Icelandic redpoll
Andy Stoddart
While watching a redpoll flock in a Kelling garden on the morning of March 24th 2009 I noticed a striking large, pale redpoll feeding on the ground. It immediately rang alarm bells as an ‘Arctic-type’ redpoll and stood out very clearly from the surrounding Mealy Redpolls (flammea). I couldn’t take my eyes off it but its identity was not immediately apparent. It wasn’t a Mealy Redpoll but it didn’t look quite right for an exilipes Arctic Redpoll either, so what was it? It soon flew off but returned several more times over the next hour or so, both to the ground and to the feeders, enabling me to take some photographs. Interestingly, it was individually recognisable by tiny white dots on each longest tertial. I returned on 25th and 27th March, again had good views and took as many photographs as I could.
The bird was large, long and ‘wide-bodied’, noticeably larger/longer than nearby flammea and Siskins and approaching the size of a Greenland Redpoll (rostrata) frequenting the same garden. Indeed, when at the same feeder, it was these two birds which stood out by virtue of their size, length and bulk. The bird possessed some rather Arctic Redpoll-like structural characters, largely a function of feather density - a fat ‘pug-faced’, small-eyed look, bull-necked appearance, deep chest, broad ‘shoulders’, very long ‘tubular’, barrel-shaped body (like the rostrata), heavily ‘trousered’ tibia and long wings and tail. It showed a medium-sized bill with, like the rostrata and just visible in photographs, a convex upper mandible. On occasion it indulged in some classic Arctic Redpoll ‘flank billowing’, inflating its dense and fluffy flank feathering.
The key plumage features were a very pale head, washed with a pale straw/honey-buff glaze extending onto the upper breast where it contrasted sharply with the white underparts. The face was very plain and unmarked and there was no noticeable supercilium. The mantle and scapulars were tawny-brown with limited grey tones, slightly darker than the nape, marked with thin dark streaks, the pale feather fringes broader than the dark centres, and with no significant lining or white central ‘tramlines’. The rump was bright white in ground colour but with grey streaking. When sleeked down, the streaking extended throughout the rump but when more ‘fluffed up’ the rump appeared whiter. As the bird was so ‘fat’, the rump was easily seen between parted wings - as is the case with Arctic Redpoll. The uppertail coverts were grey, broadly fringed white. The upper flanks were marked with short clustered streaking, continuing as grey lines right down the flanks, normally coalescing into three ‘organised’ thick lines. The ground colour of the flanks was pure white and when ‘fluffed up’ the flanks appeared white despite the presence of streaking. The longest undertail coverts had medium width dark grey arrowhead marks, strongest (very strong) on at least the longest two undertail coverts. Finally, the greater covert wing-bar was broad and white.
Right from the very first view, the bird did not resemble flammea. It was pale, buffy and, above all, large. I initially swung towards calling it a strangely large and very streaky exilipes Arctic Redpoll but squeezing it into this ‘box’ was difficult. After some lengthy deliberation, it seemed that pale islandica was perhaps a better option.
A number of redpoll enthusiasts at home and abroad were therefore consulted. All readily agreed that the bird was no flammea and that the features were also at variance with exilipes. It was too large, long-bodied and ‘solid’ and it had a convex upper mandible whilst the flank, rump and undertail covert patterns exceeded the boundaries of even an extremely streaked exilipes. The bird’s size, structure and plumage accorded well, however, with a pale islandica. The typical features of such pale birds quoted in the literature are large size, long body shape, Arctic Redpoll-like fat, fluffy structure, plain face, buff wash to face/upper breast, brown (not grey) mantle and scapulars, absence of mantle ‘tramlines’, white but streaked rump, strongly ‘three-lined’ flanks on a white background and heavily-marked under-tail coverts. This bird showed all these features.
Although at first sight a surprising occurrence, the presence of a rostrata in the same flock makes the presence of an Icelandic bird much less shocking. With an influx of ‘Northwest Redpolls’ to Britain in the winter of 2008/09, the evidence for a northwestern origin for this bird seems compelling.
The taxonomic position of redpolls in Iceland is not satisfactorily resolved, however, with both strikingly dark and strikingly pale birds present. Herremans (1990) proposes that Icelandic redpolls actually comprise two distinct forms, a dark form closely resembling rostrata, though averaging smaller, and a larger, pale form, the most extreme individuals of which closely resemble exilipes or even hornemanni Arctic Redpoll. The former, he suggests, should be termed islandica whilst the latter represent an as yet unnamed taxon. The fact that the pale redpolls differ consistently in measurements from the dark birds is strong evidence that the two types do not represent variation in a single taxon.
Given that the Kelling bird was a pale individual, its designation as an ‘Iceland Redpoll’ requires comment. Whilst pale Icelandic birds are currently treated as islandica, future work may grant them a new taxonomic status, at which point the Kelling bird will need to be re-labelled.
As a postscript, I visited Iceland in April 2011 and was able to spend long periods studying and photographing Icelandic redpolls, both small dark birds and large pale ones, as well as two Hornemann’s Arctic Redpolls. It was gratifying to note that the characters shown by the Kelling bird readily matched those of the pale birds and that many were essentially indistinguishable from that individual.
I am very grateful to John Miller for his help in securing views and photographs of this bird and to Martin Garner, Roger Riddington and David Sibley for their helpful comments on its identity. I am particularly grateful to Richard Millington for inspiring final confidence in its identification.
References
Herremans, M. (1990). Taxonomy and Evolution in Redpolls Carduelis flammea-hornemanni; A Multivariate Study of Their Biometry. Ardea 78: 441-458.
Pennington, M. and Maher, M. (2005). Greenland, Iceland and Hornemann’s Redpolls in Britain. Birding World 18:66-78.
Reid, J. And Riddington, R. (1999). Identification of Greenland and Iceland Redpolls. Dutch Birding 20:261-271.
Riddington, R. and Votier, S (1997). Redpolls from Greenland and Iceland. Birding World 10:147-149.
Svensson, L. (1992). Identification Guide to European Passerines. Privately published.
Van Duivendijk, N. (2010). Advanced Bird ID Guide. New Holland.
While watching a redpoll flock in a Kelling garden on the morning of March 24th 2009 I noticed a striking large, pale redpoll feeding on the ground. It immediately rang alarm bells as an ‘Arctic-type’ redpoll and stood out very clearly from the surrounding Mealy Redpolls (flammea). I couldn’t take my eyes off it but its identity was not immediately apparent. It wasn’t a Mealy Redpoll but it didn’t look quite right for an exilipes Arctic Redpoll either, so what was it? It soon flew off but returned several more times over the next hour or so, both to the ground and to the feeders, enabling me to take some photographs. Interestingly, it was individually recognisable by tiny white dots on each longest tertial. I returned on 25th and 27th March, again had good views and took as many photographs as I could.
The bird was large, long and ‘wide-bodied’, noticeably larger/longer than nearby flammea and Siskins and approaching the size of a Greenland Redpoll (rostrata) frequenting the same garden. Indeed, when at the same feeder, it was these two birds which stood out by virtue of their size, length and bulk. The bird possessed some rather Arctic Redpoll-like structural characters, largely a function of feather density - a fat ‘pug-faced’, small-eyed look, bull-necked appearance, deep chest, broad ‘shoulders’, very long ‘tubular’, barrel-shaped body (like the rostrata), heavily ‘trousered’ tibia and long wings and tail. It showed a medium-sized bill with, like the rostrata and just visible in photographs, a convex upper mandible. On occasion it indulged in some classic Arctic Redpoll ‘flank billowing’, inflating its dense and fluffy flank feathering.
The key plumage features were a very pale head, washed with a pale straw/honey-buff glaze extending onto the upper breast where it contrasted sharply with the white underparts. The face was very plain and unmarked and there was no noticeable supercilium. The mantle and scapulars were tawny-brown with limited grey tones, slightly darker than the nape, marked with thin dark streaks, the pale feather fringes broader than the dark centres, and with no significant lining or white central ‘tramlines’. The rump was bright white in ground colour but with grey streaking. When sleeked down, the streaking extended throughout the rump but when more ‘fluffed up’ the rump appeared whiter. As the bird was so ‘fat’, the rump was easily seen between parted wings - as is the case with Arctic Redpoll. The uppertail coverts were grey, broadly fringed white. The upper flanks were marked with short clustered streaking, continuing as grey lines right down the flanks, normally coalescing into three ‘organised’ thick lines. The ground colour of the flanks was pure white and when ‘fluffed up’ the flanks appeared white despite the presence of streaking. The longest undertail coverts had medium width dark grey arrowhead marks, strongest (very strong) on at least the longest two undertail coverts. Finally, the greater covert wing-bar was broad and white.
Right from the very first view, the bird did not resemble flammea. It was pale, buffy and, above all, large. I initially swung towards calling it a strangely large and very streaky exilipes Arctic Redpoll but squeezing it into this ‘box’ was difficult. After some lengthy deliberation, it seemed that pale islandica was perhaps a better option.
A number of redpoll enthusiasts at home and abroad were therefore consulted. All readily agreed that the bird was no flammea and that the features were also at variance with exilipes. It was too large, long-bodied and ‘solid’ and it had a convex upper mandible whilst the flank, rump and undertail covert patterns exceeded the boundaries of even an extremely streaked exilipes. The bird’s size, structure and plumage accorded well, however, with a pale islandica. The typical features of such pale birds quoted in the literature are large size, long body shape, Arctic Redpoll-like fat, fluffy structure, plain face, buff wash to face/upper breast, brown (not grey) mantle and scapulars, absence of mantle ‘tramlines’, white but streaked rump, strongly ‘three-lined’ flanks on a white background and heavily-marked under-tail coverts. This bird showed all these features.
Although at first sight a surprising occurrence, the presence of a rostrata in the same flock makes the presence of an Icelandic bird much less shocking. With an influx of ‘Northwest Redpolls’ to Britain in the winter of 2008/09, the evidence for a northwestern origin for this bird seems compelling.
The taxonomic position of redpolls in Iceland is not satisfactorily resolved, however, with both strikingly dark and strikingly pale birds present. Herremans (1990) proposes that Icelandic redpolls actually comprise two distinct forms, a dark form closely resembling rostrata, though averaging smaller, and a larger, pale form, the most extreme individuals of which closely resemble exilipes or even hornemanni Arctic Redpoll. The former, he suggests, should be termed islandica whilst the latter represent an as yet unnamed taxon. The fact that the pale redpolls differ consistently in measurements from the dark birds is strong evidence that the two types do not represent variation in a single taxon.
Given that the Kelling bird was a pale individual, its designation as an ‘Iceland Redpoll’ requires comment. Whilst pale Icelandic birds are currently treated as islandica, future work may grant them a new taxonomic status, at which point the Kelling bird will need to be re-labelled.
As a postscript, I visited Iceland in April 2011 and was able to spend long periods studying and photographing Icelandic redpolls, both small dark birds and large pale ones, as well as two Hornemann’s Arctic Redpolls. It was gratifying to note that the characters shown by the Kelling bird readily matched those of the pale birds and that many were essentially indistinguishable from that individual.
I am very grateful to John Miller for his help in securing views and photographs of this bird and to Martin Garner, Roger Riddington and David Sibley for their helpful comments on its identity. I am particularly grateful to Richard Millington for inspiring final confidence in its identification.
References
Herremans, M. (1990). Taxonomy and Evolution in Redpolls Carduelis flammea-hornemanni; A Multivariate Study of Their Biometry. Ardea 78: 441-458.
Pennington, M. and Maher, M. (2005). Greenland, Iceland and Hornemann’s Redpolls in Britain. Birding World 18:66-78.
Reid, J. And Riddington, R. (1999). Identification of Greenland and Iceland Redpolls. Dutch Birding 20:261-271.
Riddington, R. and Votier, S (1997). Redpolls from Greenland and Iceland. Birding World 10:147-149.
Svensson, L. (1992). Identification Guide to European Passerines. Privately published.
Van Duivendijk, N. (2010). Advanced Bird ID Guide. New Holland.
