Hi
I snapped this fellow at Rouse Hill in Sydney. This is the only pic i managed to get before he was scared away by a kookabuaa. It is the first kingfisher i have seen, the pic is a bit fuzzy but i am tempted to guess its a Forest Kingfisher?? Would appreciate any help on the id.
Kingfisher by WhistlingDuck, on Flickr(Hopefully everyone can see the pic as this is first time i tried to link to flickr)
Thanks
or maybe a sacred?
I'd say forest kingfisher which lacks the salmon front of the sacred kingfisher.
Forest are blue and Sacred are green so yours is a Forest.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
All of the tree kingfishers share the two tufts on the forehead. Notice that the tufts on this bird continues over the eye into a pointy eyebrow... this is characteristic of both Sacred and Collared KF, whereas the Forest KF has obvious white "headlights" which don't slick back over the eye. We can immediately elliminate Collared KF, however, based on the habitat in the photo.
Forest KF has a clean white belly... Sacred KF has a buff coloured underside, like your bird. Some people think the buff colour on the Sacred KF is a result of fishing in iron-rich water... kind of like the Little Pied Cormorant does.
I'm voting for Sacred Kingfisher
Brandon (aka ihewman)
Shorty, I have lots of Sacred Kingfishers around here and they are definitely not green, so maybe it's different over east.
+1 for Sacred
Nathan, I would think the confusion comes from Morcombe's misleading illustrations. I, for one, don't trust his artworks... his information is good, but the thoroughness is lacking in his drawings. Along with many others, his drawings of Sacred Kingfisher are not accurate (colour wise).
Brandon (aka ihewman)
That was my suspicion. It has a buff brown eyebrow.
Scroll down the following link for some blue Sacred kingfishers resembling Forest:
http://www.mdahlem.net/birds/14/sacrking.php
Thankyou everyone for sharing your opinoins - im going with Sacred Kingfisher based on the info from ihewman, nathany, and zosterops. I was working from Morcombe's book originally. Thanks for the link zosterops - that will be a very useful site for me in future. There was a pic there that looked very similar to mine.
"Smithsonian Field Guide of Birds of North America" (page 355)
Bluebirds and other blue coloured birds do not have blue pigments in their feathers. Blue colouration in birds is caused by tiny air cavities in the feather's structure. The size and location of the air cavities is amazingly precise, causing an interaction with light waves that produces blue colours.
I would imagine that this is much the same as to why the sky is blue. From this, you can assume that the blue colour in these Kingfishers, and other blue birds, can appear to alter depending on the light conditions.
Brandon (aka ihewman)
I'm sticking with forest kingfisher. The white rather than buff front tells the story.
+1 for Forest Kingfisher.
I think it is too blue a blue for Sacred which is more green. There doesn't seem to be any green in Whistling Duck's photo. Even the photos at http://www.mdahlem.net/birds/14/sacrking.php have some green.
Specifically, I think it is an immature Forest Kingfisher. Immature birds are more likely to venture outside normal range, and the immature Forest Kingfisher is both duller and buffer than the adult. Also, by the diagrams in my Field Guide, the immature Forest Kingfisher has a more horizontal eyespot (which is also buffer), which when coupled with the head angle in the photo explains how it looks more like the eyespot on a Sacred Kingfisher.
Hi, I am also having some trouble with identifying a kingfisher. I apologise for the crappy photo, it was taken from a distance and I was really exited so I was shaking a bit
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
Hi Tegan - it would help if you can provide the location/state where you saw it
It was taken just at the border of Victoria and N.S.W so I don't think it's a forest kingfisher, it's out of range, but it looks too blue for a sacred, sacreds are more turquoise
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
Im no expert, but I would say its a Sacred Kingfisher.
I only offer an opinion as i have been down this path before with my original photo on this thread, which i now identify as a sacred KF.
The sacred KF can appear quite blue as well. Possibly how blue/green they appear depends a lot on the available light. I think a good indicator is the colour of the patches in front of the eye - in a sacred KFthey are more buff colour and trail back to an eyebrowe, in forest KF they are white and stay forward of the eye. Also the breast of your bird does not look a clean white which the forest KF has.
Here is a link to a very blue looking sacred KF.
http://birdway.com.au/coraciiformes/sacred_kingfisher/index.htm
Here is another sacred KF from same site, looks very similar to your photo
http://birdway.com.au/coraciiformes/sacred_kingfisher/source/sacred_kingfisher_47240.htm
Yes I think I will have to agree with you, I think it's a sacred too, it just looked very blue, and the bar on its neck looks very wide too. Do you know if it's a male or a female?
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
I dont know enough to hazard a guess on the gender
Oh ok. I think it might be a female. Can you help me with another bird I took a photo of? Thank you so much if you can
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
Hi Tegan
You can create your own new post on the forum via the New Topic button on the identifications forum- that way the more knowledgeable people here will see its a new one and give an opinion.
If I know what it is I will give you a reply - but I may well not know!
I tried doing that but it doesn't work. I am working on getting it fixed, but I will post them hear for now. Do you know what this bird is? Taken in my backyard, I suspect a young red wattle bird, but I'm sure
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
Also this one
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
Yes I think you are right with Red WB
Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it!
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
I'll second the Sacred Kingfisher. Here's some tips:
Sacred = small buff spot before eyes, pale buff underparts, usually bluish-green upperparts but sometimes quite blue. Females are duller and more green and have less buff below (apparently some are almost white). This will be easier to judge when there's 2 birds.
Forest = large white spot before eyes, white underparts, blue upperparts, and importantly, white "windows" on the wings in flight. Females don't have a connecting white collar.
What exactly is stopping you from posting new topics in the Identifications section?
Thank you so much for that, it really helped on the gender. Now I'm almost positive it's a male, do you agree? Also do you think the photos I posted after the kingfisher are young red wattlebirds?
Well as for posting new topics, as soon as I click on the tab "Forums" to create a new thread, the whole think just crashes, but don't worry, I'm working on getting it fixed
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.
I'm wary of the quality/lighting of the photo but I would also suggest a male. I agree with young Red WB.
Hope you get the problem fixed soon!
Yes, I'm sorry about the quality of the kingfisher photo, it was taken at a distance away, and it was the first one I ever saw, so I was really exited and I couldn't hold the camera still. Ok so now I'm 99% sure it's a male, and thanks for all your help!
Tegan - Melbourne Vic.