Superb Parrot at Wanniassa, ACT
Identification history
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
43 comments
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
natureguy
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
An exact count would be preferred rather than a range as 16-100 is a very broad range. Even if your count is only an estimate it is more useful than a range. Thanks.
Shazw
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
There were approximately 24 birds all together - I was having problems uploading anything at all, so stuck with the basics - apologies for the vague numbers …(looking forward to being able to use the app again!)
Shazw
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
There were approximately 24 birds all together - I was having problems uploading anything at all, so stuck with the basics - apologies for the vague numbers …(looking forward to being able to use the app again!)
Shazw
wrote:
26 Jun 2021
There were approximately 24 birds all together - I was having problems uploading anything at all, so stuck with the basics - apologies for the vague numbers …(looking forward to being able to use the app again!)
Location information
- Places Wanniassa, ACT
Sighting information
- 24 Abundance
- Shazw Recorded by
-
Collections
Birds Parrots Shazw Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr
Species information
- Polytelis swainsonii Scientific name
- Superb Parrot Common name
- Sensitive
- Vulnerable *
- Non-invasive or negligible
- 910 images trained Machine learning
- External link More information
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
