In article <v1e485-neb.ln1>, Rosalind Mitchell
<rcmitchell> wrote:
> They are likely to be black-headed gulls, which seem to eschew the sea for
> agricultural land and rubbish dumps further inland, and aren't, oddly
> enough, all that common around here. Barrow gulls are herring gulls (just
> starting to get noisy for the breeding season) and lesser black-backs,
> which I don't think you'll find many of round your way.


Mostly herring gulls, with a few black-headed. As you suggest, I haven't
noticed any black-backed.

>I saw something over the dock the other day that looked
>like a gull and was coloured like a gull but was the size of a pigeon

What size of pigeon - we get /enormous/ wood-pigeons, as well as much
smaller ones - and collared doves.

Rosemary

"Nick" <1-nospam> wrote in message
news:6eu1
> Jenny M Benson wrote:
>
> With the aid of my quill, I'll be blowed if you will.

Nearly the same. By pen or by quill I'll be damned if you will.

Rachael

In message <ac.8a94ca4f6f.a702a0miskin>, Rosemary
Miskin <miskin> writes
>In article <v1e485-neb.ln1>, Rosalind Mitchell
><rcmitchell> wrote:
>>Mostly herring gulls, with a few black-headed. As you suggest, I haven't
>noticed any black-backed.
>>What size of pigeon - we get /enormous/ wood-pigeons, as well as much
>smaller ones - and collared doves.
>
>Rosemary
>Not for much longer I fear, isn't Clarrie on a diet now? ;-)))

Toodle Nip 'n' Tuck,

Mike

>>In article <v1e485-neb.ln1>, Rosalind Mitchell
>><rcmitchell> wrote:
>>
>>>I saw something over the dock the other day that looked
>>>like a gull and was coloured like a gull but was the size of a pigeon
>>
Could you have seen a tern? They are gull-shaped, and mostly white.
Some have black caps (rather than black heads) but that feature is
often hard to see from a distance. They are also considerably smaller
than gulls. Also, they are sea-birds, so a dock is a very likely
place to find one.

I don't suppose you got a good view of the tail? Terns have forked
tails - hence the alternative name of "Sea Swallow".

A few minutes on Google will tern (TWATBILI) up plenty of photographs
to help you decide if that's what you saw.

Tony Gardner wrote:

>
>>>In article <v1e485-neb.ln1>, Rosalind
>>>Mitchell <rcmitchell> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I saw something over the dock the other day that looked
>>>>like a gull and was coloured like a gull but was the size of a pigeon
>>>
> Could you have seen a tern? They are gull-shaped, and mostly white.
> Some have black caps (rather than black heads) but that feature is
> often hard to see from a distance. They are also considerably smaller
> than gulls.

No, I know terns, we get lots of them in the summer both in the docks and on
the sea. They are pretty distinctive (and very beautiful). Terns in
February would be a bit alarming though, wouldn't they? Global warming at
the gallop.

> Also, they are sea-birds, so a dock is a very likely place to find one.

Indeed, but jail-birds would be even more likely.

I'm pretty sure that what I saw was a Little Gull (Larus minutus); either a
juvenile or an adult in winter plumage. Looking at the pictures here

http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/bird.../l/littlegull/

I think a juve is more likely going by the pictures. Thank heavens for
little gulls, I say (in an exaggerated French accent)

Rosiw

On Feb 10, 1:01 am, Martin Durkin <nos> wrote:
> Sebastian Lisken <SebastianLis> wrote innews:616hcnF1tgnkiU1:
>>
> (snip interesting stuff)
> I was just pulling your leg Sebastian :-)
>
> I've watched theISSand Shuttle pass over in the past. Also I assumed,
> having looked at heavens-above, that you would see it an hour or so later
> as it was predicted to be visible twice tonight here in Cambridge, and I
> thought the same would apply in Germany.

Prolly needn't tell you folk that there'll be a total lunar eclipse on
Wednesday/Thursday night:
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...lunar_eclipse/

Ralph B <google80> wrote:
> Prolly needn't tell you folk that there'll be a total lunar eclipse on
> Wednesday/Thursday night:
> - [..]

There was a slight astronomical omission on TA related to this. Well,
it's a matter of interpretation really. Phil said on Sunday that seeing
the stars would be difficult this week as it will include a full moon.
True of course, a lunar eclipse only occurs on a full moon, and at least
before and after the eclipse the moon light will disturb stargazing. But
it would not have been inappropriate to mention that it will be this
special kind of full moon.

Anyway, I've commended the SWs before when they got the moon phase
right on Phil and Jill's Golden anniversary, and they got the basics
right again. Obviously someone double-checks the moon and related
things before they are mentioned. And Phil seems to be becoming the
local hobby astronomer.

Sebastian

Ralph B <google80> wrote in
news:c8b16399-3678-46c1-8bcb-455596e8b3ce:
>
> Prolly needn't tell you folk that there'll be a total lunar eclipse on
> Wednesday/Thursday night:
> - [..]

A more Anglo-centric take on it here:
http://www.astrospace.co.uk/nightsky/Eclipses08.html

Not sure if I'll be getting out of bed for this one.

On 19 Feb 2008 07:27:33 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
<nospam> wrote:

>Ralph B <google80> wrote in
>news:c8b16399-3678-46c1-8bcb-455596e8b3ce:
>>
>> Prolly needn't tell you folk that there'll be a total lunar eclipse on
>> Wednesday/Thursday night:
>> - [..]
>
>A more Anglo-centric take on it here:
>[..]
>
>Not sure if I'll be getting out of bed for this one.

I was still up at 3.00 CET and had a look, but naturally the skies had
clouded over yesterday and there was nothing to be seen.

It now occurs that in that case perhaps I did see the total eclipse,
after all. But I think the sky would have been darker, unless the
light was city light pollution reflected back by cloud. Did anybody
have better luck?

On Feb 21, 1:24 pm, Jo Lonergan <joloner> wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2008 07:27:33 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
>
> <nos> wrote:
>>
>
> I was still up at 3.00 CET and had a look, but naturally the skies had
> clouded over yesterday and there was nothing to be seen.
>
> It now occurs that in that case perhaps I did see the total eclipse,
> after all. But I think the sky would have been darker, unless the
> light was city light pollution reflected back by cloud. Did anybody
> have better luck?

Poo. Forgot all about it. Here's to 2010!

Ralph B <google80> writes:
>On Feb 21, 1:24=A0pm, Jo Lonergan <joloner> wrote:
>> I was still up at 3.00 CET and had a look, but naturally the skies had
>> clouded over yesterday and there was nothing to be seen.

i looked at the sky just before going to bed; i could see the moon,
with cloud wafting across it. as i said to linda, if i stay up it'll
cloud over good and proper. so i'm doing everyone else a favour by
going to bed now.

>> It now occurs that in that case perhaps I did see the total eclipse,
>> after all. But I think the sky would have been darker, unless the
>> light was city light pollution reflected back by cloud. Did anybody
>> have better luck?
>
>Poo. Forgot all about it. Here's to 2010!

yeah! less than three years ahead -- if the weather's decent, i'll be
watching it. (it's not as if we're missing a total solar eclipse,
after all.)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:07:29 -0800 (PST), Ralph B <google80>
scrawled in the dust...

>Poo. Forgot all about it.

So did I until I received some loony spam email this morning which
mentioned it in the subject alongside the word 'armageddon'!

In message <68rqr350pc7gbs9nlqdocuoni3erh5j1gb>, Jo Lonergan
<jolonergan> writes
>On 19 Feb 2008 07:27:33 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
><nospam> wrote:
>>I was still up at 3.00 CET and had a look, but naturally the skies had
>clouded over yesterday and there was nothing to be seen.
>
>It now occurs that in that case perhaps I did see the total eclipse,
>after all. But I think the sky would have been darker, unless the
>light was city light pollution reflected back by cloud. Did anybody
>have better luck?
>
Completely cloudy all evening. But when we woke up this morning, there
the moon was shining in our window. *Typical*.

Sincerely Chris