Comments on the odd Great Grey Shrike resembling L. m. meridionalis

Comments on the odd Great Grey Shrike resembling L. m. meridionalis

Først og fremmest en stor tak til Ole Krogh for at lade Phylloscopus vise hans billeder af den spændende store (?) tornskade, som opholdt sig i Store Vildmose i perioden 30-31. december 2000.

Lars Svensson skrev:

Judging from the three photographs put out on the net of the shrike in Denmark, I must say it really looks like a Lanius [excubitor] meridionalis. However, as always one must make some general remarks about the less than top quality of the photographs (at least as shown on the net), and of the possibility that more photographs would add other impressions.

Apart from the characters already mentioned in the original presentation, one notices the narrow tail, which is a supportive feature of meridionalis. Perhaps I think that the white supercilium appears slightly too broad for a typical meridionalis, though. And what about the legs, are they long and strong enough for a good meridionalis? I am not sure, it may just be the pictures and angles, etc. And is the crown and mantle dark enough? Hard to say on these pictures alone.

So, many things favour meridionalis, but preferably more details should be established for a completely convincing identification.

Best wishes,

Lars (Svensson)
Stockholm

Jorma Tenovuo skrev:

Because I have had some interest in the group of Great Grey Shrikes, I'd like to give a few comments about the Danish bird and I hope you find them of some help. You may have seen my article of the identification of L.m. meridionalis, L.m. pallidirostris, L.e.homeyeri & L.e.excubitor in 'ALULA' 1/98 with e.g. in total 6 photos of different individuals of L.m.meridionalis. If you haven't checked that article yet, please try to have it - not least because of the photos.

What comes to the Danish bird, of which I have no other information but the somewhat dizzy photos, it certainly looks very much like L. m. meridionalis! However, a couple of things 'worry' somewhat: first, the bird looks (at least in photos) a bit brownish also from upperside, for example in forehead and mantle area. This is not typical for nominate meridionalis in which these areas should be dark-grey (in fact the darkest grey areas of the whole plumage). Secondly, the supercilium (was that clean white with sharp, not diffuse, borders?) extends quite far behind the eyes according to the photos. The supercilium in meridionalis practically always starts from the distal corner of the eye and flows over the bill to the other eye.

Otherwise the Danish bird looks perfect meridionalis, it is in photos a bit more compact and round-headed than nominate excubitor and the bill looks quite short but these field marks overlap to some extent between excubitor and meridionalis. Certainly they fit meridionalis well as also the small wing patch (which is often also in excubitor..). Were there ANY barring or stripes on underside? Have you any information of the possible age of the bird (e.g. judging from the tips of greater coverts)?

You may know that a practically identical bird to yours was observed in Finland in April 1998. It had similar, very typical meridionalis-characters, it was seen by some 60 birders during 3 days etc but it was finally never accepted as meridionalis by the Finnish RC. I suppose one strong reason was the "unlikelihood" of such a local, not so vagrant, bird in Nordic countries.. I don't know about the Norwegian record but I have seen the original notes of the Polish bird (now accepted as you know) of which I'm NOT personally fully convinced that it was indeed any nominate meridionalis.

What comes to the taxonomy, you must know already that it is a problem. There are two groups: southern meridionalis-group and nothern excubitor group and their nominate subspecies (m. meridionalis vs e. excubitor, respectively) are considered as two separate species by e.g. BOURC. I believe this is correct. However, the role of pallidirostris is more unclear: it belongs to the meridionalis-group and e.g. Svensson thinks that it is just a subspecies of meridionalis and not a separate (third) species as accepted in some countries (Holland, of course).

I hope that you find my comments useful. The shrikes are difficult: for example, one strange-looking which we found here in Turku last winter (see:www.sci.fi/~ambush/lanius/lanius.html) was considered by Svensson to be L.e. sibiricus but the Finnish RC has not accepted that "because the information of 2y-sibiricus is still too sparse". I wish you all success in the final identification of the interesting Danish shrike!

Kind regards,
Jorma Tenovuo

Måske nogle af observatørerne af Store Vildmose tornskaden kunne kommentere nogle af Jorma Tenovuos spørgsmål til fuglen?

Klaus Malling Olsen skrev:

Jeg har set billederne af tornskaden fra Store Vildmose, og sammenlignet dem med de bileder, der er publiceret i J. Tenovuo & J. Varrela 1998: Identification of the Grey Shrike Complex in Europe, Alula 4/1998. Den ser meget interessant ud, men jeg reagerer dog på nogle småting.

De publicerede fotos i nævnte artikel viser alle en mørk, på afstand ret esnartet type stor tornskade, hvor den mørkere over- og underside giver et ret ensartet indtryk. Hovedtegningerne hos alle publicerede fotos 8der er fra forår og sommer, hvilket kan være afgørende) passer dog ikke helt med vildmosefuglens: ale har et smallere, mere distinkt hvidt øjenbryn til lige bag øjet, der står tydeligt ud mod den mørkegrå isse, der er klart mørkere end resten af oversiden. Vildmosefuglen synes her at ligne excubitor mere, bl.a. med diffusere, men bredere hvidt øjenbryn, der godt nok når over næbbasis. dette kan man også se hos excubitor, hvor det da typisk er bredere, men mere diffust end den klare hvide streg over næbbet hos meridiornalis. Jeg synes heler ikke man fornæmmer, at issen er mørkere end ryggen. den hvide vingeplet varierer en del hos de to former, og på nogle fotos af excubitor er den af samme udbredelse som hos meridiornalis - og vildmosefuglen. Den rosatonede grå underside i kontrast til lysere strube er jo meridiornaliskarakter. Lysforhold spiler nok ind - fuglen var filmet i ret dårligt lys, så vidt jeg forstår, og billederne i artiklen er i fuld sommersol.

Hos de meridiornalis, der er publiceret i artiklen adskiller næbbets krog sig endvidere fra excubitor ved at være længere, mere som en forlænget tand. Her synes jeg det er svært at se nogen forskel fra excubitor på vildmosefuglen.

Det er meget fint, at man nu ser Stor Tornskade igennem for at se, om der skulle gemme sig "noget andet" imellem. Og det er prisværdigt, at billeder er lagt ud så hurtigt, så der er mulighed for at kommentere dem - den vil blive behandlet med stor seriøsitet i SU, og formentligt vil vi udbeksle data med Tenumuo, som jeg udveksler "sjove tornskader" med. Hans finske fund blev desværre forkastet af det finske SU på et - synes jeg - meget hårdt grundlag, men det dokumenterende billedmateriale fra dengang var dog af betydeligt ringere kvalitet end de fotos, der er lagt ud nu.

6. januar 2001, 20.18

5. januar 2001, 13.53