Theme: Aves, Nomenclature, Factual, Birding.
Reading Time: 10 minutes.
Please subscribe to receive my latest posts about nature & science straight to your email inbox. 🌏👩🏽🔬😀
I ask you, what bird is this?
Source: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160803-the-strange-reason-magpie-larks-dance-when-nobody-is-looking
If you answered, “that’s the piping shrike!”, well, I’m sorry to say my friend, but you are incorrect!
I will present the evidence and explain the confusion below.
Confusing one thing for another is in no way uncommon. Like mistaking a massive hare for a rabbit, fearing poisonous snakes that are actually venomous, or even naming many sea creatures “fish” such as jellyfish, starfish or cuttlefish, all of which are not really fish at all.
But if an animal is on your state flag, is it acceptable not to know it when you see it?
I refer to the Australian magpie (piping shrike) which is on my state’s flag, the flag belonging to the state of South Australia. If such an animal appears on your state flag you should know what that animal is… shouldn’t you?
Well, unfortunately, that is not the case here.
A few months back I was at work one night and was visited by a friend who pops in now and then to say hello. He is usually quite stealth, and no one really notices when he’s around. He just quietly drops in to have a nosey when the time is right.
Now, I admit, he doesn’t come in just to see me, I believe for the most part he is just checking to see if any birdseed bags have been split open on the back dock with the hope of getting a belly full of free food.
Yes, my friend eats birdseed, and he loves it.
Those with a scientific background or an interest in birds may know him more specifically as Grallina cyanoleuca, and I know it’s a “him” as he has thick white eyebrows (a distinguishing male phenotype). My pied little friend has become quite the regular, and I am always happy to see him pop in looking healthy and happy, even though he clearly only visits me for his own benefit.
One night when at work, my white-eyebrowed and pied friend dropped in to say hello. As I had been practising the scientific names of birds at the time, I proudly announced to my comrade “Grallina cyanoleuca” as I pointed to our petite visitor.
“What does that mean?” my colleague replied.
I quickly explained that I was practising the scientific names for our local birds and the words I had just announced were the scientific names (genus and species) given to that bird, the magpie-lark.
He was quick to laugh at me, “that’s not a magpie-lark mate, that’s the piping shrike” he said smugly.
Well, I was just learning, so unconfident at the time I dare not argue my point and thought maybe he knew more than I did. So, I carried the doubt with me for the rest of my shift.
Once home I was straight to my computer to do some research and find out where I had gone wrong. I was delighted to find that I was not mistaken and in fact, the bird friend who was visiting me earlier at my work was the magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca), not a piping shrike.
That was not to be the last time I was filled with doubt surrounding this issue.
A few months later, as little as 1-2 months ago, while walking my dog Bruce around our neighbourhood, I was lucky enough to notice what I suspected was a magpie lark in a nest. The pied bird had built a mud nest which sat upon the vertical branch of a bottlebrush tree. This bird was sitting stationary and only moved away for a moment when it noticed me and my pooch standing below looking up and admiring. But it was quick to return once I strayed a few meters further down the street and took up a different position to see what it would do. I returned and again it flew away. A precautionary method obviously as once I strayed afar again it immediately returned to its nest.
From the behaviour observed, and the quietness of the nest when the bird was not within it, I correctly assumed it was incubating a clutch of eggs and for the next week or so when I walked my dog under the same bottlebrush tree, I observed the same behaviour.
Until 1 day when I could hear chirping from within the nest which must have been hatchlings. I was delighted to observe this occurrence just on the verge of spring and was sure to keep an eye on the situation for the next few weeks.
Over the next 2-3 weeks, I observed mother and father swapping on the nest, taking it in turns to gather and return with food, and the increasing size of each of the three chicks of the brood. This carried on much to my pleasure until one day I returned, and the nest was empty, with no adults, no chicks and no evidence of any foul play. So, I can only assume a happy ending to that story.
However, if I rewind the clock a week or so to a bright and sunny day when I was standing at a distance and observing this soon-to-be bird family’s behaviour, I recall a moment that caught me off guard.
“What are you looking at?” a voice would say from over the road.
I looked over to see an older woman who must have been in her 60’s or 70’s, who had stopped her mobility scooter on the footpath directly across the road from where I stood so obviously intrigued. She was staring at me staring at something within the tree.
“What have you found love?” she repeated as she gently stroked a small dog which sat upon her lap.
“A magpie-lark feeding her brood” I replied confidently, enjoying the opportunity to show off my newfound expertise.
“Magpie-lark?” she seemed puzzled.
“Yes, a magpie-lark, you know, it looks like a magpie, only smaller and more petite” I responded.
“Oh, you mean a piping shrike” she replied as she began on her way again.
“Pretty common this time of year” she announced as she drove off down the street.
Once again, I was left questioning myself, although this time I was slightly more confident I was correct.
I headed home again and immediately researched the magpie-lark and piping shrike, and I was right, only this time I was slightly happier as I was growing ever more confident in my identification of the bird.
The magpie-lark, also known as the peewee or peewit (after the sound of its distinctive calls), mudlark, murray magpie, and ever more commonly and mistakenly as the “piping shrike”, is a passerine bird which is native to Australia, Timor and southern New Guinea. Importantly I reiterate, the magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca) does not appear on the South Australian flag and is not a “piping shrike”.
In fact, to add more confusion to the matter, the magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca) is not a magpie, or a lark, and is actually more closely related to Monarchs, Fantails and Drongos. However, In 1977, the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union (RAOU) settled on Australian magpie-lark as the official name, noting that the names magpie lark and, less commonly, mudlark were used in guidebooks at the time.
It is easy enough to distinguish between a mature male and a mature female magpie-lark as the adult male has a white eyebrow and a black face while the adult female has an all-white face with no white eyebrow.(1)
Image: A male magpie-lark with the clearly visible white eyebrow.
Source: http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/magpie-lark
Image: A female magpie-lark with no white eyebrow and a white face.
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magpie_Lark_female.jpg
However, while distinguishing male magpie-larks from females seems relatively easy, distinguishing the magpie-lark itself from the piping shrike (Australian magpie) seems to be an area of much confusion amongst everyday Australians and more specifically my fellow South Australians.
This erroneous way is largely in part due to the nickname “piping shrike” not technically used to identify any bird, and due to this a lot of confusion has resulted over what bird the term represents. While some think it refers to the magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca), the actual original reports specify that it is based on the Australian magpie.(2)
Image: THE GOVERNOR’S ENSIGN. – The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954) – 16 Mar 1903.
Article reads;
“THE GOVERNOR’S ENSIGN.
The Admiralty has approved of the new ensign of
the Governor of South Australia as proposed by the
Government to be flown by his Excellency when at
sea. The emblem on the flag was suggested in the
first instance by Governor-General Tennyson and
was designed by Mr. H. P. Gill, director of the school
of design. It is a piping shrike, which is commonly
known as the Australian magpie, Standing on a staff
of eucalyptus wood with wings extended in front of
the rising sun of the Commonwealth. It is to be
at once inserted in the Admiralty flag book.”
Government sources also support this claim and state;
“The State Badge of a piping shrike (also known as a White Backed Magpie), was notified by a proclamation gazetted on 14 January 1904. The original drawing of the piping shrike was done in 1904 by Robert Craig of the School of Arts. A later drawing was done in 1910 by Harry P Gill, who was the Principal of the School of Arts”.(3)
Now, let me show you, this is the South Australian flag (below). It features a white-backed Australian magpie (piping shrike) perched on a staff of eucalyptus and facing the rising sun.
Image: The South Australian Flag.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/flag-of-South-Australia
As you can see it has no white eyebrow and no white face, so it is not the magpie-lark, and you can tell we are viewing its back as the claws which grip the eucalyptus staff are facing the sun with the back claw visible and its 3 front-facing claws hidden. Therefore this can only be a white-backed magpie (piping shrike).
And this is a photo of the white-backed magpie (piping shrike).
Image: White-backed magpie (piping shrike).
Source: https://www.projectnoah.org/spottings/15841184
Below is the magpie-lark. Or the peewee, peewit, murray magpie or mudlark as it is called, and importantly, this is not a piping shrike.
Image: A male magpie-lark next to his nest and brood of two chicks.
Source: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bajan/Magpie-larks/Magpie-lark%20or%20Peewee.htm
You can see why it is easily confused with the back of the piping shrike (Australian magpie) on the South Australian flag, as this bird in the image, the magpie-lark, looks very similar.
So, now you know, once and for all, the piping shrike is the large Australian magpie who is also featured on the South Australian flag, and the piping shrike is not the petite magpie-lark.
Next time you see someone call the smaller petite passerine bird the piping shrike you can tell them that the bird they refer to is the magpie-lark and the piping shrike is a term that refers to the much larger Australian magpie.
If they don’t believe you, refer them to this article.
Hope I helped clear that up for you.
Check out my future posts and articles and subscribe below and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to comment at the bottom of this page or on my Facebook feed and I’ll be sure to answer you straight away.
Thank you and enjoy,
W. A. Greenly.
W. A. Greenly’s upcoming articles include:
- How to Train an Environmentalist.
- The Mystery of the Australian Megafauna.
- Recycling Made Simple.
Literature cited:
- http://www.carterdigital.com.au, C. (2019). Magpie-lark | BirdLife Australia. Retrieved 21 November 2019, from http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/magpie-lark).
- THE GOVERNOR’S ENSIGN. – The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954) – 16 Mar 1903. (2019). Retrieved 21 November 2019, from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/14568342?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FS%2Ftitle%2F35%2F1903%2F03%2F16%2Fpage%2F1335271%2Farticle%2F14568342.
- Using the state insignia and emblems. (2019). Retrieved 21 November 2019, from https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/responsibilities/state-protocols-acknowledgements/using-the-state-insignia-and-emblems.
W. A. Greenly. 
Thankyou for this beautifully written article with great pictures!! I was so glad to finally know the truth!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Melissa,
Thanks for reading and I’m glad it could be of assistance.
Mr. Greenly.
LikeLike
Very well written. I enjoyed reading that. I have been working on getting the same message out. It is amazing how many South Australians still think the Piping Shrike is a Magpie Lark. Just Google “Piping Shrike” and see how many Magpie Larks come up!! It’s a real shame because the Piping Shrike image speaks for itself – once you realise you are looking at the back of the bird. I think this how the confusion started – if you think you are looking at the front of the bird, it is anyone’s guess what it could be. I have created this comparison document which makes it very clear: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131379381@N04/50098668041/in/datetaken-public/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ian, thanks heaps and dont forget to follow. Once my degree wraps up I plan to be writing much more. Thanks again!
LikeLike
Sorry, Mr Greenly… but a Piping Shrike is NOT the Australian Magpie. The Australian Magpie is a variety of crow. Whatever the difference is between a shrike and a pee-wee is for another day; but no magpie was ever a shrike.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, South Aussie Boy…
But a piping shrike IS an Australian magpie. More specifically, the piping shrike is the white-backed magpie.
Let me prove this to you.
Firstly, the Australian magpie is a variety of crow as you have stated. However more technically, it belongs to the family Corvidae. The term “crow” which you used in place of the proper technical term of Corvidae, is simply a common English term used to refer to the family of Corvidae.
Secondly, shrikes are of the family Laniidae. If you are trying to point out that the Australian magpie does not belong to the shrike or more technically, the Laniidae family, you are also correct. I must also point out that in my article I never state the Australian magpie belongs to the shrike family, as this is simply incorrect.
Now, as you are very accepting of common English terms being used for birds, such as when you used the term shrike to describe the family of Laniidae, or when you used the term crow to describe the family of Corvidae, then you must also acknowledge the common Australian term used to identify the white-backed magpie. Which is the piping shrike.
If the common Australian name for the white-backed magpie is the piping shrike as I have stated in my article, and you dispute that the Australian magpie is the piping shrike, then you are basically saying we should never refer to any bird by their common name. If this is your argument, you should hone your own use of terminology. However, I will not engage in such an argument as you will be arguing with people for your entire life while getting nowhere.
Simply put, one correct common name for the white-backed magpie in Australia is indeed the piping shrike. My article simply points out that the name piping shrike, when used to describe the magpie-lark or peewee, is a mistake that has evolved over time. I have also presented long-standing evidence to indicate the earliest usage of the term and which bird the term referred to.
Lastly, I must reiterate, never did I say in my article that the piping shrike is of the shrike family, and never did I say it’s not of the “crow” family as you have put it.
Thank you for your input,
Mr. Greenly.
LikeLike
South Aussie Boy states that the Australian Magpie is a Corvid, and you seem to have agreed. However, it is not. The European Magpie is a Corvid, but the Australian Magpie is not a Corvid. It is most closely related to the Butcher Birds which are not Corvids. The Australian Magpie is neither a Magpie (in the European sense), nor a Corvid, nor a Shrike.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian, thank you! My source must have been referring to the Eurasian magpie which I can see now you are correct in saying is of the family Corvidae. Thanks for taking the time to inform me. Therefore I must that I was wrong in my reply above, the Australian magpie does not even belong to the family Corvidae and I must note it belongs to the family Artamidae. Thank you Again Ian!
LikeLike
Greenly you seem to have forgotten to keep in mind that there is no such bird as a Piping Shrike. The South Australian State Badge use of a so called piping shrike (modelled on a White Backed Magpie), was notified by a proclamation gazetted on 14 January 1904 by the then state government. The original drawing of that so named piping shrike was done in 1904 by Robert Craig of the School of Arts. A later drawing was done in 1910 by Harry P Gill, who was the Principal of the School of Arts.
Just because the state government proclaimed it does not make it so. Another fact is that many South Australians (for many generations) have referred to the Murray Magpie, Mud lark, Pee Wee as a Piping Shrike which has nothing to do with the stylised version of the magpie as used on the S. A. flag, and whether you agree or not is irrelevant and does not make you the expert on a bird that does not actually exist. As a result you are not entitled to tell people if they are correct or not, like many aspects of the English language term and use of words change over time. This is such an example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi David, I’m not sure why you are saying that there is no such bird as a piping shrike? The term ‘piping shrike’ is of roots that well pre-dated the South Australian flag. The below information may assist you here. Importantly, while I acknowledge the term ‘piping shrike’ won’t appear in your bird guides, it most certainly is a name for the white backed Australian magpie that has a long, long history. I will quote one of my other sources (a reader who also got in contact with me) precisely here. Importantly, I have followed up and verified this information with my own eyes and I encourage you to do the same.
Courtesy of one of my subscribers ‘Ian’: “Some historical timeline information:
Sturts Expedition 1844 – In the summary of this expedition, Sturt mentions a sighting of a bird that he called the White-backed Crow Shrike, to use the name attributed by Gould for the bird. We know that this was a White-backed Magpie because he also cited the Latin name Gymnorhina Leuconata which was the species name used at that time. He also mentions the Piping Magpie for the Australian Magpie, which was at that time also known as the Piping Crow Shrike.
So, we can already see how the terms Piping and Shrike are closely linked to the Australian Magpies. We also know today that Black Backed and White backed magpies are in the same species (Gymnorhina Tibicen). We can see the connection with the name “Piping” from the Latin name Tibicen which means Piping/piper or flautist.
We know today that the Australian Magpie species is neither a Magpie (not related to European Magpies), nor is it a Crow, nor is it a Shrike.
The words Piping and Shrike have never been connected with the Magpie Lark (Grallina Cyanoleuca), except in error.
Work by Harcus 1876 – If you view the 1876 work by Harcus, ‘South Australia: Its History, Resources and Productions.’ you will see the book includes important information (and images of documents) about South Australian birds, which was provided to Harcus by Mr F G Waterhouse, the curator of the Adelaide Museum. This work documents the Latin and common names discussed in the Sturt expedition above. Given that the Australian Magpie is listed as the “Piping Crow Shrike” it is not hard to see the historical connection to the name “Piping Shrike” for the White Backed Magpie (Gymnorhina Tibicen Telonocua).”
Now, as for your statement ‘many Australians (for many generations) have referred to the murray magpie, mud lark, pee wee as a piping shrike which has nothing to do with the stylised version of the magpie as used on the S.A. flag’ you are incorrect. The entire misunderstanding comes form those who correctly understand the bird on the S.A. flag to be the piping shrike and the white-backed Australian magpie calling it so, and those who look at it thinking its a mud lark in confussion then taking on the name piping-shrike. Bam the name piping shrike being used in error for the mud lark was born.
If you choose not to follow up the research pathways indicated above, thats your own choice. But the facts are they pre-date the later evidence you were trying to discount and they provide a clear link between the name piping shrike and the white backed Australian magpie. The above evidence explains why the state government proclaimed it to be the piping-shrike, and why indeed it is so.
Thanks for your interest 🙂
LikeLike
The Australian Magpie is not commonly known as a Piping Shrike. You are drawing a very long bow on the association of the Australian White Backed Magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen telonocua/tyrannica) with the fact that other historical references actually prove that the spicies is also recognised as a Piping Shrike. When infact it has been incorrectly named (linked to another spieceis) on multiple occassions. So that makes your assertion incorrect from an orthanology classification, by definition. It is only correctly identified as an Australian Magpie. Other nick names are just that, and in that context non are incorrect for local coloquial reference. But technically there is no such bird as a Piping Shrike, it is a name that was given to the stylised image of the Australian Magpie by the S.A government in 1904. Any historical connections using or referencing the words piping, crow or shrike prove the perpetuation of incorrect identification of a non related spicies that is native to Australia and Southern New Ginea.
LikeLike
David, I’m afraid we may just agree to disagree here.
Firstly you are refusing to acknowledge that I agree there is no classification of the white-backed Australian magpie being officially referred to as the “piping shrike”.
But secondly, as I stated throughout my article and the evidence given in these comments, the term “piping shrike” used in any manner, no matter of its classification accuracy or it’s appearance in bird guides or lack there of, is in reference to the white-backed Australian magpie.
Thirdly, the incorrect use of the term “piping shrike” when used to refer to the magpie lark, mud lark, peewee etc is confussion that has resulted from people mistaking the piping shrike on the South Australian flag to be a mud lark.
Those such as you who refute these claims are completely ignoring the long line of evidence that goes back way before the enstatement of the South Australian flag and identifies the exact point the white backed Australian magpie began being referred to as the “piping shrike”.
Thank you.
LikeLike
A white backed magpie is a male and a grey backed magpie is a female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Alice, that is correct!
I love birds that allow us to tell the sex or life stage just by observing and there are so many.
Importantly though, young white backed magpies of either sex will also sport grey colouration on their backs which can sometimes make it tricky if trying to tell the birds sex by colouration alone.
LikeLike
This is an excellent article. Thanks for clearing it up. My brother who lives in SA has a magpie lark that comes to visit him. He says it’s a piping shrike. I took some photos and based on your article I now know it’s actually a magpie lark and a male one at that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Ivan, I’m glad my article could help 🙂
LikeLike
I can see an obvious error in the assumption that this is a black backed magpie on our flag. Black backed magpies also have black bellies, not white bellies.
The bird on the flag clearly has a white belly, the same as the magpie lark.
Perhaps the artist was confused about which magpie they were referring to? Or, using artistic license in their drawing?
I have also seen many larks standing in a similar fashion to that on the flag, but do not recall ever seeing a maggie doing this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jolyon, importantly, the bird on the South Australian flag is facing the rising sun. Therefore, you are not seeing its belly, you are seeing its back. The bird on the South Australian flag is therefore a white-backed magpie as the article says and the evidence provided within the article supports this. If you make the mistake that the bird on the South Australian flag is facing you, then you can also make the mistake that it’s a magpie lark. However, I must reaffirm that as the article proves, when viewing the South Australian flag you are actually looking at the back of the bird as it’s facing away from you and facing the rising sun. Therefore it can only be a white-backed magpie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly right Mr Greenly
LikeLiked by 1 person
The proportion of the beak means that it can only be a Australian Magpie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that information David.
LikeLike
There is no confusion on the part of the artist. It is an accurate representation of a White Backed Magpie. Take a careful look and you will see that you are looking at the back of the bird with its head turned to its left. Once you realise that, there is no question. It is clearly a white backed magpie and cannot possibly be confused with any other Australian bird, let alone a Magpie Lark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Ian!
LikeLike
There are many inaccuracies in the stylised image of the Australian Magpie but it clearly it is a Magpie based on the proportions of the beak. The biggest problem in many of the images produced from the original 1904 drawings used by the South Australian government is that the legs appear to be attached to the back (white) of the bird. I am no anatomical expert but I am sure that all birds have legs attached to the under belly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! Very cute and well written! I love birds and call myself a ‘twitcher’. Thank you again for the well written piece! I’ll be sure to keep an eye on your blog…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah thanks a lot! Hopefully I can keep publishing work that captures your interest! Thanks for commenting too, it means so much 🙂
LikeLike