Already at first sight, the immature (male) flowerpecker which was observed along the above-
mentioned forest trail was a confusing one. I saw the bird very closely (4-5 m), for a minute or two,
on top of a bush where it arrived without seeing me. My first impression was a Bicolored
Flowerpecker (a species not extant in Cebu), because of the bird’s matching colors, jizz and bill.
At the time of my visit, I did not know that Alcoy and Nug-as potentially had Cebu Flowerpeckers,
and therefore did not include the species in my initial speculations. A closer inspection did,
however, point toward the latter species, even though the identification criteria remain unclear.
It was a bird with black upperside (from my angle, it was not possible to see if any red-tipped
feathers existed on its back, or the color of the rump), white throat and belly, with cold greyish
sides. The legs were black. Unlike with Red-keeled Flowerpecker, there was no sign of red or buff
feathers in center of the pure white belly. The tip of the bill was black and the lower inner half
bright pink (no yellow or orange hue). The bill was thick but more pointed than most of the
illustrations of Cebu Flowerpecker claim (more below). It did not, however, look like the long and
slender bill of a Red-keeled Flowerpecker. The bird remained completely silent, standing or
moving around on top of the bush, apparently feeding on small insects.
The pink in the bill is supposed to be a feature of an immature Cebu Flowerpecker. There is,
however, very little information on the identification of juvenile or immature birds. Moreover, the
information on bill size and shape is very confusing, the illustrators having adopted significantly
different views on the matter. The Bicolored Flowerpecker type but a larger bill I saw on the bird
agrees best with the illustrations in Helm and HBW publications and by Joseph Smit. It did not,
however, quite agree with the A Guide to the Birds of the Philippines (Melinda Johns Bitting),
George Sandström’s (du Pont) or Richard Allen’s illustrations, which had smaller and more
rounded bills. Neither had the bird the wedge-shaped massive beak as illustrated by Tomasz Cofta.
I am not criticizing the valuable illustrations as such, but merely pointing out differences between
them. In regard to Cebu Flowerpecker, reference materials are inadequate, to say the least, and
drawing accurate illustrations therefore difficult.
Fortunately, there is one resource in the Internet which has Smithsonian National Museum skin
photos of adult birds from three different angles, the Oriental Bird Images. The skins themselves
may be a bit ‘out-of-shape’ (stuffed as museum skins in 1892) but the bills show well, with an
appearance which agrees with the bird I saw. (Moreover, as the photos show, an adult male is not
quite as brightly colored as many illustrations claim. The bright colors on the back and rump are
extensively mixed with black and more concealed than the guide book illustrations tend to
portray).
So, if the pink in the bill and its shape really are diagnostic and there is no new contradictory
information, the above-mentioned features appear to lean towards Cebu Flowerpecker, instead of
Red-keeled Flowerpecker, the common species one would expect to see on such a short visit. If