UKC

I stopped in to ask at RSPB Vane Farm reserve today to ask - I thought tree pipit. However, after 5 members of staff looked, there remained no clear thoughts which pipit is it. One said to ignore the beak’s colour due to it being atypical anyway; otherwise it has some similarities of both tree and meadow pipits!

It was seen alone in an open scrub woodland strip, though near to rough grassland, a hundred or so metres from denser established woodland and a bit more from more extensive grasslands. I didn’t hear it sing nor saw it flying.

Any thoughts here?

It's not a Rock pipit 😁

Reckon meadow pipit. It’s beak, whilst doing a good impression of a crossbill, looks to fine. And it’s back claw looks well long. 

Google lenses suggests tree pipit

It’s a hard one. The breast streaking is tree pipit like but the back toe is meadow pipit. Tree pipits would have only just started arriving but it could be an early bird. 

Flank streaking is similar in width to the breast streaking, so Meadow Pipit. 

Tree would be much finer (and still quite early for tree pipits which are migrants). 

Many thanks everyone. It’s interesting to learn so appreciate the comments.

Two RSPB staff said meadow mainly on probability as they have had a lot of arrivals already. However, there was one tree pipit sighting recorded on the reserve shown on their observation board (though there is no certainty it had been accurately identified and could be nothing other than just a guess by a visitor if you know how their system works).

One member of staff who was 50/50 on ID talked about a Open University website where you could upload a photo and they would respond with a reply from a specialist. However, he couldn’t remember the url and so far I have failed to find any from my googling.

Meadow pipit on balance of probability and the general consensus it seems. Thanks again.

I'm with Bottom Clinger: the rear claw is noticeably long, which is characteristic of the Meadow Pipit.

In the BTO courses I've attended, they always emphasise size (although this can be tricky if you don't have a visual reference close by), structure, behaviour, season & status, habitat, and song & call as being equally as - and frequently more - important in terms of ID as plumage.  That's partly because you often don't get a good view of the plumage (though that obviously doesn't apply in this case) and also because it can be quite variable depending on season, how recently the bird has moulted etc.

The BTO have a useful YouTube channel with a number of comparative bird ID videos, including this one which is particularly pertinent to this thread:  youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5-wah4eBA&

Thanks for all that.

Coincidentally, I found that video just last night and it very useful. If they are all similarly helpful I will be looking at others in the BTO channel.

The BTO videos are superb. If in doubt, check ‘em out. As Martin says, it’s the way they go over the other, often more important detail - not just the plumage. 
Regarding tree pipits: give it a month then go back and check them out - they fly up from the top of a tree and sing as they parachute back down ‘skylark’ style. Easy to tell that way. 
Ed: there’s been a few garganey in Fife which is unusual. 

Thanks. Still to see garganey. Saw my first close up of Eiders at Crail last week including a male juvenile which I read takes up to 3 years to develop the adult colours. The male colouring was stunning I thought.

Nice Eider piccy - they are beautiful and very obligingly visible from a great distance with that plumage.

General rule with similar looking species - it's the most common one unless you've got some specific "evidence" to the contrary. Not always correct of course.

Also, sometimes (too often actually) you'll just never know which bird it was; I've got several at the moment where I basically still need a definitive view to be sure; e.g. the two partridge that flew past me the other day; grey or red-legged - I think grey but didn't have time or a good enough view to be sure, and that made me wonder about a previous sighting that thinking back, wasn't definitive between the two.

And then I think - if I couldn't see/hear it well enough to be able to definitively identify, then was it a worthwhile sighting? And my answer is no, I want a better sighting than that.

Happy to accept the general rule. I’m interested in learning more, but not (yet at least!) that I have to know which bird. Certainly have seen a few birds that I couldn’t ID and didn’t get a reasonable photo to try to later ID, so just forgotten about them.