Notes on Identifying New Zealand Cranes

[Paul G]

In September 2005 it was announced that OSNZ had struck Brolga from the New Zealand List. This was a belated reaction to the 1960's discovery of Northeastern Australia's substantial population of the quite similar-looking Sarus Cranes - they'd existed there unrecognised until that time.
Quite correctly, it was then acknowldeged that older historic records of 'Brolga' in New Zealand could also have been Sarus Cranes. All previous records were therefore amended to become only "Unidentified Cranes".
Regrettably (in my humble opinion) the perfectly correct and fully substantiated 1947 Clevedon record of a Brolga was caught-up in the mass-erasure of records, and at present the Rarities Advisory Committee decline to reconsider it a second time despite the large quantity of additional information and witness reports that have been presented to them since 2005.

Ed Drewett et al (myself included) also submitted reports of another bird in Fiordland in 2009 and 2012, which was well described as a Sarus Crane. This record was also rejected. Both species remain excluded from the New Zealand list, to the confusion of visitors and compilers of our latest field guides.

So... what happens if YOU see a New Zealand Crane?
You'll need to be fully forearmed with the essential identification criteria for the separation of the two!
These features are striking and obvious. But you may only have a minute or two to check them out.
So here's a couple of notes that I hope may prove useful if you're the next kiwi to get lucky.
Since "a picture is worth a thousand words", here's a couple of self-explanatory snaps.

Key features are:
1). Brolga has DARK SECONDARIES on trailing edge panels of the inner wing. Sarus Crane has light ones.

(155.2 KiB) Viewed 6166 times

2). Brolga has crimson or dark head-band like a 'cuff'. Sarus Crane has a long crimson or dark head 'sleeve' like a long glove.
3). Brolga has a horrible dirty scavenger-like look about it, especially around the face and head, sometimes(but not always) with a scrawny 'dewlap' of skin hanging under the throat. Sarus Crane appears more 'composed', with a more well-formed and almost goose-like slim head.

(157.45 KiB) Viewed 6166 times

Other, similarly subjective impressions of 'Jizz' are pointed-out on the pictures below.
Note that this is not a 'scientust's view'. These are solely my own single New Zealand experience and the results of intense and prolonged photo research and three years of consultation with many authorities throughout Australasia, especially Crane specialists. So I make no apology for telling it how I think these birds will appear to you yourself, in the moment of realisation that you're looking at a Crane in New Zealand- and that's a whole different matter to the most detailed studies of a proper New Zealand 'scientust' with a degree in ornithology. I hope my humble suggestions help somebody to restore one of our taonga to it's proper status as an 'officially' recognised New Zealand bird.

(117.46 KiB) Viewed 6166 times

Please check out part two of this posting that examines the fact that many species of Cranes worldwide, and certainly Sarus Crane commonly have non-red heads.

Paul

[Paul G]

Finally, here's a very poor-definition picture of a group of Sarus Cranes, some of which have dark, or 'scab brown' heads. Definitely not red or crimson in any way.

(88.14 KiB) Viewed 6159 times

Regrettably, more than one member of New Zealand's OSNZ Rarities Advisory Committee feels that it is essential to report the degree and extent of red on the head of any crane seen in New Zealand. This will not be possible in many cases, since the birds simply don't have a red head ! I was made fully aware of this RAC view by phone whilst still nearby the Fiordland bird, and it was also cited as a reason for the rejection of the subsequent RAC submission in 2012.
I continue to maintain that no red was visible, and have subsequently uncovered numerous examples of Sarus Cranes with dark or 'scab brown' heads, exactly as I described in my notes at the time. Some very well-known Australian crane specialists and illustrators kindly furnished photographic examples.

I'm grateful to the patient international bodies who meticulously answered my lengthy queries in great detail over three years. Too many to mention by name. What generous and knowledgeable people work in this field! Thanks a million.

cheers
Paul

Please note also that I do not copyright or own any of the attached pictures, the originals of which have been kindly provided me for this project, and I will be happy to credit anyone alongside them if they wish to contact me. My thanks for their use.

[Neil Fitzgerald]

Interesting pointers Paul. Thanks.

[RussCannings]

I would assume that most/all Sarus Cranes with brownish heads are immatures/subadults? I don't have any references with me and I'm certainly no expert on cranes in this part of the world, but Googling "Immature Sarus Crane" brings up a lot of high-def photos of sarus cranes like the ones in your photo above. Take this one for example:

http://orientalbirdimages.org/birdimage ... Family_ID=

So absolutely, I think it's important to try and note as many fieldmarks and jizz characters as the 'red' itself is not a clincher (Although the pattern is perhaps fairly similar). It may even be more likely to expect subadults being more likely to show up on our shores than experienced adults.

Thanks for the great post Paul.

[Paul G]

Copy of the full Sarus Crane report from 2009/2012. (With apologies for the length of this full document) I hope it contains some useful identification impressions for future use in NZ.

Unusual/Rare bird report
Species: Sarus Crane Grus antigone

Observer: 1st Report, Mossburn 8 Mar 2009: Edward Drewitt & Tom Maitland
2nd Report, Te Anau Down 17 Feb 2012: Paul Godolphin & Hayley Dargue Jones
3rd Report, Lake Moeraki 19 Feb 2012 Niall Mugan

Address: (Paul Godolphin, making this submission) Pukekohe, 2678

Other observers: First reported nearby at Mossburn 8th March 09 by ED and TM as a Brolga (because NZ handguides list Brolga as the only Crane sp that occurs in NZ). Second sighting close to the first, along a strip of identical habitat 17 Feb 12 by PDG and HDJ (unaware of the previous report), positively identified as Sarus Crane. Third sighting two days later flying north offshore of Lake Moeraki Wilderness Lodge, South Westland by NM.
Date(s) of observation(s): PDG/HDJ report only: 17 Feb 2012
Location: 2.5km E of Te Anau Down over SH94 road, flew away north.
Habitat: Rough dry cattle pasture, rush clumps, weedy, goose-grazed paddocks edged in
extensive low bush. Lake Te Anau a few kms away to west.Viewing distance: Directly below bird, approx 50m above, then flying away.
Optical aids used (magnification): naked eye, then 8x30 Zeiss roof prism binocs
Duration of observation: 1 minute
Books consulted: HANZAB (on return home) Extensive internet sources (within the hour)
How well do you know the species (list previous experience)?
Many years experience of Common Crane Grus grus overseas, but none of Sarus Crane or Brolga. Obviously very familiar with NZ resident heron spp.

How confident are you about the identification? Very Confident.

State any relevant weather or sea conditions that helped or hindered the observation:
The bird’s three sightings are all on different days but within a 70 minute period (1050, 1100 and 1200) where the day has started cool and wet, but warmed up later, the correct conditions in which Cranes are able to ‘raptor’ on the warming air and make flights.

Description of the bird(s) First impressions/discovery/Shape/plumage colour:

First impression from moving car caused an emergency stop, skidding to a halt and leaping from the car, exclaiming “**** me, it’s a bloody BROLGA !!!!” as the bird circled above the road. With the naked eye, this was clearly a large Crane sp. Overall grey colour, with huge ‘barn-door’ shaped wings, tipped with massive dark ‘fingered’ primaries. Wing-tip shape reminiscent of a Bateleur Eagle or a Vulture, but with a heavy, rolling beat, the wings curling on the downstroke, like a rug being unfurled. The bird looked enormous and heavily weighted, like a fully-fuelled and loaded transport aircraft labouring, gut heavy, off the ground for take-off.
(Completely different to the stiff, buoyant rigid-winged flight of mid-sized herons, that lift like burning newspaper drifting upward from the flames of a bonfire, with the apparent lightness of a balsa-wood toy).
The outstretched neck was peculiarly kinked towards the head, like a wire coat-hanger that somebody had made a bad job of straightening-out, but had left a slight unevenness. The neck, long and unevenly tapering to a mid-length ‘constriction’, led to an almost ‘headless’ impression, caused by the light parts and cap being invisible at times against the light sky, and tipped with the dagger-like bill. The crimson colour of the head markings was not visible, appearing only dark, or bark brown against the burnout of the bright blue-grey skylight background, like a long-cuffed fine lady’s glove, extending from the bill base to some way down the throat/neck like a long dark sock with no toes in it, the head and throat looking slim and fine, accentuated by the cap being hard to see due to it’s light colour.

In the struggle to rip the binoculars from the car boot as the bird completed it’s overhead circle and moved off, the strap was torn from my Zeiss 8x30 roof-prisms, and luggage scattered across the road. The Crane flew away northwards, following the strip of rough clumped, goose grazed cattle pasture that forms a continuous area from Mossburn, where (unknown to us at the time), it had first been reported, a few minutes’ flying time to the east.

Armed only with the useless and incorrect ‘NZ Handguide’ we were also misled into making the first call on this bird as a Brolga, just as the same book had fooled the first finders in 2009. However, as we rushed towards Te Anau library to access identification material, we quickly received replies to our text bulletins of the sighting. Igor Debski and Ian Saville circulated the news and informed us of the previous report. Their comments proved invaluable, ensuring we focused upon features noted on our bird in relation to possible species as we settled into some serious research at Te Anau.
Description

Bird seen initially from beneath through upper half of car windscreen at height of approx 50metres. It immediately completed circling and flew away north at a leisurely pace.
Instantly recognised as a Crane and watched with binoculars for 1 minute as it passed into the distance.

Colouration all grey in varying degrees of light/dark, from dark grey to dusty slate and whiter chalky panels under wings and the inner part of the upper wings as well as some parts of the torso. Very prominent black/dark primaries, long ‘fingered’ wings evocative of a vulture or condor, (I commented “like a Bateleur”). Head and throat dark. ‘Scab brown’ against the skylight, exact tone indiscernible. Leg and bill colour nondescript mid-horn colour seen from below.Size huge. Bigger than swan in appearance, and very sedate and directed flight, as if of ‘single purpose’ in moving towards, and focussed-upon it’s destination. Heavy in character. Bill massive at base and dagger-like, slimmer towards tip and very slightly sharpened towards a barely perceptible downward curve. Otherwise looking like a kid with an ice-cream cone stuck on it’s face.

Shape long-legged and even longer-necked. Heavy body. Flight character heavy and deliberate. Wings long and broad, crane/stork-like. Head/neck and legs hanging slightly down below the horizontal, as if the bird was too exhausted to hold them up. Legs long and trailing behind. Longer than a heron (who usually only slow feet and ankles) but shorter than a stilt. Head looked ‘non-existent’ because the dark part from the face to the slim lower throat could be seen boldly, but the crown was extensively light, making the bird look ‘headless’ against the skylight.
The lengthy neck was thin and tapered towards the head, at one point two-thirds along it’s length, constricted to almost nothing. It was unevenly straight, with a ‘waver’ in it.
Flight character laboured and heavy, the wings rolling and curling, as the slow lugubrious beats curved the wings like unfurling a carpet, or a heavy blanket flicked-out to unroll in the air. In contrast, herons have a stiff-winged and very buoyant upward-bouncing flight. The crane was a huge-bodied, heavy bird flexing the entire length of the body to the tip of it’s bill, as it strained in the downward effort of it’s wingstrokes, like a tired athlete heaving with every part of the torso in push-up exercises.

Identification

Because of the ‘New Zealand Handguide’ presenting only Brolga as the only Crane to occur in New Zealand, this (like the original finders) was our first conclusion.

However, we travelled at speed to Te Anau library to access identification material, where it quickly became apparent that a number of the characters seen were not the same as those of Brolga.

In particular, the lack of any dewlap pointed away from the majority of Brolgas, and the dark head and throat we’d seen on the Te Anau Down bird was longer, slimmer and further down the neck than the stout and truncated red ‘hood’ of all Brolga illustrations and photographs we were viewing. In the reference material, the bill of brolgas looked too heavy and massive, even for the big ‘dagger’ we’d seen. By comparison, the brolgas we were looking-at looked more like a cartoon of a Maribu Stork.
Further, Brolga illustrations and photos seemed to show dark trailing edge/secondaries to the wing, which were light in the Te Anau Down bird.

The head shape and colouration remained the most outstanding discrepancy. The Te Anau Down bird’s head was slim and attenuated compared to the ugly ‘short-cuffed glove’ appearance of brolga.
Discussion and Research

Following a text suggestion from Igor Debski to consider Sarus Crane, the search was re-directed, and a ‘Eureka! moment’ quickly followed. There was the bird!

Photographic material on Sarus Crane confirms our observations of the slimmer head, the position of the light cap, and the extended head/throat colour. (I would re-iterate that we refer to this as ‘dark colour’ as skylight burnout prevented sight of any crimson colouration, if it was present).

From the available material, Brolga’s head and dewlap gives the more weighted and chunky appearance of a short-cuffed heavy man’s glove, whereas Sarus Crane in comparison, looks more like a slim-wristed ladies’ long evening glove, such as the the Queen might wave out of her car window.

Also the light rear wing edge and light inner panels of Sarus Crane contrast with brolga’s dark secondaries and more uniform colouration.

In addition to finding confirmatory Sarus Crane details in literature, the general character of the Te Anau bird’s ‘jizz’ closely fits the photographic impression of Sarus Crane, more than the somehow ‘uglier’ brolga.Occurrence and Habitat Notes

In the last four decades I have encountered solitary ‘out-of-range’ Cranes overseas.
They have also been long-stayers.

In Norfolk, England throughout the late 1970’s to the present time, at first a single bird, and then multiples of Common Crane Grus grus were located in an area well beyond the breeding range of the species in continental Europe. The first bird remained present for several years, and frequented an area of rough cattle grazing, bordered by extensive bush areas near a large body of water. In particular, it favoured rough, uneven, low quality pasture, and in particular a large general area frequented by flocks of grazing geese and shelducks.

In the basin of the Solway Firth on the Scotland/England border in the 1990’s another solitary Crane Grus grus was located, even further from the normal range of the species. It also became long-term resident. It ranged over a similar area to the Norfolk and Te Anau birds, and once again frequented rough, poor quality cattle grazing with goose flocks including Canada Geese Branta Canadensis and Shelduck.

The habitat along the Mossburn to Te Anau Down cattle grazing area is identical to the above. It is approximately the same size, mix of vegetation and agricultural usage. Significantly, it has the same flocks of grazing Canada Geese and Shelducks. It also has a similar climate to the two areas that attracted solitary long-staying Cranes in Europe.

Whilst I appreciate that these are entirely different species of Crane, with a vast degree of geographic seperation, I still consider this convergent behaviour worthy of mention on the basis of my own experience, and the obviously long-staying nature of the Te Anau Down bird

Paul Godolphin

[Paul G]

The Rarities Appraisal Committee replied to the above report on 23rd September 2012, as follows:

The OSNZ Records Appraisal Committee has assessed the record, and has determined to accept it as a record of an unidentified crane (probably a sarus crane).
Your record is by far the best description of a crane provided to the committee to date. You will be aware that neither brolga nor sarus crane has yet to be accepted on the New Zealand list. This means that RAC members must be in unanimous agreement for either species to be accepted. This high standard was not met due to the circumstances of the sighting. For the record to be accepted as a sarus crane would require more detail on the extent of red on the face and neck, and the presence or absence of a dewlap (ideally supported by photographs).
Based on your record being close to where a crane was reported in March 2009, the RAC has reconsidered UBR 2009/07 and determined to also accept this as a crane (species undetermined).
Thank you for bringing this interesting record to our attention. We hope that the bird will yet resurface and allow a definitive identification to be made.
Regards

From my own perspective, I have to ask: Did any of them actually READ the report ? And do any of them know enough about Brolga/Sarus Crane plumage to tell the difference ?
They made no mention at all of my description of the light wing panels that I now know are diagnostic, and they seemed to completely ignore the detailed description of the extent of the head markings- also diagnostic.
I would comment also, that if I can manage to do the follow-up work to establish that Sarus Cranes don't always have the red heads that the committee require to be seen, then why didn't they check it out for themselves before dismissing the record?

My observation of the aparrent 'constriction' in the neck is well demonstrated in the picture of the brown-headed Sarus Cranes above. The right-hand of the two actually looks like it's head isn't even attached to the neck! This is the effect I described and is caused by the tapering-in of the dark head 'sleeve' to the light grey of the neck. It looks like an hour-glass. I've found that out in the years since the sighting too.

whinge, whinge, whinge..........

cheers
Paul

[Colin Miskelly]

The Birds New Zealand Records Appraisal Committee works under terms of reference set by the Birds NZ Council. The TOR require members to make their assessments independently, rather than discussing UBRs and coming to a group decision. For most Unusual Birds Reports (i.e. for species already on the New Zealand list), the UBR needs to be accepted by a majority of RAC members (i.e. 3 or more of the 5 members). Over the last 7 years, 319 of 375 submitted UBRs have been accepted (85%).

For species not yet recognised as occurring in New Zealand, the bar is set higher, with unanimous acceptance being required. Even with this higher standard, six species have been added to the New Zealand list over the same time period: streaked shearwater, straw-necked ibis, Pacific gull, buff-breasted sandpiper, dusky woodswallow and magpie-lark.

Acceptance of a UBR is facilitated by photographs, a specimen (e.g. streaked shearwater) and/or multiple observers. But it is not unheard of for single observer UBRs of 'new' species without photographs or a specimen to be accepted (e.g. Pacific gull).

In the case of the Te Anau Downs 'sarus crane' UBR, we are informed that it was accepted as "an unidentified crane (probably a sarus crane)". This reveals that 3 or more RAC members accepted that it was a crane (as 'Grus sp.' is already on the New Zealand list), and possibly as many as 4 (but not all) may have accepted that it was a sarus crane.

If anyone believes that the bar is set too high for acceptance of new species to the New Zealand list, then they should make a case to the Birds NZ Council.

Regards
Colin
(RAC convenor)

[Jim_j]

These appear good robust terms of reference.
I'd have thought on balance a reasonable decision without photographs.

cheers
jim

[Neil Fitzgerald]

Colin, is there scope for members of the NZRAC to consult with overseas experts, or does that breach the independence of their assessments? It seems possible (likely?) that firsts for the country could easily be beyond the experience of NZ members and perhaps external expertise might be appropriate at times. I'm not saying this was the case in this instance.

[Paul G]

I'd like to think of this thread as an amateur's attempt to provide a useful identification resource to help with future sightings of Cranes in New Zealand. After all, that's why I've brought it out into the daylight. Has anyone else been able to benefit from the full report since OSNZ got it in 2012? I don't think so. So let's share it around a bit.

I received lots of help from Crane specialists around the world after my submission had been sent to the RAC, and was heartened that just about every feature I'd tenuously noted in the field, was reinforced and confirmed by them. It was a great experience. I'd really recommend contacting the right people who can answer your queries. We live in the 'Communications Age' where there's no geographic limit to instantly accessing definitive information. Seeing the Sarus Crane was just the start of a three year journey. The snow-storm of emails and photos hasn't even settled yet. I'm very grateful to these incredibly enthusiastic and knowledgeable people.

So here's a typical snippet. This one from Jeff Davies, the Crane illustrator in the definitive HANZAB, and an experienced ornithologist with the Australian Crane Network. I hope you find it as useful as I did:

G’day Paul,

I have now read your report, I’m confident you saw a Sarus Crane.

By far the most profound and unambiguous difference between Brolga and Sarus Crane in distant flight is the hood. Your “glove” description is a very appropriate description of what you should see on a Sarus Crane.

Brolga on the other hand shows no glove effect, the red area being restricted to head only, but from below you are going to see mostly the blackish throat area dominating on either species viewed against a bright sky. So I wouldn’t be terribly interested in the darkness of the head, as they would both be from that angle, it’s not something that separates them, the hood on the other hand definitely does. From distance the dewlap on a Brolga is just not obvious so it’s not the first thing you look for, not when there is such an obvious hood difference. I would also suggest mid horn colour is probably more appropriate leg colour for Sarus Crane than the darker grey leg of Brolga. Have attached a photo of both Sarus and Brolga in flight together to show how the hood is the number one feature in separating the two species, it’s a genuine “knock out” feature and almost the only thing you need look for really.

Cheers Jeff.

(59.9 KiB) Viewed 5738 times

Photo: Steve Arlow

(Needless to say, I'd mentioned that feature no less than five times in my RAC submission). I'd also written: "The absence of any dewlap pointed away from the majority of Brolgas". The RAC responded as below, however:
"For the record to be accepted as a sarus crane would require more detail on the extent of red on the face and neck, and the presence or absence of a dewlap"

An unexpected bonus from Jeff/Steve Arlow's picture is the way it demonstrates the odd bend in the Sarus Crane necks that I'd done my best to describe in the report.

And since this matter seems set to pass into obscurity and be lost to science, I really must acknowledge some of those who have so kindly offered advice and encouragement over the last three years. This has varied from simply overlooking my notes and submissions, to sending me photos and results of extensive research regarding identification points raised, some gathered from lifetime experience in the field. In the case of some contributers this has extended to literally years of correspondence and dozens of emails.
I apologise to those I may have overlooked. Your contributions were highly valued! Thank you all very much indeed:
Elinor Scambler, Australian Crane Network, Cranes North Queensland.
Matt Herring, Ozcranes, Southern Australia.
Jeff Davies, Australian Crane Network, and HANZAB illistrator.
H.S.Gopi Sundar, Director of Program Sarus-scape, The International Crane Foundation, Mysore, India
Ed Drewitt, Ornithologist, bander, BBC WIldlife Broadcaster, UK
Asha Rodger, Team Leader Exotic Birds, Auckland Zoo
Tineke Joustra, Registrar National Zoo archives, Auckland
and many others.....thank you so much!