New Page 1

It would appear on the surface that the identification of littoralis has been well covered in various literature but confusion still often reigns as misconceptions, especially with the variability of petrosus (how often do we really look at those Rock Pipits during visits to the coast?) and the often similar spring plumage of littoralis to Water Pipit which itself has lead to recent identification problems in the county. I hope in these pages to attempt to clarify the occasionally 'muddy waters' and hopefully utilise my personal experience of large numbers of Rock Pipit (both petrosus and littoralis) and Water Pipit (both spinoletta and coutelli) whilst collating much of what information is already 'out there'. It is not the intention of this article to cover the separation of Rock and Water Pipits from other Anthus species such as Meadow Pipit as this is well covered in most modern field guides, nor do I intend to cover 'Eastern' Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta coutelli) or Siberian/American Buff-bellied Pipit (Anthus rubescens rubescens/japonicus) although both appear and are mentioned in the article.

When considering the identification of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit, it is important to recognise and consider the following factors:

1/. The vast majority of birds (at least) are not safely assignable to either sub-species in non-breeding plumage.

2/. Rock Pipits (of both races) can be very variable in their plumage features with a good degree of overlap, only extreme examples of littoralis should be identified with any degree of confidence.

3/. Viewing factors such as lighting conditions and the background (colouration) you are viewing the bird against can often have a potentially misleading impact on your judgement and it is important to ensure a relatively prolonged observation in making your assessment.

4/. Concerning colouration, especially of outer-tail feathers, in the field it is very difficult to differentiate between various tones and hues of white (especially between white and greyish/white), making any critical assessment a potentially torrid affair.

5/. When assessing images on a computer monitor be careful to bear in mind the potentially misleading nature of camera angle, lighting, computer editing effects and the variability of colour representation on individual computer monitors.

The following table only outlines the potential features useful in the separation of petrosus and littoralis in non-breeding plumage.

	PETROSUS	LITTORALIS
HEAD	usually displays little, if any, obvious pale supercilium although some birds show a weak, pale (dirty-buffish) supercilium it rarely approaches that of the most extreme littoralis	although typically variable, birds displaying a strong and very pale supercilium appear indicative of this race and this seems to remain one of the more reliable features when present and can often appear more apparent when the head is viewed 'front-on'
UPPERPARTS	characteristically olive-grey, most pronounced on the lower back and rump	can sometimes tend to be slightly more brownish and less olive in tone
UNDERPARTS	yellowish/buff or yellowish/olive ground tone and extensive, very diffuse streaking often appearing very 'messy'	ground colour perhaps paler, more whitish particularly on throat which can often show a distinct contrast, breast streaking perhaps paler and clearer in at least some individuals
TAIL	outer-tail feathers (T6) typically light-grey or greyish/buff on outer web, very rarely appearing paler	outer-tail feathers (T6) appear consistently paler than petrosus, more light grey but often appearing whitish particularly towards the tip, this feature appears to be reasonably reliable in the potential separation of the two sub-species

Above: Scandinavian Rock Pipit (littoralis), West Looe, Cornwall, 17.12.06 (Mike Buckland). This bird was ringed as a first-year bird on Oland, Sweden in September 2003, so at least we can be sure the bird is a true littoralis but without the 'leg-iron' could we be sure of it's identification in this, it's non-breeding plumage? Whilst a pale supercilium is present, the underparts appear quite pale and the outer-tail feather appears quite pale also, categorising lone birds to either subspecies without comparison is subjective at best and often impossible.

Above: Rock Pipit (littoralis/petrosus), Hayle, Cornwall, 18.10.04 (Ian McKerchar). So which one then, petrosus or littoralis? For me this bird could be in the 'either/or' bracket, although it appears quite brownish on the upperparts and has a reasonable supercilium.

Above: Scandinavian Rock Pipit (littoralis), Morups Tange, Halland, Sweden (Stephan Johansson). Despite being a true littoralis, this individual looks pretty much identical to more than a few petrosus, note how at this angle and under the lighting conditions the supercilium doesn't appear to be particularly strong.

Above: Scandinavian Rock Pipit (littoralis, same bird as immediately above), Morups Tange, Halland, Sweden (Stephan Johansson). Note here in comparison with that above how the supercilium appears to be more apparent when viewed head on!

Above: Scandinavian Rock Pipit (littoralis), Getteron, Halland, Sweden (Stephan Johansson). This individual, another true littoralis, seems to lack any supercilium and looks particularly like most petrosus, proving just how extensive overlap in features is within each sub-species.

Above: Scandinavian Rock Pipit (littoralis), Getteron, Halland, Sweden (Stephan Johansson). Another true littoralis which could easily pass for either sub-species.