Home Page

Chiffchaffs Phylloscopus collybita in the Elborz Mountains of Iran: which taxon?

 

Chiffchaff (caucasicus or menzbieri?), Elborz Mountains, Iran. April 2017

Plate 1

Chiffchaff (caucasicus or menzbieri?), Elborz Mountains, Iran. April 2017

Plate 2

Chiffchaff (caucasicus or menzbieri?), Elborz Mountains, Iran. April 2017

Plate 3

Chiffchaff (caucasicus or menzbieri?), Elborz Mountains, Iran. April 2017

Plate 4

A. R. Dean

Chiffchaff, Elborz Mountains, Iran, April 2017 : caucasicus or menzbieri?

The images above show Chiffchaffs Phylloscopus collybita ssp. observed in the central Elborz Mountains near Kelardasht, in northern Iran, during April 2017. They occupied light woodland (including oak, hornbeam and hawthorn) at an altitude of around 1500m,  a habitat they shared with Green Warblers P. nitidus. Chiffchaffs of similar appearance and vocalisations were encountered subsequently in denser woodlands further east, near Kiasar.

Map of ranges of Chiffchaff races

Figure 1. The locations of Kalerdasht and Kiasar superimposed on range map for caucasicus and menzbieri (and other southern races) as portrayed by Copete & Lpez (2013)
and modified from Handbuch der Voegel Mitteleuropas, Glutz von Blotzheim & Bauer (1991).

Kelardasht is at the eastern extreme of  the range depicted for caucasicus in Copete & Lpez (2013) while Kiasar lies close to the western end of the range depicted for menzbieri (its core range being in the Kopet Dagh in Turkmenistan). These two locations thus demark, approximately, an apparent gap in the depicted distributions of the Chiffchaff races. In the literature, the Hyrcanian forest of northern Iran is frequently associated with the form menzbieri but accounts of its appearance are rather rudimentary. There is a dearth of recent information in European literature, as the region around Kopet Dagh is visited infrequently by ornithologists. The form caucasicus has been better-studied in the Caucasus but the true extent of its range and that of menzbieri along the southern shores of the Caspian Sea are not firmly established. On the basis of range, it does not seem possible to allocate the Chiffchaffs at Kelardasht and Kiasar to one form or the other.

The appearance of the Elborz Chiffchaffs did not resemble typical abietinus, though there was some convergence with the 'grey and white' Chiffchaffs discussed extensively elsewhere on this website. Their upperparts were a 'mousy' brownish-grey (greyer on the mantle, browner on the crown) and were finely streaked with olive. Their underparts were relatively white, lacking field-evident yellow anywhere in the body plumage (though with a tinge at the front of the upper eye-ring). There were well-developed yellowish-olive fringes to the remiges and rectrices and a conspicuous pale base to the lower mandible. At times they appeared rather pale overall. The photos below capture their appearance well and I am grateful to Ali Alieslam for permission to include his excellent images.

 

Chiffchaff, Elborz Mountains, Iran. Ali Aleislam.

Plate 5

Chiffchaff, Elborz Mountains, Iran. Ali Aleislam.

Plate 6

Ali Alieslam

Chiffchaff, c. 1500m in Elborz Mountains near Kelardasht, Iran, April 2017

At higher altitudes above 2500m, on relatively bare mountain slopes with scrub and isolated clumps of small trees, these rather grey and white Chiffchaffs were replaced by Mountain Chiffchaff P. lorenzii, exhibiting much browner plumage and subtly different vocalisations.

Jos Luis Copete and Lars Svensson (in lit.) have commented that the photos of the Elborz Chiffchaffs recall individuals they have examined in Georgia and Armenia, which would be caucasicus under current taxonomy. However, information on the extent and respects in which menzbieri and caucasicus differ in appearance is limited, especially in literature readily accessible by western ornithologists.

The southern forms of Chiffchaff, brevirostris, caucasicus and menzbieri, have all been described as similar and close in appearance to abietinus (e.g. Clement, Helbig & Small 1998) but references to menzbieri habitually acknowledge the lack of current  information and an absence of photographs. Comments on its appearance presented in European literature are generally no more than a reiteration of earlier accounts, deriving from the type description (Shestoperov 1937) or Dementiev & Gladkov (1954, English translation 1968), for example. Rather more extensive comment was provided by Watson (1962), in his paper recommending re-instatement of the name brevirostris for the Chiffchaffs breeding in northern Turkey. Watson provided a detailed account of that form and comparative notes on abietinus, menzbieri and lorenzii. The form caucasicus was not described, by Loskot, until 1991. Hence, these historical accounts of menzbieri do not mention, yet alone compare, caucasicus. Additionally, the information available on menzbieri in such European texts or translations is not only limited but also somewhat inconsistent.

Dementiev & Gladkov (1954) compared menzbieri with Mountain Chiffchaff P. sindianus, probably following from the original account of Shestoperov (1937). Unfortunately, the original type specimens were subsequently destroyed in a fire (Marova & Leonovich (1997). Vaurie (1959) linked menzbieri with Siberian Chiffchaff tristis / 'fulvescens'. BWP6 (1992) included menzbieri in tristis, though acknowledging that it may belong within abietinus. Analogies with Mountain Chiffchaff and Siberian Chiffchaff, with their distinctly brown and buff hues and lack of olive in the upperparts, do not accord with the Elborz birds.

Other accounts suggest that, as a group, the southern forms are somewhat intermediate between abietinus and lorenzii, being rather browner than typical abietinus and with reduced yet still-evident olive and yellow hues. Watson (1962) provided a table of comparative characters of brevirostris, abietinus, menzbieri and lorenzii, where the word 'brown' is allocated only to the upperparts of lorenzii. The description for the upperparts of abietinus is 'greyish green' and for brevirostris 'greenish grey'. Watson described the upperparts of menzbieri as 'mostly grey, tinged greenish'. He noted a west-to-east reduction in lipochrome pigment (as in the northern forms), resulting in whiter underparts, with reduced yellow streaking. The underparts of menzbieri are described simply as:  'white, no yellow'.

In a more-recent publication, Copete & Lpez (2013) discussed all subspecies of Common Chifchaff (including caucasicus) but they too noted the absence of accessible data on the appearance of menzbieri. Of caucasicus, they noted that photos provided to them by Vladimir Loskot exhibited upperparts similar to abietinus but 'yellow much more clearly present on the edge of the wing, lower parts clearly whiter'. The legs were also noted to appear densely black. (Unlike Watson, Copete & Lpez (together with Lars Svensson) regarded the taxonomic validity of brevirostris as more questionable and, rather than intermediate between abietinus and lorenzii, they concluded that it bridged the appearances of collybita and abietinus.)

Thus, Watson's notes on menzbieri (indicating upperparts grey, tinged greenish, and underparts white, lacking yellow) and Copete & Lpez's  comments on caucasicus (indicating brighter fringes to the wing edges than in abietinus and whiter underparts) both include features exhibited by the Elborz individuals.

Usefully, a Russian study provides some explicit comments on the comparative appearance of menzbieri and caucasicus, which were deemed to be closely related. In 1985 and 1989-1990, the geographical distribution, ecology, morphology and vocalizations of  menzbieri were studied in Kopet Dagh by Marova & Leonovitch (1997). I am grateful to Irina Marova for providing a copy of this paper. It is in Russian but includes an English summary, from which the following is an extract:

'Contrary to Ph. c. abietinus, Ph. c. menzbieri has only a trace of yellow colour on the breast, white belly and white undertail coverts. From Ph. c. caucasicus it differs both in the bright yellow colour of the axillars and the wrist and in the brighter green colour on the back and on the edge of the primaries and tail feathers.'

While it would seem that the features noted as distinctive on the Elborz Chiffchaffs are compatible with caucasicus and menzbieri, there is still too little direct comparative material to place them on a 'sliding scale' between the two  It seems probable that the nuances in colour and brightness can be evaluated adequately only from individuals in pristine (fresh) plumage. For practical (third-party) purposes, an updated evaluation and colour-accurate photographs of both caucasicus and menzbieri in fresh plumage and in their core breeding ranges are required. In the case of menzbieri, this is easier said than done.


What of vocalisations? One of the sonograms of call attributed to caucasicus in Clement. Helbig & Small (1998) was from a recording made by J. Martens at Alamdeh (Royan), Iran, which is in the same general region as Kelardasht. However, if the sonograms published by Clement. Helbig & Small  have good credentials and if the depicted differences are consistently distinct between the forms, then the sonograms there indicate subtle differences in vocalisations between caucasicus and menzbieri. The calls and song recorded at Kelardasht in April 2017 appear to match menzbieri more closely than caucasicus.

A recording of the song from Kelardasht can be heard <here>. Compared with collybita / abietinus, the notes have a harder, 'punchier' and more staccato delivery.

A sonogram of the song is below (Fig. 2), where it is compared with a sonogram of menzbieri from Kopet Dagh in the core range for the taxon (recording by I. Marova) and a sonogram of caucasicus from the Caucasus (recording by J. Martens). These sonograms are reproduced from Fig. 3 in Clement et al. 1998:

Chiffchaff song from 1500m in Elborz Mountains

Figure 2

In terms of note structure, there is a greater correspondence between the sonogram of the Elborz Chiffchaffs and that of the menzbieri, with similar introductory notes and some subsequent notes including rising, sinusoidal or 'saw-tooth', terminal flourishes, which reach 5kHz (i.e. those at 1.3s, 2s and 2.6s in the Elborz recording and at 2s, 3.7s and 4.4s in the Kopet Dagh recordings). In contrast, the notes in the sonogram of caucasicus are of two basic types and lack rising, 'saw-tooth' flourishes. (n. b.. It is apparent that in the caucasicus sonogram there is some loss of low frequency response in many of the second type of note. Downward pointing lower-frequency 'spikes', which in fact extend below the base of the initial downward stroke, have been truncated, leaving artificial gaps). Notes with a rising, 'saw-tooth' terminal flourish are also shown in the sonograms of menzbieri by published by Marova & Leonovich (1997), an adapted version of which is reproduced below (Figure 3).

Sonogram of P. c. menzbieri song, adapted from Marova & Leonovich 1997.

Figure 3

Note 2 in sequence (a), notes 4 and 6 in sequence (b) and notes 1,2 and 4 in sequence (c) have rising, 'saw-tooth' terminal flourishes similar to those in the Elborz recording

(Grishchenko et al. (2016) analysed the songs of a newly-established breeding population of Common Chiffchaffs in the Crimea. They concluded that certain elements in the song were shared with caucasicus but not with abietinus and concluded that the Crimean population originated from caucasicus. Using the sonograms published in 1996 by Helbig et al. (and Clement et al. in 1998) they also concluded that  menzbieri (and brevirostris too) contained subspecifically distinct elements. Unfortunately, they did not elaborate or include illustrative sonograms of these two forms.)


A recording of the call from Kelardasht can be heard <here>.

Sonograms of calls recorded at Kelardasht and Kiasar are below, where they are compared with recordings of various Chiffchaff taxa which have relatively 'flat' calls compared with collybita and abietinus and are encountered in the Middle East  (sonograms reproduced from Clement et al. 1998):

Chiffchaff calls from Iran

The sonograms of the Kelardasht and Kiasar Chiffchaffs from April 2017 show a slightly rising pitch and then a terminal fall and are a close match with sonogram l in Fig. 4 in Clement et al. (1998), which depicts a menzbieri recorded by I. Marova at Kopet Dagh in Turkmenistan, in the core range for the taxon. The second call attributed to caucasicus in sonogram 'k' in Clement et al. is flatter or with very slightly descending pitch while the first call is even further removed, with a strongly rising terminal pitch. Other sonograms of caucasicus published by Marova & Leonovich (1997) also indicate a call with a slightly falling pitch.

Chiffchaffs of puzzling identity are also encountered in winter in Kuwait. It has been suggested that they might be menzbieri but the basis for this seems largely speculative. They share certain plumage features with the Elborz birds but are perhaps less grey-tinged on the upperparts and less white below. Their call rises and falls but, compared with the Elborz birds, this is much more accentuated, being distinctly arched and reaching a higher frequency . See <here> for photos, sound-recording and sonogram. The sonogram does not match closely any of those published by Clement et al.

Clearly, more data are required before the identity of the Chiffchaffs at Kelardasht and Kiasar can be attributed with confidence. Are they caucasicus or are they menzbieri? On the basis of the rather limited descriptions in the current literature, appearance is compatible with both caucasicus and menzbieri. Allocating a differential measure of olive in the upperparts and brightness of wing-feather fringes in the Elborz birds is currently impractical. Song and call are closer to the few published sonograms of  menzbieri. Photographs of pristine menzbieri from Kopet Dagh are needed to establish its definitive appearance while further sound-recordings and sonograms of caucasicus and menzbieri are required to clarify the range of variation and any potential overlap.

References

Clement, P., Helbig A.J. & Small, B. 1998. Taxonomy and identification of chiffchaffs in the Western Palearctic. Brit. Birds 91: 361-376.

Cramp, S. (ed.) 1992. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 6. Oxford.

Dementiev, G. P. & Gladkov, H. A. 1954. Birds of the Soviet Union,  Vol. 6. Moscow. [Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem 1968.]

Copete, J. L. & Lpez, F. 2013. Identificacin de subespecies en el mosquitero comn, in  Rodrguez, N., Garca, J. & Copete, J. L.(eds). El mosquitero iberirico. Leon.

Grishchenko, A. V., Tsvelykh, A. N. & Yablonovska-Grishchenko, E. D. 2016. Song repertoire and origins of Crimean population of Chiffchaff, Phylloscopus collybita (Sylviidae). Vestnik zoologii 50: 89-92.

Helbig, A.J., Martens, J., Seibold, I., Henning, F., Schottler B., & Wink, M. 1996. Phylogeny and species limits in the Palearctic Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita complex: mitochondrial genetic differentiation and bioacoustic evidence. Ibis 138: 650-666.

Loskot, V. M. 1991. A new Chiffchaff subspecies (Aves, Sylviidae) from the Caucasus. Vestnik zoologii, Kiev 3: 76 -77. [In Russian]

Marova, I. M. & Leonovich, V. V.  1997. Mysterious Chiffchaff from the Kopet Dagh: ecology, vocalization and relations of Phylloscopus collybita menzbieri. Zoologichesky journal 76: 735-742. [In Russian with English summary]

Vaurie, C. 1959. The Birds of the Palearctic Fauna. Order Passeriformes. London.

Watson, G. E. 1962. A re-evaluation and redescription of a difficult Asia Minor Phylloscopus. Ibis 104: 347 - 352.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Ali Alieslam, Steve Rooke and Rob Tizzard for discussions in the field, Jos Luis Copete and Lars Svensson for comments in lit., Irina Marova for providing a copy of her paper with V. V. Leonovich on menzbieri at Kopet Dagh, Ali for permission to include his excellent photographs and Roger Riddington for permission to re-use sonograms published in British Birds.


  Top of Page