Record 10629: Peregrine Falcon

This record was submitted by Khoo Wunson on 23 Oct 2023. All user submissions will be reviewed by the Records Committee. Entries listed here may be edited for brevity and clarity while the original record is left unchanged.

23 Oct 2023

Record submitted

This record was submitted to the Records Committee for review.
24 Oct 2023

Review started

The Records Committee began deliberating on this record.
16 Dec 2023

Record finalised

The Records Committee completed its review and finalised its verdict.

Species	Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Record ID	10629
Date	14 Oct 2023
Location	Pulau Ubin
Count	1 individual
Subspecies	peregrinator
Date added	23 Oct 2023

Committee's view

Background
The committee considered this record extensively and eventually concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove this bird was not the much more likely ernesti. ernesti Peregrine is generally scarce throughout its range, making it hard to find material suggesting the limits of the intra-subspecies variation. There is more material on peregrinator, which is obviously highly variable within its range; from strongly marked birds with limited rufous on underparts and more “calidus-like” facial mask in the north, to more weakly marked, more rufous, and with more extensive “ernesti-like” black facial mask in the south. The committee concluded that with ernesti likely to be similarly variable, even though most photos online appear to show birds which are fairly well-marked below, this bird may still represent an extreme ernesti rather than true peregrinator. It appears that this bird is mildly marked on the underparts as well and it is unclear if the distance and light contributed further to “washing out” black markings that are present. It is also unclear if ernesti can indeed be completely unmarked. An additional record of a lightly marked individual from Hampstead Wetlands Park, Jelutong Tower and Springleaf Nature Park (confirmed as the same individual by primary wear pattern) also contributed to our conclusion. The difference in appearance between the images below clearly show that the distinctness of black bars on the underparts can be affected significantly by light conditions. Additionally, there is a possibility that the Ubin bird is the same as this individual recorded three times on the main island, as the underparts and head pattern seem to match. Unless we can confidently assign peregrinator to the main island bird, which seems unsafe given its markings are within range of variation for ernesti, we cannot rule out ernesti for this record. We noted that others have identified this bird as a peregrinator, but as explained above, support for this claim is lacking. Importantly, peregrinator is highly unexpected in Singapore, as it is believed to be sedentary and mostly restricted to the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, given the high burden of proof required to rule out the much more expected ernesti, the committee opted to reject this record and treat it as more likely ernesti instead. We would like to thank Shashank Dalvi and members of our RC panel who shared their opinions about this bird with us.

Background

The committee considered this record extensively and eventually concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove this bird was not the much more likely ernesti.

ernesti Peregrine is generally scarce throughout its range, making it hard to find material suggesting the limits of the intra-subspecies variation. There is more material on peregrinator, which is obviously highly variable within its range; from strongly marked birds with limited rufous on underparts and more “calidus-like” facial mask in the north, to more weakly marked, more rufous, and with more extensive “ernesti-like” black facial mask in the south. The committee concluded that with ernesti likely to be similarly variable, even though most photos online appear to show birds which are fairly well-marked below, this bird may still represent an extreme ernesti rather than true peregrinator. It appears that this bird is mildly marked on the underparts as well and it is unclear if the distance and light contributed further to “washing out” black markings that are present. It is also unclear if ernesti can indeed be completely unmarked.

An additional record of a lightly marked individual from Hampstead Wetlands Park, Jelutong Tower and Springleaf Nature Park (confirmed as the same individual by primary wear pattern) also contributed to our conclusion. The difference in appearance between the images below clearly show that the distinctness of black bars on the underparts can be affected significantly by light conditions. Additionally, there is a possibility that the Ubin bird is the same as this individual recorded three times on the main island, as the underparts and head pattern seem to match. Unless we can confidently assign peregrinator to the main island bird, which seems unsafe given its markings are within range of variation for ernesti, we cannot rule out ernesti for this record.

We noted that others have identified this bird as a peregrinator, but as explained above, support for this claim is lacking. Importantly, peregrinator is highly unexpected in Singapore, as it is believed to be sedentary and mostly restricted to the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, given the high burden of proof required to rule out the much more expected ernesti, the committee opted to reject this record and treat it as more likely ernesti instead.

We would like to thank Shashank Dalvi and members of our RC panel who shared their opinions about this bird with us.