I'm catching up on posts and this interested me because of the apparently freshly plumaged Sacred Kingfisher I spent some time with in Kununurra. It had some momentarily confusing Azure-like characteristics though I’d have to say there was no possibility of confusion due to the bill and blue as well as buff-not-orange, not to mention shape, size and tail. But its buffness was complete – went all round the front – and the wing blue was unusually bright. It certainly made a nice picture, quite different from my previous views of this species. It was too busy feeding to call.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ozjulian/15395862676/
From: Philip Veerman [
Sent: Saturday, 11 October 2014 13:29
To:
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] kingfishers
Yes. Dependant on the view available of course, I think a juvenile Sacred Kingfisher is obvious from the mottled wings and upperparts, apart from any buff underparts. Tracking a lot of known age and sex birds should help sort out whether it is an age, sex, wear of plumage or individual difference feature. Azure Kingfishers are quite different and are not like an over coloured Sacred Kingfisher. Apart from shape and colour, the head pattern, and neck collar (or not) is also quite different. In other words something shaped like a Sacred Kingfisher but much more coloured than the book typical Sacred Kingfisher is still that, not an Azure Kingfisher. Another clue is calls. Sacred Kingfishers are very noisy at their nesting sites.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Dabb [m("iinet.net.au","gdabb");">]
Sent: Saturday, 11 October 2014 1:04 PM
To: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");">
Subject: [canberrabirds] kingfishers
I happened to be looking through an old CBN (March 1990, p18) where there was a note on Sacred Kingfishers referring to the ‘considerable amount of rufous that young birds have on their breasts’. It went on ‘this rufous colouration is not well shown in the field guides and can easily result in identification of juvenile Sacred Kingfishers as Azure Kingfishers’. The 1989 rev of Slater (text and illustration) gives the MALE with pale buff underparts and the FEMALE as ‘less buff below, some almost white’. Since vol 4 of HANZAB (1999) it is more widely accepted that the ‘buff’ (to call it that for convenience rather than accuracy) is not particularly a juv or female character but related to moult – ‘when plumage fresh, birds can look very buff below’. ‘Individual variation’ is also a consideration. The below old photo shows a recently fledged juv –
Don’t bring up Restless Flycatchers. There is a respectable view (for the present) that the rusty colour is usually but not always a female characteristic.
