Netfugl - Foto

Peter Sunesen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 12:11

Ups Smutter! Ung Eleonorafalk..... Mvh Peter (Sherif;)

Yoav Perlman

27. sep. 2009 kl. 12:15

looks to me like a very good eleonora's

Peter Sunesen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 12:15

Eller måske adult....

Peter Sunesen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 12:23

Hej Klaus, Spændende fugl. Jeg læste ikke i første omgang din fine kommentar om muligheden for atypisk farvet Lærkefalk juv. Mener dog stadig at de mørke undervingedækfjer, de laange vinger (hånd) og de store fødder, alle peger på Ef. Men er det en juv. eller adult? Mvh Peter

Nikolaj noel christensen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 14:09

Hej Allesammen jeg kan også kun få denne falk til eleonora, men ikke adult. Fuglen passer derimod glimrende, som værende ungfugl jvf S.372 i Gensbøls rovfugle i europa, hvor en denne dragt er tegnet. Denne bestemte tegning hedder D. Klart en eleonorafalk ungfugl, mørk fase og en smutter Klaus, men vi laver jo alle smutter ind i mellem. Mvh Nikolaj

Klaus Malling Olsen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 16:51

Afvigelserne i forhold til mine forventninger til lærkefalk er allerede antydet i billedinfo, hvorfor jeg i al fredsommelighed ikke anser den præliniere bestemmelse til Lårkefalk som en rendyrket smutter - nærmere som et fordigtigt forsøgpå at sætte navn påfugle, der på billederne tog sig ganske aparte ud. Fint med kommnetarer -og jeg er da nogenlunde tilfreds med ikke at blive benævnt "stringer":)

Nikolaj noel christensen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 17:05

Hej Klaus Vil da aldrig kalde dig stringer og ind i mellem ser vi alle nogle individer, som virker mærkelig, anderlees og atypiske fra normen. Jeg kan bare personligt ikke få det til andet en eleonorafalk mørk fase ungfugl, efter at have kikket i Gensbøls.

Søren Skov

27. sep. 2009 kl. 17:36

Hej Klaus En spændende fugl, der for mig at se er en Eleonorafalk. Det får mig til at tænke tilbage på en oktoberdag i 1987, hvor jeg obsede ved Stigsnæs, og der kom en falk lige forbi obs-posten. Fuglen blev fotograferet - ikke af mig, men af en af medobservatørerne (Jeg kan desværre ikke huske navnet). Det var en flot Lærkefalk, mente vi alle. Men da vi senere så billedet, viste det sig at være en Eleonorafalk. Nu er en lys fase Eleonorafalk jo ikke lige det man først tænker på, når man obser en langvinget falk i Danmark. Men at vi også dengang først tænkte på Lærkefalk, viser hvor meget de to arter kan ligne hinanden. De bedste hilsner Søren Skov

Klaus Malling Olsen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 17:38

Jamen jeg bøjer mig skam gerne for den samlede sagkundskab - det er ikke altid let med flugtfotos hvor man anstrenger sig voldsomt for at få fuglen i søgeren og glemmer at se hvilken fugl der egentligt var tale om! Så administratoren ønskes hermed på arbejde med at ændre denne til "Eleonorafalk" med tilføjelse "tvivl om bestemmelsen"

Nikolaj noel christensen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 22:22

Hej Klaus Du behøver da ikke bøje dig for sagkundskaben og med det antal rovfugle, som passer igennem Bosporus er det kun naturligt at en enkelt fugl måske ikke bliver 100 % bestemt korrekt i selve observations øjeblikket. Derfor er foto dokumentation, som du selv så tit har påpeget afgørende specielt nå det kommer til spændende forekomster og sjældenheder. Hvor sjælden er eleonora egentlig ved Bosporus ? Mvh Nikolaj

Peter Sunesen

27. sep. 2009 kl. 23:12

Hej Klaus, Enig med Nikolaj... Det er ikke et spørgsmål om at "bøje sig", men et spørgsmål om hvad du ville mene om dette billede hvis du ikke selv havde taget det under forudindtagethed om at det var en Lærkefalk (jvf.ovennævnte kommentar om Stignæs-fuglen). Hvis det f.eks var et "gættefoto" du selv var helt uden aktier i. Det er efter min mening et godt og instruktivt, særdeles artstypisk foto, uden nogen som helst grund til at hæfte "tvivl om bestemmelsen" på. Tvivl om bestemmelsen kan da vist kun gælde din egen overraskelse over at du -forståeligt nok- ikke bestemte fuglen i felten, men brugte energien på at få billedet i kassen. Hvis du (eller en hvilken som helst anden kompetent feltbisse) betragter billedet helt neutralt og kun kan komme til en eneste konklusion, bør dette foto vel retteligen blot rubriceres Eleonorafalk? Mvh. Peter

Per Smith

28. sep. 2009 kl. 00:43

Nogle kommentarer er bare overflødige - sikkert også denne - men i høj grad foregående. hilsen Per

Troels Leuenhagen Petersen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 07:56

For at vende tilbage til aldersbestemmelsen af fuglen: Den første Eleonorafalk jeg har set var meget lig denne fugl (Spanien aug 09). Jeg tror denne fugl er en 3K han (lys fase). Grundfarven på brystet/bugen er meget mørkere end hos juv (lys fase), mens rygfarven er for mørkere end den juvenile fugl, jeg har set. Stribningen på halen og svingfjerene er måske for tydelig for adult. Den meget elegante silhuet indikerer han. Nu er der tilfældigvis en meget (rov)fuglekyndig spansk hr. Onrubia i København i dag, og jeg vil kort spørge om hans mening om denne fugl.

Eva Foss Henriksen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 08:34

Uden på nogen måde at være ekspert og kun efter at have set en del fotos igennem af de to arter,kunne efterhånden nogle ting måske egl.godt passe på Lærkefalk? Der sker vel ikke noget ved at undre sig lidt over fuglen og sammenligne med billeder. Fuglen ser ganske vist mærkværdigt eksotisk spidsvinget og meget underligt bruntonet ud,formmæssigt ikke til at finde tilsvarende hos nogen af arterne på billeder i lignende strakte position. Fældning? En 1K Eleonora ville,da fuglene yngler meget sent,måske forventes helt dragtfrisk og meget kontrastrigt spraglet? Denne ser ikke helt prikfrisk ud,hvad mon alderen er?. Hermed nogle mulige argumenter for Lærkefalk : 1) E.s hale synes altid markant længere – afstanden fra undergumpsspidsen til halekanten passer på L.,tilsvarende afstand hos E ser altid længere ud på flugtfotos. 2) Lys kile op i nakken har den jo egl. ala L ,fuglen drejer dog lidt 3) De udpræget fede og lige bugstriber (E´s virker altid finere og i mere uordnet mønster) 4) Skægstriben virker bred og nedadrettet ( E´s ville måske bøje lidt mere bagud i snippen og mere flugte næbbet?) 5) ( knofeltet på undervingen ser ofte hos L. ud til at fylde en lidt større del af forhåndskanten( E`s måske ofte lidt mindre? ) ) 6) Andelen af mørkt på ydre underhånd generelt større hos E. , uden så meget lyst nående ned i vingespidsen som her 7) Underhalens tværstribning virker generelt kontrastrigere hos E, måske knapt så udviskede som hos denne ? Ovenstående kan dog fornemt være beviset på,at nok så grundig billedgranskning kun fører til forkert bestemmelse! Vedlægger to E- sites. mvh efh ElA ElB

Peter Sunesen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 09:33

Hej Per, Set i en større sammenhæng er rigtig mange kommentarer vel overflødige:) Jeg forstår blot kategorien "tvivl om bestemmelsen" som en betegnelse der vedhæftes fotos hvor der er reel tvivl om artstilhørsforholdet, snarere end hvis fotografen blot selv er, eller har været, i tvivl. Er da selvfølgelig åben for at denne tolkning ikke er "rigtig". Din kommentar viser jo ikke rigtig hvad du selv mener....og det ville jeg da hellere vide, end at end at svæve i uvished om hvorfor lige netop min kommentar er overflødig...... Mange hilsner Peter ps ser ikke Netfugl igen før på lørdag

Nikolaj noel christensen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 15:55

Hej Per Jeg forstår slet ikke, hvorfor du har indsendt så ligegyldig en kommentar eller den er jo faktisk nærnere overflødige. Derimod håber jeg at de andre deltager i denne diskussion vil komme med fremad rettet og konstuktive indlæg. Så vi fik få sat dette billede under den rette kategori samt art. Dertil håber jeg, at Klaus snart vil komme med endnu et indlæg så denne træde kan afsluttes. Mvh Nikolaj

Klaus Malling Olsen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 16:24

Eleonorafalken er ikke særligt almindelig trækgæst ved Bosporus, men en lille bestand yngler ved Prinse-øerne i Marmara-havets nordlige del, indenfor synsrække af Istanbul. Deter nok en fugl herfra, der sneg sig forbi i al ubemærkethed på en dag, hvor der var masser af andet at lave. Jeg har allerede bedt administratoren om at ændre artsnavnet

Troels Leuenhagen Petersen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 17:12

Hej Eva, Kontrasten mellem mørke undervingedækfjer og svingfjer er ganske karakteristiske for Eleonorafalk (som nævnt af Peter Suneson ovenfor); en meget vigtig karakter når man ser arten for første gang, og ikke har gjort sig tanker om fuglens silhuet. Sådan lød de første ord jeg lærte om arten i Spanien. Lærkefalkens underside synes derimod helt ensartet (i alle dragter?). Jeg talte i morges med Alejandro Onrubia om dette billede, og han mente omgående at fuglen er en lys fase Eleonorafalk. Silhuetten peger på han, men fotos kan snyde! Hvorvidt fuglen er 3K eller adult, ville han ikke uforbeholdende udtale sig om. Han har boet i Sydspanien i flere år, og ser naturligvis arten "ofte", da han arbejder i det spanske trækfugleprogram Fundacion Migres. ad 2) Den hvide kile synes på dette billede at være begrænset til halssiderne, ikke helt om i nakken, som det ses hos Lærkefalk. Sml. eks.vis med dette foto ( http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=23671 ) ad 3) De fine uordnede striber, du efterlyser, ses vist hos Eleonorafalk kun i den juvenile dragt, hvorimod 3K og adulte Eleonorafalke har brede striber som fuglen på dette billede. ad 6) Den mørke vingebagkant er hos lys fase juvenil Eleonorafalk skarpere afsat end hos 3K og adulte (som jeg tror denne fugl er). ad 7) Eleonorafalkens hale synes at variere lidt mht. tværstribning - se f.eks. Forsman s. 482, hvor 3K og ad.hun har skarpt aftegnede tvæstriber, mens adult han synes at have udviskede striber på den sidste ~ 1/3 af halen. Det er satme en herlig fugl! Vh Troels - for en god ordens skyld må jeg hellere skrive at jeg har støttet mine få erfaringer med fotos, ill. og tekst fra The Raptors of Europe etc. (Dick Forsman) og Flight Identification of European Raptors (Porter m.fl.)

Per Smith

28. sep. 2009 kl. 20:02

Hej Alene grundet stilen - der er mig en kende skolemesterbelærende. Peter har ofte kvalificerede input - også uden "Hvis du (eller en hvilken som helst anden kompetent feltbisse) betragter billedet helt neutralt og kun kan komme til en eneste konklusion, bør dette foto vel retteligen blot rubriceres Eleonorafalk?" ...come on Peter -skulle Klaus have overset noget i farten så fred med det. Og ja det ligner en Eleonorafalk ret meget(det er dog et par år siden jeg så arten sidst bl.a 190 fugle på Mallorca på en gang uhmmm, - og jeg spidser ører når Klaus stiller spørgsmål. Specielt i denne sammenhæng...Rovfugle i felten af Klaus Malling Olsen.. så lidt mere street credit i kommentarerne please ;-)

Klaus Malling Olsen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 22:18

Idealet af en Eleonorafalk er en storfalk med oriensejlervinger - men idealet er ikke altid det, man ser. Jeg kan ikke lade være med at mindes en tidligere episode med en 2K eleonorafalk ved Falsterbo, der på højden i kredsflugt blev taget som en Lærkefalk - men tydeligvis så aparte, så jeg måtte spørge medobservatøren Louis Hansen om han nogensinde havde set en styrtdykkende lærkefalk. Det havde han ikke - hvorefter falken transmogrifferede sig via et himmelrivende styrtdyk til en slank satan med 1.5 gang vingefang af den stakkels spurvehøg, der var offer for angrebet. Derpå forsvandt fuglen mod sydvest. Næste morgen spurgete jeg frisk Nils Kjellen om han havde set eleonora´n! Han lignede Marco van Basten dengang hav havde brændt det famøse straffespark mod Peter Schmeichel under EM-finalen i Göteborg. Fuglen huserede de næste par dage i Falsterbo, hvor den bl.a. afslørede mange ligheden med denne fugl. Og så karakteristisk var den altså heller ikke i flugten! Efter at have medvirket til godkendelsen af Falsterbo-observationen udtalte ovennævnte Kjellén omkring Schmeichel-episoden "Nu interesserar jeg mej inte för fotboll, men jeg kunde höra på de övriga Rk-ledamötar at det var någonting stort!".

Yoav Perlman

28. sep. 2009 kl. 22:29

Can someone please post a summary in English for all of us backward people who cannot read Danish ;-) ?

Klaus Malling Olsen

28. sep. 2009 kl. 22:57

This bird, photographed as a Hobby, eventually caused some discussion, as is argumentably showed more characters from Eleonora´s Falcon, which was mentioned in the notes under the photo. The bird passed the Camlica hills very quickly on a most busy day. I uploaded the photo as it shows anomalities from hobby; way too dark brown ground coloration on underbody and under wing coverts ans obviously very long wings with striking long hand. Strangely, none of the skilled birders present on the hill reacted, but I must confess is was a very busy day with an unusual diversity for raptors even for a main site! Myself, I concentrated on documenting the bird - and look forward to information from our friends in the Levant, which argumently must have more experience in Eleonora´s Falcon than we ever get up here north! Having said this, I wholly accept the ID of Eleonoras.

Kim Fischer

29. sep. 2009 kl. 08:50

A minor fuzz about this bird, in the first place regarded as an aberrant hobby, closer inspection and discussion revealing it as an eleonoras falcon.

Kim Fischer

29. sep. 2009 kl. 08:51

A minor fuzz about this bird, in the first place regarded as an aberrant hobby, closer inspection and discussion revealing it as an eleonoras falcon.

Kim Fischer

29. sep. 2009 kl. 08:52

A minor fuzz about this bird, in the first place regarded as an aberrant hobby, closer inspection and discussion revealing it as an eleonoras falcon.

Jan Jörgensen

29. sep. 2009 kl. 16:50

Många goda eleonorafalk dräktkaraktärer har nämnts här. Falken på denna bild visar ju omedelbart en karaktäristisk eleonorafalk jizz, dvs som Klaus yttrycker det 'en storfalk med orientsejlervinger'. Detta är inte alltid det intryck man får så man skall inte vara för tvärsäker. JanJ

Wouter Faveyts

29. sep. 2009 kl. 22:53

The similarity of Danish to my native Dutch is not big enough to be able to pick up everything in the discussion in Danish above, so excuse me in case I say something that's been said too many times before already... :) It seems, however, that the majority votes for Eleonora's falcon. Judging from the photos and the short explanation by Klaus, I'm not so conviced of this. I have already emailed this to Klaus, and he urged me to post my comment here. Sorry for the hooribly long post but here I go. There are a couple things speaking against Eleonora's: - the second 'tooth' protruding in the cheek is a typical Hobby-feature; - the pattern in the spraid teal, with 2 dark central tail feathers well visible from below is typical for young Hobbies, although not 100% diagnostic; - the underwing pattern (covers, remiges) does not show the typical (rather contrasting) Eleonora's pattern, which is not unsimilar to the contrasting pattern also known of juvenile Red-footed Falcon); it's not easy to say something about the age of the bird with 100% certainty (the cere colour could be a pointer for immaturity, but not in the case if the bird would be an Eleonora's), but in a 1CY Eleonora's there should be a clear contrast between darker coverts, remiges with a lighter (whitish) ground colour and a clearly defined trailing edge. This is not the case in this bird. - very bold streaking to the underparts, almost forming full lines. I realise that this feature is variable, but if it would be a 2CY(+) Eleonora's, the streaking should be more sparse and a lot finer than in this bird. Younger Eleonora's can show bolder streaking than older birds, perhaps, but then again, the underwing pattern is not very good for this age class of Eleonora's. Klaus mentions that the bird had the jizz and flight of a Hobby as well, which should be a good pointer towards the latter species. I have to admit, however, that the bird looks very long-winged in this photo http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=29547 , which, admittedly, is confusing to me as well. On the other hand, judging shape on merely one or a few photos can be misleading; such a subjective feature is best also judged in the field. Especially an actively hunting bird can be tricky in this respect; the bird seems to be hunting actively in the three photos that were posted on Netfugl. Of course, the bird does not look like a typical Hobby either. It does remind me a lot of a dark Hobby that was trapped and ringed in Belgium in May this year, notably on May 8, 2009, at Brecht, Belgium. The bird was first briefly considered to be an Eleonora's Falcon, but measurements etc. proved it to be a Hobby, albeit a very dark one. More intriguingly, the bird was older than 2CY. Several experts on raptors/Hobbies agree this was a highly unusual Hobby (Dick Forsman, Andrea Corso, Rob Bijlsma). There are photos of this bird (not taken by me). I can not post the photos here with my comment, but I could try and post them in the photo-gallery. There have been a couple of short publications about dark Hobbies in British Birds and Limicola in the past, notably by Andrea Corso. The dark Hobbies described in those publications, however, were even darker, with dark cheeks. In short; it's difficult to be 100% sure from the photos, but I believe that this bird could be a darkish 1CY Hobby, rather than an Eleonora's. There is only little to find about in the literature such dark Hobbies. For an Eleonora's, there are too many things that do not seem to fit, especially when one takes into account what age this bird should get when it would be an Eleonora's. The Eleonora's option becomes tougher when one has to say something about the age of the bird in question. If anything, it's a very interesting bird, and I look forward to learning more from it! It goes without saying that this is an intriguing bird for sure

Eva Foss Henriksen

30. sep. 2009 kl. 22:23

Adding a netphoto of an Eleonora`s falcon with square mask,alltogether very much resembling the Camlicabird,apart from longer looking tail. And,maybe,fatterbellied bodyshape and more rounded,fanshaped tail. squaremask longtail1 longtail2 fantail The Eleonora jizz though seems very strong and leaves maybe not much hope for the photo as depicting the very rare,obscure and dark Hobby. Mvh efh

Wouter Faveyts

2. okt. 2009 kl. 00:28

Thank you for your comment and the adjoining photo's, Eva. I have to admit that, after having looking at the photos again and having read some more literature, the Eleonora's option has gained some weight after all for me. When so, than these photos and the one that you have added show that the 'double-tooth' feature in the cheek that is considered typical for Hobby should be treated with a lot more caution. Very useful topic for me!

Eva Foss Henriksen

3. okt. 2009 kl. 10:29

Thanks Wouter and Troels for detailed comments. It would be very interesting to see the photos of the mentioned,dark belgium Hobby – Would it be possible to uopload a photo or two to Netfugl ,or can similar birds be seen on the net somewhere? Only amateurinterest and two short, brownish glimps of the Camlicaflying bird amongst the Hobbies led to later photostudies ,if it evt.could have been an unusual Hobby. Wondering mainly about the shortlooking tail , which seen from below so strangely seems to lack 1-2 dark bars, measured from tip of undertailcoverts to the edge of tail ,compared to other E.photos. But finally, due to no other comments,this must be ok for Eleonora. Mvh efh

Mehmet Goren

4. okt. 2009 kl. 11:49

congrats! it is not a very common bird. @Yoav: try e-translator as me ;)

Troels Eske Ortvad

20. jan. 2010 kl. 23:41

I have searched the internet for Eleonora´s Falcons looking like this but haven´t had much success. Eleonora´s Falcon of course varies to a great extent according to age and color morph. Still the bird don´t come close to any Eleonora´s I have seen. From pictures on the internet it seems that Hobby in fact also varies to some extent both in color saturation and facial features. I therefore believe the falcon is an aberrant juvenile Hobby (although I suspect the colors might be somewhat too warm in these pics which could explain at least some of the rich brown and chestnut color to the underparts). I fully agree with Eva and Wouter that several critical features seem wrong for Eleonora´s but fits Hobby well. First of all, the extensive white wedge behind the ear coverts looks spot on for Hobby and much too wide and clear cut compared to any Eleonora´s I have seen pics of or read about (younger Eleonora´s also have this wedge but apparently never as prominent as in this bird). It seems to show only a hint of a “second tooth” which is within the variation in Hobby I would say. The eye ring seems prominent but this could be an artifact caused by long shooter speed I suspect. The broad dark spots on breast and belly forming lines also fit Hobby best. At first impression the bird might appear Eleonora´s-like long-winged and long-tailed. Jizz, however, is not easy to judge from a few photos I would say and at second look I agree with Eva that the tail might not be very long after all; counting the dark bars in the tail it really only shows 3 bars beyond the under tail coverts. This seems to match juv. Hobby perfectly whereas Eleonora´s (always?) shows 4 or more (typically 5) complete dark bars beyond the coverts. The chestnut basal colors to the body also strike me as being too brownish and uniform to really fit Eleonora´s well. Of course it makes an impression when someone who sees Eleonora´s on a regular basis believes that the bird is this species as referred to above. However, much seem to speak against Eleonora´s and in favor of Hobby (though an aberrant brownish one) as it was identified as in the field.

Peter Sunesen

21. jan. 2010 kl. 11:16

Hi Troels, I am surprised that you reach this conclusion. IMO Hobbies don't come in many different 'editions'.Eleona falcons, however, certainly do! The obvious thing about this bird is the sheer size as judged by the relalative size of ie feet, head, lenght of wings etc. These features alone make up the clinching all-round jizz of the species. Additionally the colours of the plumage and diagnostic features such as underwing-coverts are clearly present. All adds up to the same conclusion : the bird is without doubt an Eleonoras... Best regards Peter

Troels Eske Ortvad

21. jan. 2010 kl. 13:46

Hello Peter! Yes, Hobby only come in one common ”edition”. However, when searching the web I was a little surprised just how much variation that can be found in this “edition”. Some birds show rather strong contrast to the under-wing, rather obvious trailing edge to the wings and short neck-wedge which potentially can make separation from Eleonora´s a challenge. I must add, however, that so far I have not seen a Hobby this brownish in the field or in pictures. However, aberrant dark Hobbys have been confirmed as already mentioned. Regarding the under-wing the Hobby especially juv. often show very dark coverts in some contrast to flight feathers whereas 1-2 cal year Eleonora´s in pale phase often have relatively pale under-wing coverts with only a limited contrast to the remiges. I do not see any feature in this bird that is at odds with an “aberrant dark Hobby” – the dark under-wing coverts and marked trailing edge is likely to result from increased pigment levels I imagine. On my screen the color shade to the body is somewhat chestnut-like rather than rufous typical of 2k+ Eleonora´s of pale phase. Now, refering to your statement, “The obvious thing about this bird is the sheer size as judged by the relalative size of ie feet, head, lenght of wings etc”. Personally I would not like to judge the size this way. One can easily be fooled! Feet can look big or small according to have much the bird spread or fold the feet. I agree that head and wings appear longish in one of three pics (the one above) but this could result from the posture of the bird in this particular picture and can in my opinion really not be used to quantify the size of the bird. Eleonora´s is also known to be broad winged and round tailed compared to Hobby which do not seem to be the case. Spotting an Eleonora´s Falcon by the jizz is often straight forward although it´s said to appear very Hobby-like at times. Personally I have only seen Eleonora´s Falcons once at the breeding grounds where it appeared striking jizz-wise. I do think it is worth paying close attention to KMO´s comments below this picture: “Concerning jizz and flight set this bird did not look eye-catching from Hobby”. This is why I firmly believe this bird is a juvenile Hobby. Cheers

Peter Sunesen

21. jan. 2010 kl. 14:29

Hi Troels, I find this interesting. We obviously perceive this photo in complete opposite ways! Looking for further details that point to Eleonoras, I found that the tail (seen from below) of a juvenile Hobby is basically dark, and the bars thus come across as (narrower) pale ones -and only about 6 of them- whereas the E.f. show a paler ventral side of the tail, and the bars here are dark ones (narrower than the paler ground-colour)and 7 to 8 visible) The bill of the bird is too big/heavy for the dainty-looking Hobby, more akin, actually to a peregrine. The most obvious argument, however, is the decidedly long wings of this bird, completely at odds with the proportionately different Hobby. The photo is, IMO, well suited to gauge these characteristic structural differences, as it is such a clear-cut shot,directly from below. I have a feeling that even these arguments won't make you alter your id. And neither will I.......so I guess the 'solution' is to agree to disagree:-) Regards Peter

Troels Eske Ortvad

21. jan. 2010 kl. 15:22

Hi Peter I do not agree with you that it’s only matter of perception. Head and body pattern, general color shade and tail bars are all clearly visible to me from these photos. Now, I do not claim that Eleonora´s cannot look this odd. Just that to my knowledge it´s undescribed. If one perceive the bird as being big and heavy I can see why it´s tempting to ID it as Eleonora´s Falcon. But, again, this view on the jizz and size is at odds with KMO´s impression in the field! Cheers Troels

Peter Sunesen

21. jan. 2010 kl. 16:55

Troels, I thought could agree to disagree..... The bird does NOT look one tiny bit odd for Eleonoras. On the contrary IMO it looks odd for other falcon-species ;-) Highly irrelevant whether KMO's initial impression in the field shouted: ELEONORAS, or not. What we have (and what the discussion is about)is a photo, not a ticket to to the inside of KMO's splendid head! And obviously he did not look thoroughly at it. He states this in one one of the many posts above. That this (common?/very ccommon?) plumage is hitherto 'undescribed' is - again-at a variance with what I have found in the available literature. Summing up a clear ELEONORAS....can we now please agree to disagree.... Cheers also to you. Peter

Troels Eske Ortvad

21. jan. 2010 kl. 17:19

Yes of course.

Peter Sunesen

21. jan. 2010 kl. 17:20

Troels, kig venligst lige nedenfor i GENERELT. Tror du virkelig at så kompetent en mand som KMO ville opfordre adm. til at ændre navnet hvis han var i tvivl? Nej vel....... Peter

Peter Sunesen

21. jan. 2010 kl. 17:22

Jeg mener øverst i generelt:)

Klaus Malling Olsen

21. jan. 2010 kl. 21:51

As mentioned prevously in Danish, the bird suddenly turned up during an excellent migration day at the Bosphorus. I concentrated on photographing it (and when concentrated on photographing, you don´t note small anomalities). There were several skilled raptor-freaks on the Camlica hill that day, and none reacted on anything but Hobby - but again, the bird passed quickly, as these elegant creatures do on migration, and so many other thing were happening. My memories went back to August 1992, where a presumed Hobby passed overhead. Suddenly it went down, starting mobbing a Sparrowhwak, and first then the size and jizz were apparent, not on the height. The bird eventually stayed for some days and was seen irregularly. Still, the size and jizz together with the general colouration of this bird are puzzling, and in the photo here, it looks like Eleonora´s. Compare other photoes of the same bird here on "Netfugl". I will leave over the actual ID-discussion to the competent competitors right now.

Carsten Murmann

22. jan. 2010 kl. 12:21

Not being among the cognoscenti and 'competent' raptor observers, I anyway attempt an angle to the debate. KLAUS' photo exposes the UNDERPART of the falcon, incl. greyish/ whitish areas on wing and tail. Instead of surfing on a plethora of netsites, I consulted illustrations in my favourite handbook, BEAMAN et al., on European birds: - HOBBY is characterised by UNIFORMLY(!), DISTINCTLY spotted underparts. - ELEONORA - LIGHT [lys] phase - shows GREY-whitish areas on wings and tail and bleak/diffuse spots elsewhere. i.e like KLAUS' photo! So, BEAMAN's illustrations appear still valid - and less ambivalent than jizz ?? Any 'competent' comments ? Best rgds. ......... C.

Carsten Murmann

22. jan. 2010 kl. 13:07

In retrospect, I guess that most of us will also recognize, that Klaus' bird has a longer arm and more body 'mass' (not necessarily BMI...), than the more agile and compact swift-like Hobby. Sorry for this Jizz contemplation, KR ................. C.

Peter Sunesen

22. jan. 2010 kl. 15:33

Hi Carsten, Exactly! Any decent illustration confirm your conclusion. As does the more hard to explain proportion/jizz element. To be able to make a conclusion on the silhout alone, it is only possible if you have either personal knowledge or 'feeel' of the species in question ,or are able to reach a safe id. by means of deduction. To prove the last, I showed about 50 flight-photos each of Hobby and Eleonoras to a 'casual' birder with no particular experience with either species. Afterwards I asked her to decide which of the two species the above photo depicted. Her answer came instantanously: "its the E.f. because the wings are too big for the other" That is why I reacted quickly when I first saw the photo: I thought it was named Hobby because of a simple error. The discussion I had yesterday with Troels, made it clear that the arguments presented were all 'overruled' by the fact that Troels based his id. on the interpretation of the initial comments from the photographer. "I do think it is worth paying close attention to KMO's comments below this picture: "Concerning jizz and flight-set this bird did not look eye-catching from Hobby" This is why I firmly believe this bird is a juvenile Hobby." KMO himself, presents the very same statement( the bird did not seem to differ from Hobby at first glance) -this time referring to another falcon high overhead in Sweden-now with the conclusion that the bird - at closer range and in direct comparison with a Sparrowhawk - indeed WAS an Eleonoras! Troels, if you read this and if you would like to hone your skills in bird-id.,I would advise you to rely on your OWN judgement/experience/common sense, rather than interpreting the words of an expert. The enevitable facts will always prevail in the end, and thats why you can 'shoots yourself in the foot' if you interpret what KMO said, using it to reach the wrong conclusion, thus preventing yourself from a fruitful learning experience:-( Blind Faith was music-band, not somerthing you should base an id. on! Best regards Peter

Jørgen Munck

22. jan. 2010 kl. 23:53

Det er åbentbart ikke altid lige nemt at bestemme denne type falke udfra fotos alene, selv ikke et tydeligt et som dette, det kunne derfor være interessant at få det/de foto´s af den observation som Søren Skov nævner fra Stigsnæs okt. 1987 af en først forkastet, senere godkendt og nu under genbehandling, af en Eleonorefalk, lagt på Netfugl, så vi kan få nogle indput om hvad det egentlig var for en art. Mvh.

Eva Foss Henriksen

25. jan. 2010 kl. 11:21

Adding a sweedish Hobby hobby1 still not perfectly matching the very strict,scythelike wingshape of the Camlicabird. This looks very stretched and longwinged,but broads and lengths of arm and hand seems proportionally to fit this Hobby well. Found an italian(?) Hobby with a smaller, very similarlooking head hobby2 Photos of 2cy pale morph Eleonora`s look in comparison more like eleo2cy more powerful birds with relatively longer hand,broader arm and longer tail . Eleonora´s bodyshape seems generally tending to be more rich and almond-shaped,with a slightly rounded bodycurve somewhere near breast or belly on flying birds. (Hobby seems compared often to have a slenderer,smaller body with more parallel bodylines) . El.often showing more clear,white spots underneath the round area of underwing primary coverts,here well contrasting also in shadowlight. The upper wing of the Camlicabird is not in shadow,but shows a uniform grey-brownish colour without contrast and clear white spots. The same,contrasting,whitish light upon lower tail and wing - might that possibly be caused by strong reflection from the feathers? Wondering about the uppertail colour and pattern of 2cy Eleonoras. Nearly all net- and bookphotos show Eleonora´s seen from underneath. Therefore a question - are closed flight-uppertails of 2cys generally as brightly patterned as the individual on plate 599 in Forsmans Raptors p.481, or like this tail eleotail or, can they appear uniformly dark as well in this age? If mainly not,this in combination with a short taillength could indicate a more Hobbylike tail on the 2cy CamlicaEleonora here Tried without luck to find more photos of southern young Hobbies to see,if some of them maybe could be warmer and browner tinged. Could there be the possibility,that such southern,browner populations exist,and does anyone evt. know a good gallery full of southern young 1-2cy Hobbies ? mvh efh

Peter Sunesen

25. jan. 2010 kl. 12:05

Hi Eva, The photo in Forsman (599 on page 481) shows a moulting bird from the autumn (2. calander-year in transitional plumage)and since the tail-feathers are still juvenile, they show distinct barring - diagnostic from Hobby- excactly as 'our' bird show so well fom below. The bird we discuss is a dark morph juvenile, and the barring is even more clearcut on pale morphs. The Hobby is very much of the same coloration throughout vast areas, with only one other subspecies, the mainly sedentary F.s.streichi from Far East Asia. I have seen some mention, however, (also referred to by KMO in his initial comments) of sightings of unusually dark juvenile Hobbies (in Italy ) but this extremely rare 'phase' is poorly described/documented, and might IMO just as well pop up in any population. Had the photo showed this outrageously rare 'mutation' of the Hobby, it would still have showed all the general structure/jizz/proportion of a normal Hobby. I don't perceive the tail of 'our' bird as being shorter than normal for Eleonoras, as a matter of fact I find the lenght of the tail yet another feature in favour of the last mentioned species. Regards Peter

Klaus Malling Olsen

9. aug. 2010 kl. 10:39

Det er et stykke tid siden denne fugl er kommenteret. Jeg har siden erfaret at Forsman har benyttet den til at vise, hvordan en afvigende Lærkefalk ser ud, men dette finder jeg ikke særligt velbegrundet. Et argument er, at enkelte meget mørke Lærkefalke har været kendt, og at alle unge eleonorafalke er ret ens. Jeg antager dog, at kendskaben til individuel variation hos Lærkefalk er betydeligt større end hos Eleonorafalk, grundet Lærkefalkens hyppighed i et stort geografisk område. Kendskab til ung Eleonorafalks variation må være noget mindre. Afvigende (?) mørke unge Eleonorafalke må også kunne findes, hvis man går et tilstrækkeligt stort materiale igennem.

Peter Sunesen

20. aug. 2012 kl. 17:37

Under gennemgang af billeder af Eleonorafalk i galleriet slår det mig med undren at denne fugl - som vitterlig ligner en helt frisk juvenil, og følgelig også er rubriceret sådan - ikke er blevet kommenteret, da det vel er meget tidligt for en ungfugl at blive helt selvstændig allerede ultimo september. Helge Sørensens billeder fra omkring 10 august fra Sardinien viser voksne fugle som stadig ruger. Måske andre bestande er lidt tidligere på den? Man skulle ikke tro det, da arten jo har et forholdsvis begrænset udbredelsesområde, og har tilpasset opfodringen af ungerne til at falde sammen med kulminationen af (efterårs)trækkende småfugle, som netop sker i september/oktober i hele Middelhavsområdet. Kan imidlertid ikke finde anden forklaring, da fuglen bestemt må være en ungfugl, og at det så lige akkurat kan lade sig gøre tidsmæssigt. Herligt hvis nogle med kendskab til artens ynglebiologi ville kunne bekræfte dette.

Klaus Malling Olsen

20. aug. 2012 kl. 20:15

Tak til Peter for kommentaren. 100% sikker på aldersbestemmelse er jeg ikke. Et foto, der viser oversiden (kun delvis og ikke skarpt) afviger fra juvenil ved at være mere ensartet mørk, ikke skællet som man kan forvente af en 1K Eleonorafalk i frisk dragt. Desuden aner jeg et hak ved ca. 3.yderste håndsvingfjer der teoretisk kan skyldes, at nogle håndsvingfjer er friskere end de yderste. De fotos, der for nyligt er tilgængelige af 2k fugle er ikke ulig denne; jeg mindes fuglen fra Falsterbo i aug. 1992, der havde ligheder med denne fugl og fuglen fra Gedser, bl.a. lignende farve vokshud samt tegning på undervingen. Omkring "lærkefalke-tanden" på kindens øverste del ser denne ud til at kunne forekomme på Eleonorafalk, nok mest i yngre dragter. En 1K i Forsmans rovfuglebog (foto 595) viser kindtegning tæt på Lærkefalk, og 2Kpå foto 597 ser ud til at havenoget lignende.

Jan Jörgensen

20. aug. 2012 kl. 20:37

http://www.icarus.es/product_document/url/73/New_evidence_of....pdf JanJ

Jan Jörgensen

20. aug. 2012 kl. 20:40

dark Hobbies JanJ

Eva Foss Henriksen

23. aug. 2012 kl. 12:18

Wouter Faveyts mentions in his comment above(29.9) an unusual,dark Hobby 2cy+ ringed and photographed in Belgium the 8th of May 2009. Two of these pictures can now be seen on http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=50008 http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=50007

Eva Foss Henriksen

23. aug. 2012 kl. 12:32

Didn`t work, trying to link again: dark1 (http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=50008) dark2 (http://www.netfugl.dk/pictures.php?id=showpicture&picture_id=50007)

Klaus Malling Olsen

23. aug. 2012 kl. 15:23

Den belgiske fugl, som jeg har haft kendskab til, ligner min Bosporusfalk i dragten. I forbindelse med Gedser-fuglen er der fremkommet fornuftige kommentarer som at hovedet er uforholdsmæssigt lille på Gedser-fuglen i forhold til man man ville vente fra en Lærkefalk; det er denne fornæmmelse jeg også får på denne fugl i forhold til den belgiske, der har Lærkefalkens normalt ret store (med korte) hoved i forhold til Eleonorafalkens. Relativ hovedstørrelse er et punkt, der kunne trænge til mere opmærksomhed; en stor-kroppet falk som Jagtfalk opfatter jeg som småhovedet i forhold til Vandrefalk, Hedehøg som småhovedet i forhold til Steppehøg etc. PÅ den belgiske falk er undervingen mørk, og kontrasten mellem dækfjer og svingfjer er formentligt svær at se i felten, da også svingfjerene virker mørkere og svagere tegnet end normalt. Kontrast mellem dæk- og svingfjer ville nok synes mindre tydelig end undervingens "uventede" mørkhed, hvis man så fuglen i felten. Underkroppens noget diffuse striber på rustbrun baggrund er meget eleonorafalkelignende - hertil er blot at kommentere, at Lærkefalk ikke altid har så distinkte striber på lys underside som generelt antaget, og fremhævet i f.eks. Dick Forsmans indlæg. Men den belgiske fugl udgør da også en meget sjælden variant. Den belgiske fugl forekommer dog lille, væver og storhovedet som den sidder der i hånden på en ringmærker. Et spændende individ, der supplerer Jan J´s link til British Bird-notitsen fint.

Art

Lokalitet:

Annoncer