Phil Wilson wrote:
> markvanderv1@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Red-breasted Merganser, certainly.
> >
> > In the wild the identity of the hawk would be evident within two
> > seconds. OTOH, it's hard to gauge size and jizz from a photo.Why
are
> > you certain that it is a Rough-legged Hawk and not a Eurasian Marsh
> > Harrier? I'm 50-50 myself.
>
> For a Marsh Harrier to be that pale underneath it would require to be
> male.
Yes.
Male Marsh Harriers do not have black carpal patches (at the
> front bend of the inner and outer wing).
This was the first thing I looked for, but the photos were inconclusive
to me. It *looks* like a dark carpal patch, but I couldn't be certain
it wasn't a function of lighting or shadows. Looking again at the
second, larger photo, though, it appears a bit more obvious that it is
a dark carpal patch.
> Furthermore Harriers are all
> conspicuously long- and slender-tailed. The tail in this case
> (although foreshortened by the angle) is clearly too short.
I couldn't tell this from the photo. The tail looks proportionally long
for a buteo to me.
> Then there
> is the blackish-brown belly patch, with a clear demarcation line, and
> a pale head and upper breat that appears streaked.
Boy, I really can't tell from the photo whether or not the bird has any
of these field marks!
>This is not
> possible for Marsh Harrier, but fits Roughleg to a T. And the wings
> are slightly too broad for Marsh Harrier (related to the length of
the
> tail).
Agreed. The wings do look broad in the photo.
> Last but not least it just looks like a Buzzard rather than a
> Harrier (it's a big, heavy bird), although we're fortunate in having
> an unambiguous photo to identify. In life it's always possible to get
> poor views where ID is in doubt. I reckon 20-30 percent of raptors
> just have to be put down as probables.
