This species has several different names in Britain - Gray Gull, Gray Cob, Said Fool, Saith Fowl, Yellow-legged Gull, Coddy Moddy and Caudy Maudy.

The Gray Gull or Gray Cob is not only greyer than its 'great' relative, but more slightly built and generally smaller. It is almost always to be seen with yellow legs (in contradistinction to its 'great' relative's invariably pink legs) but the name Yellow-legged Gull which appears as late as 1828 in J. Fleming's History of British Animals seem like more of a naturalist's 'book name' than a popular one. Coddy Moddy refers to this species's predations on shoals of young cod, descibed by Coward as 'frenzied raids...when the water is churned by the plunging and superficial dives of the excited birds, and the air rings with their cries'. Caudy Maudy is clearly a variant of this. Possibly the name Saith Fowl is a similiar reference as saithe is an old Icelandic name from the fry of codfish (it is also an alternative name for the cod-relative coley), and the rather quaint Said Fool looks like a scrambled form of this name. Though they have a number of fishy names and indeed do tend to fish more actively than other large gulls, this species also eats shore invertebrates. They do a certain amount of scavenging, and may be seen inland with much more frequency than their larger namesake.

Second winter?

TwitchEd - isn't there another yellow-legged now?

It is now generally accepted that the Yellow-legged Gull is a full species, but until recently there was much disagreement.

I am pretty much a duffer at these confusing fellows, so how do you guys know if this one is the "cackler" or the ""dusky one? And this one appears to have pink legs, so do they only achieve yellow legs on assumption of full adult plumage?

The legs are yellow, as is the bill, but both appear pink in the light of this photo.

I can indeed see that the bill tip is yellow, and that the iris is pale straw, but, while I of course concede that lighting can play tricks, my monitor says the legs are pink. If they "appear pink in the light of this photo" then how do we reach the conclusion that they are in reality yellow? Because it's not argentatus?

But the colour of the legs was a secondary Q. My main one is how one might make the distinction between the two yellow-legs cachinnans and fuscus. I merely seek enlightenment.

It looks like the "dusky brownish" named species that I've seen in the USA. My brother and I were driving 40 MPH on a dike around a tidal pond and skidded to a halt saying "that's not an argentatus" for my first one. The affect was quite different with them side by side. In the picture here, my Ipad says the bill is outlined in yellow but the legs are confusingly tinted to me. And I'm not good enough to do do more than nod as though I know something when looking at the gonydeal angle.

It's amazing how two different reference books can give you two different sets of facts.

My apologies. As Expecten alluded to earlier, this is a second-winter bird. Although marbled with brown feathering, back and upperwings appear dark grey, the tone being much darker than similarly aged argentatus; bills often appear all dark; legs dull pink.

Best consistent clue is the white head in all ages: contrasting with body on juveniles and first-winters; also adults lack heavy head-streaking often shown by argentatus and fuscus. Second best clue is tail-band/pale rump contrast on juveniles and first winter. Call is more clanging and nasal than argentatus, but similar to fuscus. Long legs can be a useful clue. Some juveniles can recall marinus in bulk, but note the relatively long, pointed wings.

i run across this uncomfortable reality nearly every day.