I think it's Horsfield's Bronze Cuckoo, because wouldn't the red/tan eye-ring of the Little BC be visible despite the blown highlights?
I downloaded the file (and deleted it when I was done), and despite massively increasing things like contrast and saturation couldn't wring any red or tan out of the eye ring (or eye).
Shame about the overexposure, it is a really great photo.
Hi, Alan. I have played around with the pic, and have put it in my FlickR to post here. It is set to private so no one can see it there only here. If you want me to delete it let me know, other wise i will leave it on here for a few days before deleting it so others can chime in.
The Horsfields has no barring on the thoat so i would eliminate it.
Sorry i did not check location of SBC (just a quick post with morning coffee before work) Eye, barring on tail and bill to me look like SBC but with location it should be LBC? Might have to wait for someone with more knowledge to chime in.
You should consider the fact that the bird may be a juvenile... I'm sure it's a Little BC. Although a red eye ring is not apparent on this bird, the bare skin around the eye is still evident. This suggests that it's a juv. or female Little Bronze-Cuckoo which hasn't developed the red pigment around the eye. A Shining BC has a rather normal eye lid.
BTW, only the male Little BC has a red eye-ring; females still have the bare skin around the eye, but no red pigment. One thing that is also a outstanding feature of Little BC is a bold line that passes through the eye... although, this line is not as long as that of a Horsefield's BC, which extends into a cresent shape.
Eliminating both Shining and Horsefield's BCs, it can only be a Little Bronze-Cuckoo.
There is no way the bird can be an immature or juvenile bird- it has got far too much barring too far up the neck for that- imm/juv HBCs and LBCs both have very little barring above the wing joint. Shorty's adjusted photo clearly shows barring.
Also, as I understand it, female Bronze-Cuckoos are functionally identical to the male ones, except for some subtle colour differences and the eye ring in the female LBC? My field guide describes the eye ring of a female LBC being "tan"... I think that the tan would have shown up in the eye ring, which is grey in the in the photo. With Shorty's severe manipulation of the image, any brown or red should have shown up. HBCs do have bare skin around their eyes; the feature isn't unique to LBCs.
Annoyingly, the facial markings don't seem to match either HBC or LBC exactly. There is a curving white line (which is definitely a crescent), but it doesn't quite go far enough... However, there is also a white line under the eye, and dark area extending backwards and th downwards following the first line, just like in HBC.
I think it's Horsfield's Bronze Cuckoo, because wouldn't the red/tan eye-ring of the Little BC be visible despite the blown highlights?
I downloaded the file (and deleted it when I was done), and despite massively increasing things like contrast and saturation couldn't wring any red or tan out of the eye ring (or eye).
Shame about the overexposure, it is a really great photo.
Thanks Lachlan
Hi, Alan. I have played around with the pic, and have put it in my FlickR to post here. It is set to private so no one can see it there only here. If you want me to delete it let me know, other wise i will leave it on here for a few days before deleting it so others can chime in.
The Horsfields has no barring on the thoat so i would eliminate it.
My choice would be Shining bronze Cuckoo.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
I dont thik we have SBC in Darwin. How about the Little Bronze-Cuckoo?
Sorry i did not check location of SBC (just a quick post with morning coffee before work) Eye, barring on tail and bill to me look like SBC but with location it should be LBC? Might have to wait for someone with more knowledge to chime in.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
I thought Horsfield's did have barring on the throat? Admittedly it's indistinct, but so is that of Alans.
Don't think there is any way it could be a LBC, though, with the utterly non-red eye.
Still think it's Horsfield's.
You should consider the fact that the bird may be a juvenile... I'm sure it's a Little BC. Although a red eye ring is not apparent on this bird, the bare skin around the eye is still evident. This suggests that it's a juv. or female Little Bronze-Cuckoo which hasn't developed the red pigment around the eye. A Shining BC has a rather normal eye lid.
BTW, only the male Little BC has a red eye-ring; females still have the bare skin around the eye, but no red pigment. One thing that is also a outstanding feature of Little BC is a bold line that passes through the eye... although, this line is not as long as that of a Horsefield's BC, which extends into a cresent shape.
Eliminating both Shining and Horsefield's BCs, it can only be a Little Bronze-Cuckoo.
Brandon (aka ihewman)
There is no way the bird can be an immature or juvenile bird- it has got far too much barring too far up the neck for that- imm/juv HBCs and LBCs both have very little barring above the wing joint. Shorty's adjusted photo clearly shows barring.
Also, as I understand it, female Bronze-Cuckoos are functionally identical to the male ones, except for some subtle colour differences and the eye ring in the female LBC? My field guide describes the eye ring of a female LBC being "tan"... I think that the tan would have shown up in the eye ring, which is grey in the in the photo. With Shorty's severe manipulation of the image, any brown or red should have shown up. HBCs do have bare skin around their eyes; the feature isn't unique to LBCs.
Annoyingly, the facial markings don't seem to match either HBC or LBC exactly. There is a curving white line (which is definitely a crescent), but it doesn't quite go far enough... However, there is also a white line under the eye, and dark area extending backwards and th downwards following the first line, just like in HBC.