mystery bird

[Colin Key]

Originally Posted by Danacobius

still don't see tit with that bill length though

My first impression of this bird was this it was Marsh/Willow based on size (in relation to maftings (?) fingers) and overall plumage colouration. But that bill looked huge in comparison to field guide illustrations (I looked at Collins and several others) - take a look at Collins, the bill in this bird looks stronger and three times the length of the birds in those paintings .

Have now had a look at Marsh Tit on BWPi and, although those dreadful paintings are still misleading, there are two video sequences of this species at a feeder in which the bill of one bird in particular looks very large and similar in proportion to maftings's photo.

Artistic license (in the field-guides, that is)?

Colin

[mafting]

Originally Posted by Colin Key

But that bill looked huge in comparison to field guide illustrations (I looked at Collins and several others) - take a look at Collins, the bill in this bird looks stronger and three times the length of the birds in those paintings .

Artistic license (in the field-guides, that is)?

Colin

The mystery bird is definitely a Marsh Tit, as it was a 'known' individual. Interesting how the absence of feathers changes perception completely.

The problem with paintings is that they depict what is in the artist's mind, which reflects their own mental perception, and also what others expect to see. So we tend to think tits have small stubby bills, so that's how they're painted. But look at tit bills in photos (Coal, Great, Marsh, Willow) and they're actually quite long (around a third the length of the feathered head), see below:

[MichaelF]

Grief, yes . . . just looked at the Collins pics, and the bills are ridiculously minute! Never noticed that before!

[mafting]

Originally Posted by MichaelF

Grief, yes . . . just looked at the Collins pics, and the bills are ridiculously minute! Never noticed that before!

Check out the ones on all the familiar British tits in Harrap & Quinn (Chickadees, Tits, Nuthatches & Treecreepers). Seems to be an industry-wide blind spot!

No wonder people struggle with these species, when you consider the attention given to rarities like Pacific/American Golden Plover, vagrant Larids and warblers. Possibly an indication of priorities?

[MichaelF]

Oh dear! And Beaman & Madge, and Lars Johnsson, are almost as bad, and (for American chickadees) Sibley and the National Geographic guides even worse! What about the long-promised new edition of Collins Bird Guide, was all this pointed out to the artists?

The Macmillan guide (Harris, Tucker & Vinicombe) looks a bit better.

[MichaelF]

Would I be right in thinking this one is Marsh, not Willow as labelled?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...e_montanus.jpg

[Colin Key]

Originally Posted by MichaelF

What about the long-promised new edition of Collins Bird Guide, was all this pointed out to the artists?

Please don't contact Harper Collins about this Micheal otherwise I will be long-dead before the new edition is published!!

Colin

[mafting]

Originally Posted by MichaelF

Would I be right in thinking this one is Marsh, not Willow as labelled?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...e_montanus.jpg

Most definitely

[Alex Lees]

Originally Posted by mafting

Check out the ones on all the familiar British tits in Harrap & Quinn (Chickadees, Tits, Nuthatches & Treecreepers). Seems to be an industry-wide blind spot!

No wonder people struggle with these species, when you consider the attention given to rarities like Pacific/American Golden Plover, vagrant Larids and warblers. Possibly an indication of priorities?

Looking forward to this:

Broughton, R.K. (in press) Separation of Willow Tit and Marsh Tit in Britain: a review. British Birds.

; )

[mafting]

Illustrated in wax crayon though, so let's not get excited!