Aussie Finch Forum

Recently I was gifted three waxbills that are one to two years old. I was told by the owner that these were all Common Waxbills (St. Helena Waxbills, Estrilda astrild), but upon arriving home and photographing the specimens I believe (1) below is a different species. (2) and (3) do indeed appear to be Common Waxbills. (1) does not have any red at all on its belly, and the front of the upper neck has very little white at all, so that would count out the Common waxbill, but it also doesn't have any white tail feathers, so that should count out the Black-rumped waxbill. However, it's striping is not as strong as the Common, suggesting the Black-rumped. The red surrounding the eyes is not as well defined as the Common either, so ....





Looking from above, if it weren't for the similar colours I would think (1) is a different species of Waxbill. It is slightly shorter than the Common but very wide/broad across the shoulders. The two Commons look much sleeker.

Here is a better image of (1):

http://www.ohmifinch.com/DB/ItemDetail.asp?item=46116

Well I am completely stumped as to its species classification. Could all you budding waxbill experts help me identify the species and sex of 1? Perhaps 1 is a subspecies of the Common Waxbill? Or a hybrid?

Thanks in advance.

Ross

All 3 are Common Waxbill (Saint Helena Waxbill). 1 & 3 are females & 2 is a male.
There are many subspecies in the captive populations which accounts for the variation of features especially evident between the 2 females.

Their toenails also need a trim.

Agree with Tiaris, i also believe that those 3 birds are very old and pic 1 is the result of this. Craig.

Thank you Craig and Tiaris. I guess age explains well the haggard appearance of that finch.

Thanks for the heads-up on the need for nail trimming too.

Tiaris, is it unusual for this species to have no red colouring on the belly? Is that due to old age (i.e. the colour is lost over time) or simply the colouring of this subspecies?

Cheers.

Ross

I believe it is attributable to sub-species variation rather than age. in my experience, colour tends to intensify on birds with age.

In the early 1980s my father & I had a very large collection of Saint Helenas with a wide range of variable sub-species features. At one stage then we started selecting for hens with just the pure brown stripy vent as per the one in pic 1 as these were very quick & easy to sex at a glance and didn't produce any "half-way birds" which needed an educated guess at best to determine their sex. The very best specimens for this feature (those with complete absence of black vent feathers and which had clearly delineated stripes on the vent) also totally lacked the pink belly suffusion. We then reassessed the value of selecting strongly for this feature as it was compromising the attractiveness of our female Saint Helenas (we felt that the pink belly is a more obvious attractive feature of the species). We then also started a few colonies of "extra red belly suffusion" birds which resulted in some very striking progeny within a couple of years, some of which even had strong red suffusion on the their rumps.

There are a large number of natural sub-species for this species as they cover a huge natural range encompassing a relatively wide range of habitats & climates over much of Africa. Some sub-species' females exhibit the plumage features of the female in pic 1. From memory I think E.a.rubriventris naturally exhibits the red rump as per the birds we were breeding 30 years ago.

The birds in pics 2 & 3 would be best paired together to breed from if they are still of breeding age. They seem to exhibit very similar features - excellent wide eybrow stripes, pale chests and very prominent striping on the body. These features, combined with small body size, are typical features of E.a.peasii.

In my opinion bird number one seems to be suffering from Melanism.
I haven't seen any reference to such a dark sub specie.
Our St Helena's here is really a miss mash from the past when sub species were mixed
due to ignorance of so many variations
Colour does intensify with age, long toe nails are a by product of being kept in cages.
Some of those rings being used are an absolute disgrace.
The whiter area on the face turns up occasionally but most of ours are slightly darker.

The birds are in Japan, so may be direct imports?? ie. pure subspecies.

I went out and had a good look at my stock and non have the white under their eye or cheek area.
Also went through my library and couldn't find any reference to a dark form that looked like
those in the picture. You still could be correct but maybe a diet problem
By the way it's a good post showing how to sex them

Sure the top bird is in poor order and may be darker than it should be, but the brown and clearly striped vent is typical of some subspecies - it is this feature I was referring to, not the dark overall tone of this rough specimen. Deliberate selection in favour of this trait directly results in loss of pink suffusion.
There have been many paler-cheeked specimens kept in Australia - only a few years ago at least one well-known Qld breeder was breeding & offering for sale Saint Helenas with peasii features sufficient to sell them as peasii - we have a fairly wide range of physical (sub-species) plumage features due to our stock being a mish-mash of many original subspecies.
For references including descriptions of various sub-species traits try Goodwin, Clement & Harris - both detail subspecies plumage and other physical features as well as their natural distributions very well.