Crappy photograph but I didn't realise there was more than one sort of Pipit when I came to ID it.
| Term and Conditions | Privacy Statement | Web Support by Gaia Resources Hosted by Serversaurus |  |
| Term and Conditions | Privacy Statement | Web Support by Gaia Resources Hosted by Serversaurus | |
Richard's Pipit for me.
Australasian Pipit (formerly or also known as Richard's Pipit), so I agree with Rick.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
No no, it's not a case of a new official common name. The Australasian Pipit has been split and recognised as being a separate species to the Richard's Pipit (they were formerly lumped as one species). Almost all pipits that will be encountered in Aust will be referrable to Australasian Pipit (some other vagrants have occurred).
The Richard's Pipit are currently circumscribed ranges through Asia. True Richard's Pipits could still occur in Australia as vagrants from the north, though as according to Slater separating the two species probably entails an in-hand specimen from which to measure the length of the hind-toe and claw (!), I assume most vagrants would probably go unrecorded.
Thanks for that info Zosterops, very interesting, though P&K refers to it as "Australian Pipit" in their electronic version and "Australasian Pipit " in their book, just to add to the confusion