Having once been a professional scientist, I decided to test Killian's thesis about the absence of visible clear emarginations beyond p3 means the bird has to be a Reed Warbler. If you look at the BWP video of EOW, there is one bird with longer utcs than this bird, another with rustier rump... and no you can't see the emarginations on it. Its always iffy using a negative feature to base an ID on. On the other hand perhaps BWP have got their ID wrong!
On Adrian's additional pics there is one tantalising pic where threre appears to be a hint of an emargination in the 4/5/6 region, but its eye of faith stuff, and equally iffy, there is another where the bird has its mouth open - it looks like the Mersey tunnel!
I had already done a morning's work when I attended the twitch at about 11.40AM. Not armed with bins for most of the day I had to track the bird with the naked eye and throughout the day rattled off more than just a handful of shots (with only a medium speed lens) from as many angles as possible under conditions which for the most part presented grave problems for any photographer. I did not get home till late and set to work immediately going through about 130 images to select and process and resize and email to quite a few people who requested images. I went to bed at 5.00am Friday morning. Many images were sent to Ian who uploaded them onto this website as quickly as poss.
It is bad enough when dealing with a tiny bird moving bird in severe and dappled light but it is made worse when there was a bit of a breeze on the day moving the leaves an branches around the bird . For the most part, the bird remained high up and hardly ever presented (to me) a good view of the feather detail you are looking for.
I have cropped and resized images for yourself and Ian to look at.
"slightly iffy photo's".
I can understand reluctance of photographers to show or producing " iffy photo's" . They get hammered for it one way or another (as I have been)! It is not always intentional I know. A crap photo brings with it the potential of being considered a crap photographer. I do however wonder why more photos have not surfaced?...perhaps I have already answered my question
For the record my photos which appear in the gallery here have not been put put through levels adjustments, colour saturation or applying contrast (camera set to -1 contrast all other levels are 0)
Ian , You are bang on. The camera always lies! I am on record as having said that. Unfortunately the human eye and the brain's perception of what it sees can also lie (unwittingly). It is true the human eye has greater dynamic range than the camera but the brain has a habit of distorting perception and recall (that's before we even put pen to paper!) whereas the camera does not. I think ..in my humble opinion we are better served by a meeting of the two disciplines. It is also the case than bins a telescopes distort what is seen.
The opinions of esteemed authorities
I did not think that it was a good idea to send Lars limited evidence and then for him to to make a preliminary judgment on that limited evidence , especially if he is likely to be asked for a formal opinion later. No one one likes altering or retracting an opinion publicly. If such practice is allowed in the birding world then with respect it is wrong. In this case (the Manchester hippo) it may have the effect of people thinking that this is now a fate decided and not come forward with notes or photos. Well it ain't decided the debate does not end till the fat bird sings!
Lars Svensson only saw one pic of the bird - the Steve Young rusty one. I'm more worried about Killian Mullarney's comments - I've been desperate to see the wing structure of this bird. As a rule I'd be more worried if there was a positive sighting of an anomalous feature as opposed to an ability so see a feature in a slightly iffy photo (no critisism of the photographer intended, it was hard enough to get bins on this bird!
I almost never twitch birds, and when I do its to learn stuff. When I see a bird I treat it as though I'd found it alone. I spent/wasted my first 3 hours on this bird making absolutely sure that it wasn't a Reed Warbler, concentrating on the tail and the bill shape. I've looked at hundreds of photos of EOW and Sykes' now and have found that there is an amazing amount of variation in both species. In fact I'd wager a small amount that there is a long way to go with regards to the taxonomy of them
This bird has anomalous features for all three suggested candidate species. I do worry that there isn';t ever going to be enough information to get an ID on this bird!
Re fieldnotes; have three pages of notes Ian... now written up and waiting for the rather scratty drawings to be inked in.
and yes - you did see Tony Broome on the TV report. being a true gent, he stepped into the breach when the TV guy pointed a camera at me!
As the Manc Hippo is receiving plenty of debate on another forum, this is just to let the Manchester Birders know that despite opinions from atleast two very well respected and experienced birders (in fact two of the most...) the pro-hippo (Eastern Olivaceous Warbler) case strolls on. All recent negative opinion, however convincing or plausible have been made from no more than afew photos (and has all come from those who didn't see the bird)which undoubtable show colouration in a very unnatural light and some features just not how they appeared, who ever said the camera never lies For those who saw the bird, simply think back to the colouration and appearance of it and believe what you saw because that's the truth, for those who didn't...you really had to see it to believe it.
Big big thanks to John Headon for finding this bird. I was obviously glad to to see the bird and equally glad to have met people I had not seen before.
Was there from 05.10 `til 08.00 and definitely no sign. The `glimpse` was a Dunnock ! Phil Rhodes kept things upbeat though, being absolutely adamant that it was now at Rumworth - he`s there now !
There were a few folks there at 9.30 this morning some of whom reckoned they'd seen a glimpse - I didn't!
As I was the first there after John Headon put out the news (thanks Judith!), and John hasn't entered the Tournament, do I get megapoints for seeing a "little grey thing flit from one tree to the next"? Only joking - as far as I could see it could have been a washed-out Chiffchaff!
Olly's made it onto the local tv news already. They should wait till tomorrow for impressive hordes of twitchers (if it stays, fingers crossed times two!)
I don't intend to comment too much until I'll checked over all my notes and the many piccies I'm waiting on but after 8 hours there (plus one parking ticket and very sore knees) and after sticking my neck out with the identification already I know this to be true.
The bird is no acrocephalus warbler- undertail coverts too short, white outer-tail feather, tail feathers all the same length.
It is no Melodious (or Icterine for that matter), I have already spoken at length with John the finder and he is happy about that now.
The bird is either a Olivaceous Warbler or a Sykes's Warbler and hopefully I may well have an answer tonight or at the latest by tommorrow after I pour over all the details infront of me.
That said, we may well never reach a conclusion such can be the complexity of these things but thanks to all the photographers who tried very hard to get some shots today. Still never saw a single note or description being taken though, other than mine
from my limited views at lunchtime, the breats seem very light greyish to me. I agree with the tail synopsis - it didn't pump at all - which from what I read is not consistent with Olivaceous. Didn't seem at all brown though, which puts some questions on a Reed Warbler ID.
Just had an hour there this avo during which time the bird showed once but pretty well for about a minute. It was a good colour for olivaceous but didnt see the back for long. Viewing the bird mainly from below meant I saw the very pale belly well but due to light and angles it could have been slightly buff in colour. Good shape generally with a flattish crown and long bill and medium short primaries However it didnt pump its tail in the brief time I was there and I didnt see the back well. I haven't seen an olivaceous before but have never seen anything quite like this. Reed Warb is still a small poss however, only evan almighty knows atm, hopefully that will change! Thanks. Henerz.
I can hardly believe it if it is, hopefully some more birders will get there this afternoon, I know where im heading as soon as i finish work, is it not 5pm yet?
saw this bird at dinner and the consensus amongst us that were there (Ian McKerchar, Rob Smallwood, Simon Johnson, warford senior and John Headon) was that it could well be an Olivaceous Warbler!
Someone mentioned light sides to the tail (which I didn't pick up - then again, all I could tell was that it wasn't a chiffchaff!!) - that fits with olivaceous - see portland obs link below -
Stinky is still there but proving rather difficult to ID as it shuffles around in a densely leaved silver birch. Consensus is that it isn't a Melodious. Features include longish legs and bill, and a light breast. No tail twitching. "Adrian of the Museum" and Rob Smallwood got some snaps so hopefully they will help.
For those who saw the bird, simply think back to the colouration and appearance of it and believe what you saw because that's the truth, for those who didn't...you really had to see it to believe it.
