paper on a mysterious bird which we began by calling White-faced Plover. The paper, Field characteristics and distribution of an overlooked Charadrius plover from South-East Asia, appeared in BirdingASIA 9. Later, we tried to rename it Swinhoe’s Plover in recognition of the taxon’s original discoverer, Robert Swinhoe (in 1870!), but it looks like the original name stuck.

The most recently-published study of the taxon  concludes that White-faced Plover is a valid species, and it is recognised as such by HBW and BirdLife, with a threat listing of DD (Data Deficient).

2009 Pied Avocet. Kampung Buntal, Sarawak. 10 Jan 2009

This is one first I cannot truly claim to have found – that honour goes to Daniel Kong, who excitedly gestured to me to take look through his scope when I arrived at Kampung Buntal at the beginning of the field component of a wader workshop. I found myself looking at a familiar bird in an unfamiliar setting! Pied Avocets are ‘ten a penny’ back in the UK where I grew up, but seeing one on the windswept coast of north Borneo in the company of a Malaysian Plover was truly exciting! The bird stayed for one more day. Since then, there have been a few more records, in Sabah. Peninsular Malaysia still awaits its first.

2010 Blyth’s Pipit. Chuping, Perlis. 7 Jan 2010

I nearly missed this one altogether! Choo Eng, Hakim and I were driving slowly along a track in light rain at Chuping with the windows down when we heard an unfamilar call. We stopped and I looked back in the direction from which the call came and saw this pipit. I took about half a dozen shots, but the bird didn’t strike me as being anything other than a Paddyfield Pipit (I could make excuses, like I was craning my neck at an awkward angle, and looking through the camera viewfinder etc!). The bird then flew off, making a very Paddyfield Pipit-like call (to my ears). Dismissing this bird as not being the originator of the odd call, I got out of the car and wandered about for a while in the rain, flushing it several more times, but hearing nothing other than what I took to be Paddyfield Pipit calls. Eventaully I got back in the car and we drove on. It wasn’t till a couple of weeks later when I was reviewing my photos on the computer monitor that I realized that the bird did not really resemble a Paddyfield Pipit at all! Full details of the differences are here. Although I was glad to have clinched this first, I also kicked myself for not realizing what I was seeing at the time, thereby missing a great opportunity to study the bird at more length. We went back to look for it later but were unsuccessful. Fortunately, I got a second chance at this one (see below).

2010 Short-tailed Shearwater. At sea, off Tanjung Dawai, Kedah. 10 May 2010.

In contrast to the other firsts, which were generally unforeseen, this was a more expected but nonetheless satisfying end to a birding conundrum that Choo Eng and I had been working out for a few years. Ever since we had started hitching rides on the local anchovy boats going out from Tanjung Dawai, the fishermen had been telling us about ‘little black ducks’ that arrive in offshore waters in May and June most years.

We had figured out what they must be, but they had eluded us until I took this solo trip, when I saw several ‘ducks’ and was able to confirm their identity as Short-tailed Shearwaters at last. Since then, we’ve been able to confirm that they are annual migrants occurring in small numbers off the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia in May-June.

2011 Little Gull. At sea, off Tanjung Dawai, Kedah. 13 Oct 2011.

If the Short-tailed Shearwaters were expected, this little beauty certainly wasn’t! I wouldn’t have even gone on the boat that day had not Gerry Brett, visiting from Thailand, asked me to take him out. I was thinking I might be able to show Gerry a few hundred terns and possibly a Whale Shark if we were lucky (we were!), but this apparition in my bins in late afternoon was so ‘impossible’ that, even though I recognized it immediately, I struggled to put a name to it! Our views were brief but conclusive, and one minute of magic had suddenly made the whole day worthwhile! This was not only a first for Malaysia, but just the second for the whole of South-east Asia, and probably the rarest of the rarities I’ve found so far.

2012 Citrine Wagtail. Chuping, Perlis. 23 Jan 2012

This was almost a Blyth’s Pipit anniversary visit. Same place, same month, but another year on and another first for Malaysia! On our drive north, Hakim and I talked about the possibility of finding one of these. On arrival, we came across a field full of Eastern Yellow Wagtails and set about unearthing a Citrine. This one didn’t give itself up too easily, and it was a long time before we were confident that this extremely worn individual was indeed what we were hoping it would be! A long overdue and rather expected addition to the national list. More photos and a longer account here. There have been one or two birds seen since this one.

2013 Oriental Skylark, Chuping, Perlis. 21 Nov 2013

I left it rather late in the year to nab this national first, and again, it was largely due to the help of Choo Eng. Chuping was once again the venue. I had spotted an unidentified lark in a large ploughed field, but it required calling in the cavalry, in the form of Choo Eng, James Ooi and Kit Wan, to relocate not one, but three of the beasts, and identify them, on further scrutiny and hearing of the flight call, as Oriental Skylarks! I found another one at the same site on 10 Jan 2015, but there have been none since.

2014 Brahminy Starling, Chuping, Perlis. 29 Dec 2014

If my national first in 2013 was late, this one was almost literally last minute! As I drove along a rough track at Chuping I found myself confronted by a bird whose colour scheme I did not immediately recognize. A quick look through the bins solved the mystery – a Brahminy Starling. Taking a couple of shots through the windscreen for insurance, I then slowly tried to manoeuvre myself into position for a better shot. The bird was extremely wary however, and flew off and over some tall grass out of sight. As the species was on Category D of the Malaysian list, I was not too bothered about trying to refind the bird. This proved a mistake, as I later found, from reading Wells and in conversation with fellow birders in Thailand, that it is more likely to have been a genuine vagrant, especially as one turned up in Petchaburi Province on 24 Dec 2014. Luckily it hung around into 2015 and I was able to get better views, and it was eventually accepted onto Cat A. Later that year, there was a second bird, a juvenile, also at Chuping.

2015 Willow Warbler, Pulau Mantanani, Sabah. 23 October 2015

In 2015 I attempted a Malaysia Big Year, and 23 October sticks in my mind not only because I reached 600 species on that day, but also because Mike Turnbull, Yann Muzika and I found a Willow Warbler – not only a national first but only the second or third record for all of South-east Asia.

Mike, Yann and I had decided to visit the island for a few days at the end of a Sabah tour in the hope of finding rarities. We were working the scrubby bushes around the football field when Mike called our attention to a warbler which had just emerged into some dead branches at the edge of a bush. It was immediately obviously something new, and we cycled through a couple of possibilities before quite quickly realising we were looking at…a Willow Warbler! This is a species all of us are familiar with from Europe, but it was not exactly what we were expecting to see in Borneo! The bird sat motionless, other than repeatedly flicking its tail, as we edged around to get a better angle. As we did so, a Japanese Sparrowhawk made a dash for the warbler and pulled out at the last moment as it became aware of us. The warbler froze, apparently in shock, for several minutes, enabling us to get lots of photos before it eventually flew off to an adjoining bush. We took a few moments to compare notes and revel in the rush of adrenaline at having found a ‘mega’ rarity, reflecting that our attention had probably also saved the Willow Warbler’s life!

There’s not been one since, but that trip proved to be the catalyst for further autumn pilgrimages to the island, in 2018 and 2019 (see below).

2016 – a blank year!

2016 was a bit of a hangover after my Big Year exertions. I only submitted 97 checklists to eBird the whole year, compared to 386 the previous year, and so perhaps it wasn’t surprising that I didn’t find any outstanding rarities.

2017 – another blank year

Blank as far as “firsts” were concerned. However, I did manage a national second – and my second Blyth’s Pipit. The circumstances were amazingly similar to the first. Again I was in my car, driving slowly with the windows down. Again I heard an unfamiliar call, stopped and located the caller. This time the location was Malim Nawar, Perak, and the date, 28 Jan. I wasn’t going to make the same mistake twice, so I made sure I grilled the calling bird thoroughly, and as I did so, was delighted to discover that I was looking at a stunning Blyth’s Pipit. The bird had in fact been photographed on 2 Jan, and it remained faithful to the site until at least 7 Apr, enabling many people to familiarise themselves with this subtle and beautiful pipit, and for us to observe it complete its moult before departure.

Maybe one reason I didn’t manage to find a national first that year was that I spent 6 months of it out of the country. Our family did spend a memorable month in Ireland and Northern Ireland in September, which was our first visit to the “Emerald Isle”. No national firsts, but I did come across a bevy of nice American waterbirds, including four in five days!

The first was a Long-billed Dowitcher, which I found at Bannow Bay, Wexford on 28 Aug.

Tacumshin, Wexford, is a location name familiar to wader watchers across the UK, mostly from the regularity with which it features in Rarity Reports. It had long been my ambition to visit, and Killian Mullarney had very kindly offered to show me round. Just the next day, we were walking back from having spent an enjoyable afternoon there when a long-winged wader flew over our heads, calling. Killian immediately called it as a “Lesser Goldie”, and, once it had pitched down on the far side, scope views confirmed that it was a lovely adult American Golden Plover. Barely two minutes later, it took flight, climbed high into the sky, and was gone!

The following day, the family and I were driving to a pub for lunch when we crossed a stream leading out onto the beach at Duncannon. Though it was a little hard to pull the car off the narrow road, the stream looked to have potential, and I was on a roll, so we risked it, and were rewarded by a beautiful juvenile Pectoral Sandpiper feeding on the wrack with several White Wagtails!

Heady days! To cap it all off, just a couple of days later I was watching the dowitcher again when I got a call from Killian at Tacumshin to say he was watching a Semipalmated Sandpiper. As I was on my way, he called again to say that a Baird’s Sandpiper had now joined it! Having got me onto both birds, Killian had to leave, and I was left to savour the scene all to myself. As I was enjoying the Baird’s Sandpiper, it was joined by a second, more richly-coloured bird – my 4th self-found American wader in 5 days!

2018 Eastern Spot-billed Duck, Tempasuk, Sabah. 1 November 2018

2018 saw an idea conceived in 2015 finally come to fruition – a team of 6 of us headed to Pulau Mantanani specifically to look for migrants and rarities. Before we even set foot on the island, we (Chin Choong Liung, Khoo Swee Seng, Carol Ho, Rafi Kudus, Chris Gibbins and I) found a national first in the form of a male Eastern Spot-billed Duck, at Tempasuk Plain, on 1 Nov. Sadly for the many Sabahan birders who searched for it, it was never seen again … or was it? A pair turned up at Tempasuk in November 2019, so perhaps he came back and brought a friend?

Japanese Night-Heron, Pulau Mantanani, 5-6 November 2018

My initial views of this bird at a smelly refuse tip enabled me to identify it only as a subadult Gorsachius sp.

Over lunch, the team decided that there was a good chance that the bird might come back, so Chris, Rafi and myself staked out the rubbish dump in the afternoon. After we had endured the stench and mosquitoes for some time, Chris spotted the bird as it cautiously emerged from the undergrowth, and decent photos were obtained.

In the evening, we pored over the several reference books we had brought but were unsuccessful in reaching a firm conclusion, partly because we were confused by the bird’s age.  The enigma was solved by Rafi very early the next morning. Unable to sleep, he looked though the books again, and realised that the reason we had not been able to find any pictures of “2^nd year plumage” is because it doesn’t exist! Birds moult from juvenile to adult-like plumage in their second year. Once it became clear that our bird was a juvenile, and that the juvenile plumages of Japanese and Malayan are quite distinct, it became a simple matter to identify the bird as a juvenile Japanese Night-Heron. Liung, Seng and Carol had failed to see the bird well the previous day, so returned to the site on the morning of the 6^th with fresh urgency, and they had excellent views of the bird despite the grim viewing conditions provided by the stench and mosquitoes! We left the island that afternoon; the bird could well have stayed longer.

Although there had been previous records from Brunei, we thought at the time that this was a first record for Malaysia. Later we found photos of an adult Japanese Night Heron from the Crocker Range on eBird, taken in 2014, so it became the second!

2019 Pale-legged Leaf Warbler, Perlis State Park. 19 Feb 2019

Pale-legged Leaf Warbler has had a convoluted history on the Malaysian list. For years, it was regarded as a scarce migrant and winter visitor, especially to the northern states of the Peninsula. Then, following the split of this species and a sister taxon, Sakhalin Leaf Warbler, it was removed from the national list, as there were no records with sufficient evidence to unequivocally eliminate Sakhalin.

This was the situation when James Eaton and I were visiting Perlis State Park to look at Iole bulbuls. Initially, we heard and saw a Sakhalin Leaf Warbler, and then James picked up a higher-pitched call which was mostly outside my diminishing hearing range. We were able to locate the bird and James recorded its call. It was then a simple matter of pulling his laptop out of the car, transferring the recording onto it, making a sonograph and checking the pitch of the call! This was done in a matter of minutes, and the sonograph clearly showed that the call was outside the pitch range of Sakhalin and within that of Pale-legged. Sakhalin produces a single, sharp but slightly flat call between 4.5-5.2kHz, while Pale-legged produces a higher-pitched call, more of a tink, between 5.6-5.9kHz.
Later that day, we found another nearby, and the following day, still another in Kedah.

We didn’t get any photos of the birds – they’re indistinguishable from Sakhalin in physical appearance anyway! The records are still under assessment by the MNS BCC Records Committee at the time of writing, but if accepted, they would be a first for Malaysia.

Woolly-necked Stork, Sungai Balang, Johor. 29 Dec 2019.

Another late, late show for the year! I was in Melaka for a family New Year get-together, and took the opportunity to visit the area of paddy fields known as Sungai Balang, which had been turning up some good birds recently.

All was fairly quiet till just after 10am, when a crane-like bird flew in from the coast and pitched down in some distant fields. By that time, I had identified it, somewhat incredulously, as a Woolly-necked Stork – not actually a first for Malaysia, but the first since before the 1930s!

I was able to watch it for the next 2.5 hours as it fed furiously in the wake of a tractor ploughing a field, in  company of about 100 Lesser Adjutants. Only one other birder was on site, and I was able to point the bird out to him. Others immediately set out from as far away as KL, but sadly, the bird took flight at about 12.30pm and was never seen again.

2020 Booted Warbler, Langkap, Perak. 12 Feb 2020

This year I was fortunate in being able to get the monkey off my back early on. I was actually on my way home from an extreme twitch –  from Penang – to see two Spotted Redshanks way down in southern Pahang. Langkap had been on my radar for a few weeks, as it was pulling in good numbers of Aquila eagles, so I decided to break journey there on my way back north.

At 11 am, I had been sat in my car, photographing a male Siberian Stonechat. Having had my fill of the stonechat, I started the car and began to drive slowly along a bund between two paddy fields, scanning the irrigation ditch on my right for signs of life. Almost immediately, within a few metres of starting, I caught sight of a pale brown bird, smaller than a shrike, moving around in sparse low scrub on the opposite bank of the ditch. With the engine still running, I lifted my binoculars to look at it, and immediately realized that I had something unusual. The bird was a pale, milky tea-coloured warbler, paler than any of the local species. I switched off my engine and immediately moved to my camera.

My first thought was that the bird was a Booted Warbler, and, as I looked through my viewfinder, what I could see confirmed my initial suspicions. The bird’s behaviour was not furtive, so after obtaining some photos I cautiously moved the car closer. It appeared unconcerned by the approach of my vehicle, and I continued to obtain more photos. Since the bird seemed well settled in its patch of vegetation, once I had what I considered a sufficient number of photos, I decided to alert other birders who might want to see the bird. Having sent the message, I looked up to find that the bird had disappeared. Not overly concerned, I started the car and began driving slowly along the bund. I quickly refound the bird, but it was flying along the ditch, and disappeared where three small oil palms were growing on the bank. This proved to be the last anyone saw of it, much to the frustration of those who came from as far away as Melaka to search for it.

This was a first record for Malaysia, and the third for South-east Asia after records in recent years in Singapore and Thailand. Hopefully, it won’t be long before another shows up.

Although I’ve said that these birds and the memories of them are the “highlights” of the last 15 years, there have been many other highlights too. The great thing about birding, as Forrest Gump might have said, is “Birding is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get!” But they’re all good!

Colour leg rings unlock migration mysteries

Some birders and photographers view coloured bands on birds’ legs as an unwelcome piece of extra ‘bling’ which can spoil a good photo, or perhaps even interfere with the bird’s well-being.

This negative perception is unfortunate, as birders and photographers have a vital role to play in ensuring that those bands provide invaluable information about the birds and the habitats and sites they utilise, by reporting them whenever they see them.

Here’s a case in point. During my visits to a few sites in southern Ireland in  August and September, I saw an unusually high number of ‘colour-ringed’ birds. I made a point of photographing them as best I could (digiscoping is a huge help), and then looked around for who to report them to.

I was alerted to the website European Colour Ring Birding, and from that link, got to know Pete Potts, who was a huge help in tracking down the origins of my colour-ringed birds. Here’s what I’ve learned so far, and it’s been quite an eye-opener.

Blue star = Roscarberry Bay, Co Cork; Red star = Tacumshin and Bannow Bay, Co Wexford; yellow spot = original ringing site; blue line = link between site of origin and site of my observations

1. on map

Eurasian Oystercatcher, Roscarberry, 5 Sep 2017.

Ringed as an adult while incubating on 31 May 2017 at Auðsholt, Ölfus, south-west Iceland (see rough route on the map above).

2. on map

Little Egret, Roscarberry, 5 Sep 2017.

Little Egret ‘DB’ was ringed as a nestling at a colony in Ardfry, Galway, Ireland on 29 May 2009, one of three ringed in a brood of three by John Lusby and Chris Benson. Despite the fact that this bird is now over 8 years old, this is the first reported sighting of this bird since it was ringed.

3. on map

Juvenile Lesser Black-backed Gull, Roscarberry, 5 Sep 2017

23E:C was ringed as a chick  on Horse Isle, Ardrossan, Ayrshire, Scotland, on 26 June 17. This is the first report since ringing.

4. on map

Eurasian Curlew, Roscarberry, 5 Sep 2017.

I received the following helpful data on this bird from Robin Ward. The bird, an adult male (born prior to 2015), was one of 20 ringed on 16^th January 2016 on Wensley Ings, Wensleydale, North Yorkshire (SE0888).  Eighteen of these birds were re-sighted during last winter in Wensleydale.  ‘NO RW’  (Niger over Orange, Red over White) is one of the two birds that wasn’t until now re-sighted after marking, presumably because it has wintered in Ireland.

A large proportion of Curlew that breed in the Pennines winter in Ireland.  Autumn and wintering populations in northern Britain, originate from breeding grounds in Scandinavia (mostly Finland and Sweden), although some local breeders are involved.  Two of the Curlew colour-ringed in winter at Wensleydale I have subsequently seen during autumn passage on the Tees Estuary (2016) to then be seen back in Wenlseydale that winter (December 2016).

5. on map

Adult Mediterranean Gulls 2XE5 and 2XE6, Roscarberry, 5 Sep 2017.

Ringed by Alyn Walsh at Lady’s Island, Co Wexford, Ireland. I’m still awaiting the details of the age of these birds.

Even though we know when we watch migrants that they travel great distances from all sorts of places, somehow it makes it seem more ‘real’ and extraordinary when you can say for certain exactly where a bird has travelled from. The idea of those birds all converging in one place on one day definitely added value to the visit for me.

Bannow Bay, near Wellingtonbridge, Co Wexford.

6. on map

Common Greenshank, Bannow Bay, 28 Aug 2017

Ringed as a juvenile on the Ythan Estuary in North-east Scotland on 18 Aug 2016, so the bird is just a year old. 8. on map

Tony Cross supplied the history of Eurasian Curlew ‘CV’. It was ringed (FJ10581) at a pre-breeding communal roost on the River Severn between Newtown and Welshpool, Wales on the 8th March 2016. It is also one of the 14 individuals subsequently traced to precise breeding territories. This one nests on a mosaic of sheep pasture and hay meadows  on the Shropshire/Powys border.

Tacumshin Lake, Co Wexford.

7. on map

Juvenile Common Ringed Plover, Tacumshin Lake, 31 Aug 2017.

Dominic Cimiotti kindly sent me the details of this bird: Your bird was ringed by me as a chick at nature reserve Beltringharder Koog (54.542550 N, 8.912648 E) in northern Germany at 9th of July 2017. It later fledged together with two siblings. Interestingly, it was the second successful brood of this breeding pair in that breeding season. We found the second nest, from which your bird originated, while we were catching the big chicks of the first brood!

Some of the German birds spend the winter in the British Isles. We already have two other re-sightings from the Wexford region in our data base: one bird was observed at Carne harbour in December 2015 and one bird was observed at Duncannon beach in August 2017.

It seems incredible to think that this bird was still in an egg in Germany two months before I saw it in Ireland!

Finally, one of a pair of juvenile Peregrines (the male) at this site was wearing a blue leg ring. Unfortunately, without being able to see the code on the ring, it is impossible to say where the bird comes from.

Juvenile Peregrines (upper bird with blue leg flag), Tacumshin Lake, Co Wexford, 29 Aug 2017.

Some people may find colour leg rings or flags aesthetically unpleasing, but I think the potential knowledge to be gained by marking birds so that they can identified in the field individually far outweighs any perceived disadvantages, particularly when the information harvested can be fed into conservation outcomes. And, I must admit, on days when there seems to be nothing ‘good’ about, looking for colour-rings gives me extra motivation to pay careful attention to what I see, even when they are so-called ‘common’ species.

A final plug for anyone who sees a colour-ringed or flagged shorebird in Aisa; please do report it at this site http://awsg.org.au/wp-content/themes/AWSG/reportform.php. By doing so, you will be contributing to the conservation of these species and the sites they use, as well as finding out more about the marvels of migration for yourself!

Finally, Singapore’s first Little Stints!

In Peninsular Malaysia, Little Stint has been shown to be a scarce but annual passage migrant and non-breeding visitor, with more than 140 records between the late 1980s and the present, most in the last 12 years (See Table 1).

Table 1: Little Stint records in Peninsular Malaysia, 1988 – 2017 (eBird)

So, it’s a species which is long overdue in Singapore. The main obstacles to the addition of Little Stint to Singapore’s list of avifauna have, in the past, been lack of awareness of identification criteria to differentiate it from Red-necked Stint, and, in  recent years, lack of accessible and suitable areas of stint-friendly habitat.

Nevertheless, people have been looking, probably none more so than David Li, from whom I received a series of photos in September, asking me what I thought. With his permission, I reproduce my thoughts below, together with his photos.

Comments on putative Little Stints at Check Jawa, Pulau Ubin, Singapore, on 21 Sep 2017

Background

David sent me several images of a small group of waders he photographed on 21 Sep 2017, asking my opinion on the specific identity of two of the birds. He suspected that one or both may be Little Stints.

 

Plate 1: The image shows a juvenile Red-necked Stint (left) and a juvenile Curlew Sandpiper (rear centre) with the two stints in question – an adult in post-breeding moult (front centre) and a juvenile (right).

The fortuitous presence of an undisputed juvenile Red-necked Stint with which to compare the two other stints is of great help in assessing these birds.

My View

Having studied the photos sent to me by David, I am confident that both the birds in question are Little Stints. I will attempt to provide a rationale for this opinion below by examining the shape/structure and plumage of these birds in some detail.

SHAPE AND STRUCTURE

I have written couple of blog posts on the structural differences between Red-necked and Little Stint (https://digdeep1962.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/sungei-buloh-stint-a-little-odd-or-an-odd-little/ and https://digdeep1962.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/identification-of-an-odd-juv-stint-at-pak-thale-thailand/) , from which I have lifted the following summary.

Structure of Little Stint compared with Red-necked Stint

• Longer legs, both tibia and tarsus
• More finely-tipped bill, not as deep-based. Often subtly down-curved and longer.
• Smaller, rounder head which peaks at the forecrown, and slimmer neck
• Body shape rounder, less attenuated, with rounder ‘shoulders’ when feeding, and head seems to sit on top of the body, rather than in front
• Generally more upright posture
• Less ‘deep-chested’ (not so much in front of the legs)

Plate 2: Juvenile Red-necked Stint (cropped from the same image as Plate 3)

Plate 3: Putative juvenile and adult Little Stints. Note the obviously longer legs, both tarsus and exposed tibia compared to the Red-necked in Plate 2, and the subtly different bill shape.

Plates 2 and 3 clearly show a marked difference in leg length, with both the tarsi and the exposed tibia being longer on both birds in Plate 3 than the Red-necked in Plate 2. Where comparisons are available in the other photos, this difference is consistent.

The bill profile of the birds in Plate 3 shows a more tapered bill, with a finer tip, with a subtle decurve along the lower edge of the bill of both birds, compared to the rather thick, short, straight, thick-tipped bill of the Red-necked Stint in Plate 2.

As the birds are relaxed and hunched up, the head and neck shape is not as clear on these photos as on some others. Nevertheless, the birds in Plate 3 give the impression of having a smaller head than the Red-necked in Plate 2.

The rugby ball shape of the Red-necked body differs subtly from the rounder, football-shaped body of the birds in Plate 3, and the way the head connects to the body is distinctively different – on the Red-necked, the head seems to sit at the front of the body whereas, on the birds in Plate 3, it sits on top of the body. Little Stints often seem more ‘bosomy’ than Red-necked, and this difference can be seen here.

Plate 4: Red-necked Stint (left) and two putative Little Stints. The upright stance and rotund body shape of the two right hand birds contrasts with the more horizontal and slender Red-necked Stint.

Plate 5: The head seems to sit on top of the body of the right hand two birds, but at the front of the body of the Red-necked

Plate 6: The leg length difference is very clear in this photo. Note the flat back profile of the Red-necked compared to the more curvy shape of the two right hand birds.

The differences described above can be seen in Plates 4-6. It is worth noting that the adult bird is missing a couple of tertials, which makes the rear end look longer and slimmer than it would otherwise appear. The upright posture of both birds is typical of Little Stint and not often seen in Red-necked.

Plate 6 shows the typical ‘round-shouldered’ posture of Little Stint on the adult bird. A Red-necked in similar posture would have a much flatter-backed profile (See Plate 7).

Plate 7: Red-necked Stints, Penang, 9 September 2008 (Cek Jawa adult inserted). The difference in back profiles, and the ‘round-shouldered’ shape of the adult in the insert, are visible here.

The structural differences described above are subtle, and possibly not diagnostic when taken separately. However, taken together, they present a distinctive appearance which readily separates Little from Red-necked Stint. In every respect, the two birds show structural features consistent with Little Stint and at odds with Red-necked Stint.

 PLUMAGE

1. The Juvenile

The following summary of plumage differences is taken from the same blog post referenced above:

Plumage of juv Little Stint compared with juv Red-necked Stint

• Scapulars and coverts evenly dark-centred, pale-fringed . Red-necked lower scapulars tend to have a dark subterminal spot with pale base, and rather bland, grey-centred, pale fringed coverts.
• Mantle often strikingly dark due to darker feather centres. 
• Well-streaked breast sides. Red-necked has indistinct streaking and usually a greyish wash which extends across the breast.
• Well-marked head, with dark ear coverts and central crown and white ‘double supercilium’. Central crown of Red-necked not strikingly dark, and sides blend paler towards supercilium, offering little contrast with it.

Plate 8a and b: Juvenile Red-necked Stint (top) and juvenile putative Little Stint (below) cropped from a single photograph. The Red-necked has already replaced a few lower scapulars which are in fresh non-breeding plumage. The putative Little has dropped one or two lower scapulars but these have not yet been replaced. The lower juvenile scapulars are arrowed in red. The inner greater coverts are arrowed blue.

Of the five rows of scapulars, the lower two are of critical importance in distinguishing Red-necked from Little Stint. On Red-necked, these are basally pale, with a dark sub-terminal spot around the shaft. On Little, they are more extensively black-centred, with any pale at the base covered by feathers above them. The differences can be seen in the Plates 9 and 10 below (from https://www.britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/article_files/V77/V77_N07/V77_N07_P293_315_A085.pdf). The lower scapulars are marked with red arrows.

Plate 9: Juv Red-necked Stint, Lars Jonsson. Lower scapulars are indicated by red arrow and inner greater coverts by blue arrow

Plate 10: Juv Little Stint, Lars Jonsson.  Lower scapulars are indicated by red arrow and inner greater coverts by blue arrow

The distinctive pattern of Red-necked Stint lower scapulars can be seen on the left bird in Plate 8, and that of Little Stint on the right hand bird.

A similar difference is seen in the pattern of wing coverts on Red-necked (a darker shaft streak, with the centres shading paler toward the edges, offering little contrast with the fringes) and Little (evenly dark centres contrasting quite strongly with paler fringes. This can be seen most clearly on the largest coverts, the inner greater coverts (marked by blue arrows in Plates 9 and 10).

On Plate 8, the Red-necked Stint shows darker and more contrasting coverts than on Jonsson’s painting. Nevertheless, the pattern of dark shaft streak, and centres shading paler toward the edges is apparent. On the right hand bird, the centres are solidly dark – blackish, with no paler gradation toward the edges, a pattern typical of Little Stint but not Red-necked.

The mantle of the right hand bird in Plate 8 is strikingly darker than that of the Red-necked on the left, which is typical of Little Stint.

The streaking on the breast sides is more distinct on the right hand bird in Plate 8, and this difference is visible, together with the richer, less grey colouration, in other photos as well.

The head pattern of the two species in juvenile plumage is strongly distinctive. Unfortunately there are no head-on shots of the Red-necked Stint, but there are several of the juvenile putative Little Stint (e.g. Plates 11 and 12), and all show the strongly contrasting dark crown and ‘split supercilium’ which are indicative of Little Stint.

Plate 11: Juvenile putative Little Stint showing head pattern. Note dark crown and well-defined split supercilium.

Plate 12: Juvenile putative Little Stint. In addition to the head pattern, note the fine-tipped bill structure

Thus, in all respects, both in structure and in plumage details, this bird is typical of juvenile Little Stint.

1. The Adult

Plate 13: Adult putative Little Stint

As is the case in juvenile plumage, the critical feather groups to look at include the scapulars, coverts and tertials and head.

This particular bird is in post-breeding moult, with most of the mantle and scapulars already in non-breeding plumage (two breeding plumage lower scapulars remain on the left hand side), the coverts are almost entirely cloaked by these new scapulars (one or two are visible in Plate 14), the tertials have been mostly dropped, with the remaining one being so worn as to show no fringing. The head and breast still retain a good proportion of breeding plumage feathers. Thus, most of the distinctive features one would look for in an adult breeding plumaged bird are missing, making it extremely challenging to identify on the basis of plumage alone.

Plate 14: Adult putative Little Stint

The pattern of the old breeding plumage scapulars and coverts are suggestive of Little Stint but not strongly diagnostic. Similarly, the rather obvious dark shading around the shafts of the non-breeding plumage scapulars favours Little (on Red-necked, non-breeding scapulars tend to be paler, with dark restricted to the feather shaft) but falls short of being diagnostic.

The head and body plumage offer the best clues to the bird’s identity. A bird retaining this much breeding plumage around the head and breast would also show at least a few pink feathers in the throat area, as well as some darker smudgy marks on the front and rear flanks if this were a Red-necked Stint (see Plates 7 and 15). The fact that the throat and flanks are clear unmarked white on this bird strongly favours Little Stint.

Plate 15: Adult Red-necked Stint (left) and Little Stint (right), Penang, Malaysia, 20 Sep 2007. Note the pink or brick coloured feathers on the Red-necked Stint’s breast and smudges on the flanks, compared to the cleaner appearance of the Little Stint in these areas.

As with juveniles, the central crown is darker and more clearly defined on adult Little Stint than on adult Red-necked (in all plumages) and there is a clearer split supercilium. This can be seen well in Plates 16-18.

Plates 16,17 and 18: Adult putative Little Stint, showing breastband, crown and underparts

Although the upperparts do not provide enough to arrive at a definite conclusion, the head and underparts, coupled with strong structural evidence, make the identification of this bird as a Little Stint certain, in my view.

Conclusion

As I have studied the photos supplied by David in greater detail, I have become 100% certain that he recorded two Little Stints at Cek Jawa, and I recommend that this record be accepted by the Records Committee.

 

Notes on a Vagrant Blyth’s Pipit in Malaysia. Part 2 – Moult

The opportunity to observe and photograph a known individual bird over a long period gives a unique opportunity to observe the progression of moult and the effects of feather wear. Examples of such opportunities regionally in recent years have been a first year Siberian Blue Robin in Malaysia (Suara Enggang Vol 20, No 3:3-5) and a similarly aged Firethroat at Nam Khan in northern Thailand.

Now we’ve had the chance to do the same with a Blyth’s Pipit!

Establishing that the bird was in ‘first-winter’ plumage when it was first seen on 2 Jan 2017 (see Part 1), the next moult it was due to undergo was Pre-breeding moult. A quick review from Alström and Mild:

Pre-breeding moult: In the late winter or early spring of the second calendar year, i.e. when the bird is 9–10 months old, most pipits and wagtails go through a partial pre-breeding moult to obtain first-summer plumage. In most pipit species most of the head and body is moulted (a few feathers, particularly on the scapulars and rump, are often retained) as well as some to all median coverts, a few inner greater coverts (second innermost, 9th, usually replaced first), one to all tertials, and often the central two rectrices.

Blyth’s Pipit. 2 Jan 2017. © Amar Singh HSS

On 2 January, the bird was in first-winter plumage. The median and greater coverts  seem moderately worn (‘frayed’ edges), and the innermost two greater coverts and upper two tertials have paler edges than the others, probably as a result of bleaching by the sun. There is one unmoulted juvenile outer median covert visible.

Blyth’s Pipit. 28 Jan 2017.

Taking into account the effects of different light, almost a month later, the plumage looks largely unchanged, though the tertials are looking more worn.

Blyth’s Pipit. 6 Feb 2017. © Ooi Beng Yean

Ten days later, and we can see the first sign of the pre-breeding moult. The middle tertial is in the process of being shed, and the underparts look different, though it’s hard to say if this is because of new feathers, or old feathers becoming more worn.

Blyth’s Pipit. 8 Feb 2017. © Ooi Beng Yean.

Two days later, the middle tertial has dropped out. Also we can now see some flank feathers have dropped out (the grey patch below the wing). The greater prominence of peach-coloured feathers on the underparts might also be a result of overlaying feathers having been dropped.

Blyth’s Pipit. 8 Feb 2017. © Ooi Beng Yean.

A view from the rear on the same day shows that the central tertial on both sides has dropped, and that the longest tertial on the right side is broken. There appear to be two age classes of mantle feathers, with the lower ones having noticeably more gingery fringes. I’m not sure if either of these are fresh feathers or whether this contrast is a result of the previous post-juvenile moult.

Blyth’s Pipit. 8 Feb 2017. © Ooi Beng Yean.

This spread wing shot shows the difference caused by bleaching. The outer median coverts are protected by the scapulars (and are also newer), so retain buff-coloured fringes, compared to the white fringes of the rest. The same difference can be seen in the outer  and inner greater coverts and the outer and inner primaries. The more exposed feathers have paler (whiter) edges than the ones which are usually covered by other feathers.

Blyth’s Pipit. 12 Feb 2017. © Lean Yen Long.

Nothing much has changed four days later, but this photo shows the worn state of the back, rump and upper tail coverts.

Blyth’s Pipit. 18 Feb 2017. © Zhongying Koay

Six days on and some of the median coverts have dropped out. We can just see a new tertial, which has already grown to about half the length of the longest tertial.

Blyth’s Pipit. 20 Feb 2017.

Two days later, not much change, but we can see that the fringe of the new tertial is a rich gingery colour. We can also see that the outermost tail feather on this side is a new one, not yet full grown.

Blyth’s Pipit. 20 Feb 2017.

A close-up of the head shows that the head feathers are very worn. Some of the eye-ring feathers have dropped out. One gingery-fringed mantle feather appears to be a new one.

Blyth’s Pipit.24 Feb 2017 © Mike Kan

Four days on and the new tertial has had quite a growth spurt. Earlier, I had assumed it was a replacement of the middle tertial, but now it looks too long for that. The shortest tertial on this photo is confusing. It seems to have a far broader buff fringe than in the photo two pics up. But close examination reveals that it is in fact the same feather, looking very different in the shade compared to in strong sunlight.

One new inner median covert is now visible. It is gingery-fringed, not white.

Blyth’s Pipit. 27 Feb 2017.

Just three days later and things are really changing fast. That new tertial is now so long it can only be a new lower tertial. The shorter one we saw on 24 Feb has now all but disintegrated. The innermost greater covert is new, and we can now see at least three new inner median coverts with their broad gingery fringes. The mostly white outermost tail feather is now almost full grown, and we can now see that the central pair are new as well, and almost full grown.

Blyth’s Pipit. 27 Feb 2017.

Compared with the back-on shot taken on 8 Feb, we can see that nothing has changed in the mantle area, so those brighter lower feathers are probably not freshly moulted. Interestingly, the old longest tertial on the left wing is still present beneath the new one. We can see that moult of the left and right wing is taking place more or less in synchrony.

Blyth’s Pipit. 6 Mar 2017.

Considering the rapid changes which occurred in the last week of February, things seem to have slowed down a week later.

A new tertial is just emerging next to the innermost greater covert.

The replacement of median coverts is progressing outwards from the innermost, with 4 new ones now visible. The tail feathers known as T5 (i.e. the second outermost pair) are newly growing. These should only have white outer webs and a small wedge of white on the inner web.

Blyth’s Pipit. 7 Mar 2017. © Zhongying Koay

This fantastic shot just the next day shows us much more detail than we can see on the closed wing. Now we can get a clear look at the lesser coverts. Interestingly, the outermost (buff-tipped) seems to have been replaced, then there’s a gap where old feathers have dropped but new ones have not yet grown out, then another new feather, and the inner three or four are unmoulted old ones. Alström and Mild say that, in post-breeding moult, “the median and lesser coverts are generally moulted rather irregularly”, so perhaps the same applies also when they are moulted in pre-breeding moult.

The four innermost median coverts are new, and the rest are not visible (the old have dropped out and the new have not grown into view yet).

The alula and primary coverts, most of the greater coverts and the primaries and secondaries are unmoulted and still look in remarkably fresh condition (with the exception of the inner secondaries, which are moderately worn).

Blyth’s Pipit. 7 Feb 2017. © Zhongying Koay

In just 24 hours, the upper tertial seems to have now advanced in length past the innermost greater covert!

Blyth’s Pipit. 12 Mar 2017. © Chan Kai Soon

Five days later the new tertial has almost reached its full length and the new tail feather is now half grown. There are now 5 new median coverts. The head and body moult seem not to have started.

Blyth’s Pipit. 2 April 2017. © Zhongying Koay

Into its fourth month on the site, and what a transformation! In the three weeks since it was last photographed, the bird has completed head and body moult. The gingery tone is wearing away from the median coverts, and the bird looks brand new! Unfortunately the morning dew has made the tail bedraggled so we can’t see what’s going on there.

Blyth’s Pipit. 7 April 2017.

 

Blyth’s Pipit. 7 April 2017

The second outermost tail feather appears to have much more white on it than the old corresponding feather (see here). I’m not sure if this is age-related.

This is the last date I saw the bird. I don’t know if anyone has seen it since then (nothing on eBird). It is possible that the bird may still be there, as the bulk of overwinterers in India do not leave till late April/early May .

However, the pre-breeding moult seems to have been completed by the first week of April, with all three tertials, the innermost greater covert, all the median coverts, the central and outermost two pairs of tail feathers, and head and body feathers replaced. We can already see the effects of wear on the median coverts, as their fringes are bleaching from ginger to buff. Soon they’ll be white again.

The extended stay of this individual gave many Malaysian birders their first experience of this species, and awakened a new interest in pipits, which will hopefully mean that in future, more Blyth’s will be found. Being able to watch it at such close quarters as it underwent its pre-breeding moult was a rare privilege, and one I will long remember!

My thanks to all the photographers (credited above) for sharing their photos with me and allowing me to use them on this blog.

Notes on a Vagrant Blyth’s Pipit in Malaysia. Part 1 – Behaviour and Ageing

Background

A Blyth’s Pipit was identified at MalimNawar, Perak, on 28th January 2017. Subsequently, it was discovered to have been present from at least 2nd January, when it was photographed by Amar Singh HSS. At the time of writing, the bird is still present (most recently seen on 7th April). This is only the second record of the species for Malaysia.

Throughout its long stay, the bird has been remarkably faithful to one small area of roadside grass, and it has been rather tolerant toward the many photographers and birders who have come to see it. Throughout much of its stay it has been in pre-breeding moult, providing a rare opportunity to document the progress of moult in a single bird.

Behaviour and Habitat

Blyth’s Pipit habitat. The bird feeds in the longer stalky grass on the far side of the track, as well as in the shorter grass on the near side. © Ooi Beng Yean.

The bird has faithfully frequented a small area of roadside grass verge either side of a dirt track which runs through an area of mining ponds. The track is infrequently used by fish-farm workers and recreational fishermen and birders using motorbikes, cars and SUVs.

The Blyth’s Pipit appears to prefer foraging in grass populated by sparse low vegetation and taller stalks. Its common foraging technique in this habitat is to locate small prey items such as spiders and small bugs by eye and then catch them, often by jumping upwards to pluck them off tall stalks. Paddyfield Pipits and Eastern Yellow Wagtails have also been noted using this foraging method occasionally, but nowhere near as frequently and regularly as the Blyth’s Pipit.

Blyth’s Pipit foraging. 20 Feb 2017 (left and centre). 24 Feb 2017 (right). © Mike Kan

In shorter grass devoid of taller vegetation it feeds much like other pipits and wagtails. It often forages on or near water buffalo dung, and has been seen to take flies and small maggots from these.

Blyth’s Pipit with fly sp. 27 Feb 2017.

Blyth’s Pipit with earwig sp. 8 Feb 2017. © Ooi Beng Yean.

The bird uses the dirt track for dust-bathing (see this short video), and this also seems to represent a territorial boundary for a resident pair of Paddyfield Pipits. At the beginning of the Blyth’s Pipit’s stay, its presence was tolerated by the Paddyfield Pipit pair, but recently, skirmishes have been more frequent.

Blyth’s Pipit (rear) with a local Paddyfield Pipit. 20 Feb 2017.

The Blyth’s Pipit rarely calls unless in an altercation with a Paddyfield Pipit. Normally when flushed by people or dogs it flies off silently, flying a short distance, and then circling back to its preferred area shortly after the perceived threat has passed. When flushed it occasionally perches on telegraph wires or a fence post. It does not habitually bob the tail up and down like a wagtail, but occasionally flicks the tail downward rather deliberately.

What age?

Determining the age of pipits can be difficult! It all depends on the fine details of plumage and moult, particularly in the wings and tail.

There is a detailed summary of moult in pipits and wagtails in Alström and Mild’s Pipits and Wagtails of Europe, Asia and North America, which is available online as a pdf here (scroll down to page 24ff). It bears reading in full, but I will attempt a précis of the salient points here.

Juvenile plumage: The first proper plumage succeeding natal down. The feathers develop simultaneously so are uniformly fresh or worn.

Post juvenile moult: Begins 2-5 months after fledging. In all pipits except some Paddyfield Pipits, this is a partial moult. It includes the head and body feathers and a variable number of secondary coverts and tertials, sometimes also the central pair of tail feathers. Most lesser coverts, none to all median coverts, none to a few inner greater coverts and none to all tertials are renewed during the post-juvenile moult. Once post-juvenile moult is complete, the bird is in first winter plumage.

Pre-breeding moult: In the late winter or early spring of the second calendar year, i.e. when the bird is 9–10 months old, most pipits and wagtails go through a partial pre-breeding moult to obtain first-summer plumage. In most pipit species most of the head and body is moulted (a few feathers, particularly on the scapulars and rump, are often retained) as well as some to all median coverts, a few inner greater coverts (second innermost, 9th, usually replaced first), one to all tertials, and often the central two rectrices.

Post-breeding moult: At the age of a little over a year, after breeding, the first-summer  bird goes through a complete post-breeding moult, resulting in adult plumage, i.e. the final plumage.

The moults in adults follow the schedule and type of the young bird after the post-juvenile moult, i.e. a partial pre-breeding moult in late winter to early spring and a complete post-breeding moult which starts shortly after breeding. (The way I remember this is “Some in Spring; All in Autumn!”). The post-breeding moult usually commences either with the innermost primary or with some feathers on the head and body, often mantle feathers. The primaries are moulted descendantly (from the innermost outward), and the primary coverts are usually moulted in phase with their corresponding primaries. Soon after the moult of primaries has begun, that of rectrices and tertials begins. The tail moult commences with the central pair and normally continues centrifugally. The central tertial is usually shed first, approximately at the same time as the third primary, then usually the shortest and finally the longest. The secondary moult usually begins at about the same time as the sixth primary is shed, and proceeds ascendantly, starting with the innermost. However, the greater coverts tend to moult from the body outwards—thus not renewing in phase with their corresponding secondaries—but the sequence is often irregular, and sometimes most of them are renewed at much the same time. The median and lesser coverts are generally moulted rather irregularly, and most or all of the medians are often renewed simultaneously. The alula is generally replaced after the secondary coverts, usually in an irregular sequence. The outermost primary and innermost secondary get fully grown at approximately the same time, the latter often marginally later. The primaries, primary coverts and secondaries (but not necessarily the secondary coverts, tertials and alula) are as a rule moulted symmetrically across the wings. The head and body moult is usually completed around the same time as, or slightly before, the moult of the flight feathers, the head on average slightly later than the body.

The moult usually lasts 1–2 months, and is completed before the autumn migration.

Ageing

Most first-winter pipits show two generations of secondary coverts, often also tertials. Retained juvenile secondary coverts and tertials are more worn and, owing to bleaching, show paler tips/edges and marginally paler centres than newly moulted ones. Unmoulted juvenile secondary coverts are also usually slightly shorter than adjacent newly moulted ones. In several species (particularly the ‘large’ pipits) unmoulted juvenile secondary coverts and tertials are also differently patterned compared to newly moulted adult-type feathers. The resulting moult contrast (moult limit) is diagnostic for first-winter birds, as adults in the autumn show only one generation of secondary coverts and tertials (but see below).

It should, however, be noted that wear and bleaching is not uniform across the wing feathers, and this may result in the appearance of moult contrast. The inner primaries and outer secondaries are less exposed than the outer primaries and inner secondaries, and therefore less subject to wear and bleaching. The inner greater coverts, notably the 9th (second innermost) although not the usually concealed 10th, are more prone to wear and bleaching than the outer ones, and hence the outer greater coverts sometimes appear to be newer than the inners. The outermost three or so median coverts are less subject to bleaching and wear than the rest, and frequently look fresher than adjacent median coverts even when the same age. The tertials may become more worn than the secondary coverts.

It might be useful to do a quick review of the topography of the wing, courtesy of Beng Yean’s perfectly-timed photo below.

Blyth’s Pipit. 6 Feb 2017. © Ooi Beng Yean.

1. Marginal (secondary) coverts (sometimes lumped together with the lessers)
2. Lesser (secondary) coverts
3. Median (secondary) coverts
4. Greater (secondary) coverts
5. Alula
6. Primary coverts
7. Primaries
8. Secondaries
9. Tertials

The most important group of feathers in determining the age of this bird are the median coverts, as juvenile feathers are differently patterned from first winter and adult feathers (in Blyth’s Pipit).  In juveniles, the black centres of the median coverts follow the shape of the feather, whereas on first winters and older, they are more square-cut, as these are. See here for a juvenile. Juvenile-patterned median coverts can apparently be retained until ‘midwinter’ (see these pics taken on 30 December).

But is the bird in its first winter or is it older?

If this bird is a first winter, one would expect to see 1. Evenly aged remiges (primaries and secondaries) and 2. Possibly (though not always) some evidence of moult contrast due to their being two ages of e.g. coverts. 3. Possibly (though not always) the central pair of rectrices (tail feathers) being newer than the rest.

If it is an adult, one would expect to see 1. No moult contrast, though possibly some unevenness of bleaching, with the outer greater coverts and the outer median coverts being less bleached than the rest of the feathers in their respective feather tracts. 2. Perhaps some unevenness of wear in the remiges (with inner secondaries and inner primaries being more worn than the rest, because they were moulted earlier in the complete post-breeding moult). 3. The tail feathers being evenly aged.

In the photo above, we can see:

1 The primaries and secondaries appear uniformly aged.

2. No obvious moult contrast in the coverts.

So, honestly, I cannot age the bird from this photo!

Fortunately, the first photos taken of this bird were on 2 Jan – much earlier than this photo. Here’s one:

Blyth’s Pipit. 2 Jan 2017. © Amar Singh HSS.

A close look at the median coverts reveals something interesting!

Blyth’s Pipit. 2 Jan 2017. © Amar Singh HSS

The question is – is this differently-patterned feather a median covert or a lesser covert? Comparing it with the lesser coverts on the numbered photo, it seems more worn and to have a narrower pale fringe than those feathers, so I think it’s a median covert. Here’s another view:

Blyth’s Pipit. 2 Jan 2017. © Amar Singh HSS

I think the feather labelled 1. is a median covert, and the other labelled 2. is a lesser covert (with a buffier, broader fringe).

If I’m correct, and it is a median covert, then it is a juvenile covert, which ages this bird as a first winter (hatched in 2016). By the time Beng Yean’s photo was taken on 6 Feb, this feather had dropped out and been replaced by an adult-patterned covert.

I might be wrong – in which case, please let me know what you think. I did say that ageing pipits can be difficult!

In the next post, I will look in more detail at the progress of the pre-breeding moult in this bird.

My thanks to Amar Singh HSS, Mike Kan and Ooi Beng Yean for allowing me to reproduce their photos in this post.