 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for January 23-31, 2000
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| interestng IL gulls | Michael Retter | Sun, 23 Jan 2000 | 5:46pm |
| correction on IL gull | Michael Retter | Sun, 23 Jan 2000 | 9:16pm |
| Spring openings in trans-Gulf migration study | Robert Russell | Mon, 24 Jan 2000 | 7:57am |
| Alder Flycatcher Photo In BNA | Jean Iron | Mon, 24 Jan 2000 | 4:26pm |
| Small Gulls Video | Angus Wilson | Mon, 24 Jan 2000 | 11:43pm |
| HEGU bills, Shrike... | Evan Obercian | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 7:31am |
| RFHelp with LISTSERV problems | Martin Reid | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 8:46am |
| Listserv owner on listserv problems | Beth and Will Russel | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 9:29am |
| Fox Sparrow subspecies | Mike Patterson | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 10:37am |
| Re: Listserv owner on listserv problems | Don Crockett | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 11:22am |
| mystery duck photos | Dave Rintoul | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 2:10pm |
| Connecticut L. a. argentatus/hybrid gull | Robert H. Lewis | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 8:49pm |
| Re: Listserv owner on listserv problems | Sharon Goldwasser | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 9:53pm |
| Lesser Black-backed Gulls. | Alvaro Jaramillo | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 | 11:46pm |
| Re: Lesser Black-backed Gulls | Martin Reid | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 7:16am |
| Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks | Harry LeGrand | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 8:55am |
| Re: Connecticut L. a. argentatus/hybrid gull | Nick Lethaby | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 9:59am |
| Re: Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks | Joseph Morlan | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 10:31am |
| Re: Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks | Tom Crabtree | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 10:47am |
| Brazilian tyrannid? | Jim Mountjoy | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 11:26am |
| California Short-tailed Albatrosses | Don Roberson and/or | Wed, 26 Jan 2000 | 11:06pm |
| bill shape of Green winged Teal | Pierre Andre Crochet | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 8:38am |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Mark Stackhouse | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 10:19am |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Larry Gorbet | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 11:35am |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Alvaro Jaramillo | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 12:04pm |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Mark Stackhouse | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 12:41pm |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Evan Obercian | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 2:37pm |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Tony Leukering | Thu, 27 Jan 2000 | 6:26pm |
| Re: Lesser Black-backed Gulls | Peter and Carol Wilk | Fri, 28 Jan 2000 | 7:34am |
| Re: Lesser Black-backed Gulls | Nick Lethaby | Fri, 28 Jan 2000 | 10:26am |
| Brazillian mystery bird - identified? | Jim Mountjoy | Fri, 28 Jan 2000 | 2:10pm |
| Canvasbacks | paullarkin | Sun, 30 Jan 2000 | 10:58am |
| Hoary & Common Redpoll Subspecies ID | Jean Iron | Sun, 30 Jan 2000 | 2:11pm |
| Weathertap.com | John Wilson | Sun, 30 Jan 2000 | 7:45pm |
| Re: Weathertap.com | Richard Rowlett | Sun, 30 Jan 2000 | 9:27pm |
| Re: Weathertap.com | David Muth | Sun, 30 Jan 2000 | 10:34pm |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Chris Elphick | Mon, 31 Jan 2000 | 10:03am |
| new photos (duck and hummingbird) | Dave Rintoul | Mon, 31 Jan 2000 | 11:02am |
| Nexrad | Kenneth Able | Mon, 31 Jan 2000 | 1:02pm |
| Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher | Tony Leukering | Mon, 31 Jan 2000 | 7:21pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: interestng IL gulls
From: Michael Retter <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 5:46pm
Gull-watchers,
There are two interesting gulls being seen in Illinois right now. The
first, is a possible Western Gull, and the second is a probable California.
On 23 January, there was a large, dark-mantled gull on Lake Springfield.
Based on what I/we saw, the best identification I can come up with is
"occidentalis" WESTERN GULL - an identification that I believe everyone
agreed was the most logical. I am pretty confident about the ID, but I know
some are skeptical (after all, it's a GULL). The bird is obviously neither
LBB nor GBB. Here are my notes:
SIZE/PROPORTIONS - same size (possibly a bit larger in bulk) as Herring
Gulls, but dominated the Herrings; wings appeared broader and less pointed
than a Herring
HEAD - white w/ moderate dusky smudging, especially on nape
EYES - dark
UNDERPARTS - white with irregular dusky smudging on the flanks
LEGS - dull fleshy (esp. the feet) w/ some gray and pinkish tones
MANTLE - "medium dark slate" - about like on a graellsii LBB.
TERTIALS - slate w/ wide white tips
SCAPULARS - mottled gray and brown
PRIMARIES (from above) - VERY dark sepia; there was NO pale window on the
trailing edge of the bend of the wing
SECONDARIES - dark brown w/ white tips
UPPER PRIMARY and SECONDARY COVERTS - medium brown, lighter edgings
RUMP - white w/ limited dark spotting
TAIL - mostly black - bases of outer retrices appeared to be white
BILL - relatively long and thick; base fleshy; black tip extended well past
gonys; gonydial angle very prominent - moreso than adj. Herrings -
consequently, the bill appeared very bulbous at the tip
UNDERWING - an interesting pattern of dark and light that I didn't get a
great look at; a dark bar was noticed - reminded me of pictures of Herald
Petrel
- Elimination of LBBG: tail w/ too much black, too small, bill too massive
- Elimination of GBBB: tail w/ too much black, too small, mantle much too
light, lacked of even a hint of pale window in wing
- Elimination of GBBG x Herring (speculative): lack of any hint of pale
window, too small, too brown (not gray enough)
- Elimination of Heuglin's/Siberian Gull (heuglini/taimyrensis): too much
black in tail, lack of any hint of pale window, gonydial agle too pronounced
- Elimination of Slaty-backed Gull: wings WAY too dark
So, are the other spp. satisfactorily eliminated? Is this good for a
Western? Hopefully someone will get pictures in teh next few days.
Now, the second gull:
While looking through the nearest group of gulls at O'Brien Lock & Dam on
the Calumet River in Chicago, I found an odd "Thayer's Gull" in the water.
It was obviously an adult/3rd winter, but the mantle was darker than the
adjacent Thayer's, and it was much smaller - finally, it flapped, and then
it hit me - we had a beautiful adult CALIFORNIA GULL mere yards from us.
Fieldmarks I noticed:
- much smaller (relatively) than adj. Thayer's and Herring Gulls; no
Ring-bills for comparison
- appeared much longer-winged at rest, and in flight
- slender, long, yellow bill w/ broken, black subterminal band (almost
reached the culmen, but it did reach the lower edge of the lower mandible)
and red spot just proximal to the black band; gonydial angle barely
noticeable
- dark coffee-brown iris; so dark that pupil was not discernable
- reddish orbital ring
- round, cute, dove-headed appearance
- mantle much darker than adjacent Herring, noticeably darker than adjacent
Thayer's, but not as dark as would be expected on a "graellsii" Lesser
Black-back.
- underparts and head white
- overall, head lightly streaked with dull brownish, but moderately to
haevily streaked on the lower nape and just behind the eye
- white mirrors restricted to P10 and P9 - that of P10 being twice as big as
that of P9 - seen from above and below
- otherwise, outer portion of primaries black w/ white tips above and below
- from underneath, the secondaries contrasted darker than the white
underwing coverts, as in a LBBG, but not as pronounced as in that sp.
- more black in wingtip than adjacent adult Herrings; black appeared to
perhaps even reach the primary coverts on P8-P10
Unfortunately, we never saw the bird's legs. I'm assuming all the above
information is enough to clench the ID. Basically, that's my question. Is
there any reason this might not be a California Gull? We had only studied
the bird about 3-4 minutes before the
"gatekeepers" told us to leave so that they could lock up early in lieu of
the inclement weather.
----------
Michael L. P. Retter
Illinois Wesleyan University
Bloomington, McLean Co, IL
mretter(AT)hotmail.com
mretter(AT)sun.iwu.edu
http://www.iwu.edu/~mretter
(309) 556-2167
Visit the McLean County Birding Page at:
http://www.iwu.edu/~mretter/McLean.html
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: correction on IL gull
From: Michael Retter <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 9:16pm
In the haste to get my message posted I seem to have created quite a bit of
confusion as I forgot to post the age of the large, dark-mantled gull. It
was a 2nd winter bird. Also, the reason for eliminating LGGB should read
"Elimination of LBBG: tail w/ too much black, too BIG . . ." Sorry for any
confusion this has caused.
Sincerely,
Michael L. P. Retter
Illinois Wesleyan University
Bloomington, McLean Co, IL
mretter(AT)hotmail.com
mretter(AT)sun.iwu.edu
http://www.iwu.edu/~mretter
(309) 556-2167
Visit the McLean County Birding Page at:
http://www.iwu.edu/~mretter/McLean.html
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Spring openings in trans-Gulf migration study
From: Robert Russell <migrants(AT)DELLNET.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 2000 7:57am
[Sorry if anybody is annoyed by my seasonal ads, but this is the best venue
for attracting the sorts of people required for this study.]
Several spots have opened for the spring season in our ongoing study of
trans-Gulf migration based on offshore oil platforms. This is the final
field season in the study (for now) and perhaps the last opportunity to
experience firsthand one of the world's great migration events. We are
seeking skilled birders with outstanding field ID skills, especially those
with some background in science or a passion for the drama of migration.
Full details are provided below.
========================================================================
WANTED:
Skilled observers for monitoring use of oil platforms in the northern Gulf
of Mexico by migrating birds and insects.
WHEN:
The spring field season will begin on March 8 and will proceed until May 31.
New platform observers must arrive in Baton Rouge by March 5 for preseason
activities (orientation, an offshore safety class, kickoff party, etc.).
One of the new observers will work on a single platform according to the
following schedule: 3 weeks offshore, 1 week vacation, 3 weeks offshore, 1
week vacation, 4 weeks offshore (3/1/3/1/4). The other new observer will
"rove" among five platforms with a 5/2/5 schedule. Several one-week fill-in
spots may be available.
SALARY: $100 per night offshore. (All expenses paid while offshore; travel
to and from coastal heliports and to and from LSU Museum of Natural Science
is not covered.)
QUALIFICATIONS:
-- Advanced skills and extensive experience in identification of landbirds
and seabirds of eastern North America. Examples of field ID problems
frequently encountered offshore include: fleeting glimpses of warblers
hiding in the platform rafters in all sorts of lighting conditions; flyby
Catharus thrushes; flyby sparrows; distant jaegers; distant Sooty/Bridled
Terns; distant flyby flocks of Snowy/Cattle Egrets; distant flyby Empidonax;
etc. (Just kidding on the last one.)
-- Some experience in field identification of migratory insects
(dragonflies, butterflies, sphinx moths) is desirable; willingness to work
on insect ID is required (identification guides, materials, and guidance
will be provided).
-- Ability to gather data meticulously and to record data accurately.
-- Experience with computers desirable (must enter data into Excel
spreadsheets in a Windows environment.)
-- The numbers of birds using the platforms can vary dramatically from day
to day, ranging from zero to once-in-a-lifetime migration spectacles.
Observers must be able to maintain consistent observational effort through
frequent birdless periods.
-- Willingness to work long hours (pre-dawn to post-sunset, but with
numerous breaks throughout the day).
-- Willingness to be flown by helicopter to and from remote offshore
platforms.
DUTIES: Conduct censuses of birds and insects on oil platforms several
times daily. Search platforms for dead and moribund birds and insects
several times daily; retrieve carcasses, record data, and store specimens in
freezer. Enter all data into computer files. Maintain contact with other
members of the field team on a daily basis via e-mail. Abide by all safety
and other regulations of the oil platforms and maintain cordial relations
with platform employees. (Large egos do not fit in well offshore.) Must
attend a full day of safety training prior to deployment offshore, including
helicopter-escape training in a pool.
OTHER DETAILS: This multi-year project is funded by the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) through the Coastal Marine Institute at LSU. Accommodations
on offshore platforms are variable, but all are very comfortable and have
fully air-conditioned living quarters, etc. Due to cutbacks in the
industry, some of the platforms have been relieved of their cooks; however,
an unlimited quantity of good-quality food is available on all platforms and
crew members are usually willing to cook for us in return for light
dishwashing assistance (and most Cajun men are superb cooks!) Alcohol is
unavailable on and strictly prohibited from the platforms. The numbers of
birds using the platforms can vary dramatically from day to day. There will
be many days with few birds, and rare days with no birds at all. If you get
bored easily in birdless conditions, you will probably not enjoy living
offshore. At the other extreme, rare and spectacular fallouts offshore
represent the Holy Grail for those with a passion for migration. For
examples of the possibilities, see
http://transgulf.org/results/specs/specs.html. On days when birds are
scarce or absent, fish-watching is excellent (Blue Marlin, Rainbow Runner,
tuna feeding frenzies, etc.). Fishing is permitted on most platforms. The
platform workers with whom you would be living are interesting, intelligent,
and skilled folks. Almost all of our observers to date have found platform
living to be very enjoyable, and we have had little turnover in the field
team.
If you are qualified and interested, please contact Bob Russell
(migrants(AT)dellnet.com) and Van Remsen (najames(AT)unix1.sncc.lsu.edu) as soon
as possible but no later than Feb 2. Please include: 1) a short resume or
CV; 2) details on your availability; 3) an honest evaluation of your field
ID skills; and 4) the names of three skilled birders who can attest to your
expertise in field ID.
LSU is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Alder Flycatcher Photo In BNA
From: Jean Iron <jeaniron(AT)GLOBEDIRECT.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 2000 4:26pm
The Empidonax Challenge:
Have a look at the photograph of the Alder Flycatcher on the cover of The
Birds of North America series number 446, 1999. A few days ago, Michel
Gosselin of the Canadian Museum of Nature asked me what I thought it was. I
didn't have ready access to the series so I asked Ron Tozer in Algonquin
Park where Alders breed commonly to look at the photograph. Both Michel and
Ron agree that it probably isn't an Alder Flycatcher.
They independently concluded that it might be a Gray Flycatcher. Points in
favour of Gray Flycatcher are:
(1) The bird is at a nest located near the trunk of an apparent hawthorn
(Crataegus sp.). Ron Tozer says that "this is consistent with typical nest
location and scrub habitat of Gray Flycatcher." Alders usually place their
nest in the upright crotch of an alder (Alnus) or other bush, not against
the main trunk as in the photo.
(2) Other features suggesting a Gray, mentioned by Ron and Michel, are its
large size, the long tail, small head relative to the body, long narrow
bill with dark upper mandible, short primary extension, white throat, white
eyering and white lores, and overall gray color.
(3) Other possibilities considered by Michel Gosselin are Dusky Flycatcher
or one of the western races of the Willow Flycatcher.
We look forward to your analyses which I'll forward to Michel Gosselin and
Ron Tozer.
Ron Pittaway
Jean Iron
President, Ontario Field Ornithologists
9 Lichen Place
Toronto, Ontario M3A 1X3
Canada
jeaniron(AT)globedirect.com
Web Page: www.interlog.com/~ofo
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Small Gulls Video
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)ENDEAVOR.MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 24 Jan 2000 11:43pm
**** The Small Gulls of North America ****
John Vanderpoel and Jon Dunn are probably too bashful to plug their newly
released "Advanced Birding Video" guide to the small gulls of North America
(came out in Dec 1999, I believe). I received a copy this evening and was so
impressed after a just single run through, that I thought I would plug here it
for them!
This really is a must for all gull-enthusiasts! Dunn's narrative is packed with
up-to-date information and his words are illustrated with some three hours of
superb video footage and still photographs. Vanderpoel uses his
editing/computing skills to great advantage, creating very useful composite
images and adding zooms, pointers etc. etc.
I have put together a small web page with a list of the species/subspecies
featured plus some of my initial impressions. I also have links to a couple to
on-line sources for both the large and small gulls videos.
The URL is:
http://www.best.com/~petrel/SmallGulls.html
Hopefully other ID-Frontiers folk will post their own thoughts in the near
future.
Anyway, check out the video if you can. There is nothing quite like moving
images for bringing to life the subtle differences in look-alike species such
as
Common and
Ring-billed Gulls.
**************************************
Angus Wilson
New York City
wilsoa02(AT)endeavor.med.nyu.edu
Check out the "Ocean Wanderers" bird ID web site.
http://www.best.com/~petrel/index.html
**************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: HEGU bills, Shrike...
From: Evan Obercian <ewilsono(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 7:31am
Gullovers et al,
A few weeks ago I posed a question regarding apparent adult American Herring
Gulls with a dusky spot (or less frequently, narrow subterminal ring) on the
bill, and its relationship to age (i.e. only 4th-yr?). It was requested by
a few that I post the responses. Instead I'll just summarize some of the
helpful replies I received; the consensus was that this is indeed normal for
adult basic HEGUs. Whether or not these are 4th (or even 5th) year birds is
essentially open to speculation (i.e. more study is needed with birds of
known age). However, one reports that several captive HEGUs older than 4yrs
still show the mark.
I have begun to notice a gradual skewing of the ratio as more Herrings are
acquiring alternate-like features (including bright orange bills with
blood-red gonys spots) by this date; however, others maintain sickly yellow
bills with dusky spots. I am interested to see when all are changed.
While I'm on, I might as well ask another question; several days ago I
studied at very close range an immature Northern Shrike (in NJ) that had
many juvenile-like characteristics: the mask was nothing more than a
brownish smudge on the face; it had a rather bold eye-ring; the back was
completely buff-brown; the wings were brownish-black with diffuse off-white
edgings to the tertials, greater coverts, etc; the underparts were strongly
barred and with a buffy wash all over, especially on the flanks; the tail
was brownish-black; and the bill had a large fleshy area on the lower
mandible. The bird was quite different from my experience with immature
NSHRs; anyone who has experience with N Shrike plumage variation (anyone??)
or who can comment on this is most welcome to do so...
Thanks and good birding(gulling),
Evan Obercian
Tewksbury, NJ
ewilsono(AT)hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RFHelp with LISTSERV problems
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)CYBERRAMP.NET>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 8:46am
Dear all,
I apologise for broadcasting this, but I sent a message to the the
moderator (BIRDWG01-request(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU) 11 days ago, and have not
received any response. I need help with changing my email address without
missing any ID-F messages; will someone responsible for the list please
contact me? - thanks, and again sorry for sending this to the main list.
Martin
Martin Reid
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com or http://www.cyberramp.net/~upupa
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Listserv owner on listserv problems
From: Beth and Will Russell <russell(AT)RTD.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 9:29am
Id-Frontiers use to have a technical wizard lurking in the background.
He's given up birds for fiddle music and no longer monitors the site on
a daily (or probably monthly) basis. He has thus far responded to my
requests for help but I have to be on-line to make those requests.
If you have a problem, please contact me at the e-mail address noted
below...and then wait patiently for something to happen. I'm often away
and out-of-touch for periods of up to two weeks and it may be that long
before your particular problem can be addressed. I'll acknowledge all
requests for help the moment I see them.
I agree this isn't a perfect system but for the moment it's good
enough. I hope somthing better will emerge before too long. Those of
you worried about missing posts can see the most recent contributions at
Jack Siler's website:
http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~siler/birding.html under "Daily
Mail"
Will Russell
russell(AT)rtd.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Fox Sparrow subspecies
From: Mike Patterson <celata(AT)pacifier.com>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 10:37am
We are working on capturing and banding wintering
sparrows at the Neawanna Wetland Preserve, Seaside,
Clatsop Co. OREGON. With the intent of sort at the
subspecies level.
As weather permits we will be collecting data over
the remainder of January into February and March.
Where possible data on individual birds will be
posted at:
http://columbia-pacific.interrain.org/ahscience/neawanna/fosp.html
We welcome opinions as to the identity of sparrows
posted at this site.
--
Mike Patterson
Wildlife Investigations
Astoria, OR
http://columbia-pacific.interrain.org/ahscience/neawanna/neaw.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Listserv owner on listserv problems
From: Don Crockett <crockett(AT)GREATBLUE.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 11:22am
You can also see the latest postings on The Virtual Birder at:
http://www.virtualbirder.com/bmail/idfrontiers/latest.html
There is no waiting period for subscriptions to ID-FRONTIERS
(at least I don't think there is, none for receiving posts
anyway) so given the tech support situation I would subscribe
the new email address and when you start receiving posts on both,
unsubscribe the old address. Details on subscribing can be found at:
http://www.virtualbirder.com/bmail/idfrontiers
To unsubscribe, follow direction but change 'sub' to 'unsub'.
Don
Don Crockett
The Virtual Birder(R)
http://www.virtualbirder.com/vbirder
A 2 Z 4 Birders(sm): The Store
http://store.yahoo.com/a2z4birders
mailto:crockett(AT)greatblue.com
Brookline, Massachusetts
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: mystery duck photos
From: Dave Rintoul <drintoul(AT)ksu.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 2:10pm
Re the previous notice of an odd duck in NE Kansas, I finally got one roll
of slides back and have posted some of the pictures. Another roll,
containing pics of the bird in flight, will be scanned and posted as soon as
they come back from the processing plant. For now, 6 photos of the mystery
duck visiting Pottawatomie State Fishing Lake #2 in Jan 2000 are now
available for your enjoyment. These can be found under the "mystery duck"
link at the updated KOS website
http://www.ksbirds.org
Enjoy.
Dave
Dave Rintoul, KBRC Secretary Internet: <mailto:drintoul(AT)ksu.edu>
Biology Division - KSU ICBM: 39.18N, 96.34W
Manhattan KS 66506-4901 VOX: 785-532-6663
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~drintoul/ FAX: 785-532-6653
"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to
change their minds in response to arguments." - C.M. Bowra, 1898-1971
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Connecticut L. a. argentatus/hybrid gull
From: "Robert H. Lewis" <lewis(AT)bway.net>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 8:49pm
Hi folks,
I have just posted 11 photos by Patrick Comins of a very interesting
first winter gull found in Connecticut in December. I believe the bird
was discussed a bit here back in December. Anyway, the photos are at
http://www.bway.net/~lewis/birds/tatus/tatus.html
Regards,
Bob Lewis
Sleepy Hollow NY
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Listserv owner on listserv problems
From: Sharon Goldwasser <azbird(AT)AZSTARNET.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 9:53pm
Will more-or-less correctly explained:
>Id-Frontiers use to have a technical wizard lurking in the background.
>He's given up birds for fiddle music and no longer monitors the site on
>a daily (or probably monthly) basis. He has thus far responded to my
>requests for help but I have to be on-line to make those requests.
In the meantime, until Will is able to completely handle list problems
independently, Chuck Williamson (the afore-mentioned list manager type) can
be reached at:
Chuckw(AT)azstarnet.com. He might take a couple of days to get a request
processed, but he's rarely away from his computer for more than a day at a
time.
Sharon Goldwasser *(list lurker here)
azbird(AT)azstarnet.com
Tucson AZ
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Lesser Black-backed Gulls.
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <alvaro(AT)SIRIUS.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2000 11:46pm
Birders:
Do any North American's have good details on the moult of Lesser
Black-backed Gulls in NOrth America, with emphasis on the primary moult
timing? Any of you have photos that could be scored to figure this out? Is
there any difference in the moult timing of North American Lesser
Black-backs and European ones?
Now for the Europeans. Do intermedius and graellsii moult at the same
time, or is there a timing difference between the two? Are the moult timing
descriptions in BWP accurate? Finally, roughly what proportion of Lesser
Black-backed Gulls (not including fuscus fuscus) are still moulting in
their outer primaries in December? Or in January?
Thanks for your help. This is going to be put to use trying to figure out
if California Lesser Black-backed gulls moult timing is typical or not.
cheers,
Alvaro
Alvaro Jaramillo
Senior Biologist
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
P.O. Box 247
Alviso, CA 95002
(408)-946-6548
http://www.sfbbo.org/
Home of the California Fall Challenge!!
alvaro(AT)sirius.com
Birds of Chile and
New World Blackbirds at : http://www.sirius.com/~alvaro
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Lesser Black-backed Gulls
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 7:16am
Dear Alvaro and other gullers,
Here in Texas we seeLBBs that often appear to molt later than usual,
compared to graellsii in Europe. I feel that molt timing is strongly
influenced by breeding latitude and migration distance; the breeding
grounds of the LBBs seen in North America is unknown, but is likely to be
at high latitudes (perhasp in Iceland), a long way from Texas. To put this
another way, perhaps the birds that winter regularly in Texas ( and
occasionally in California) are from a population that migrates much
further than most graellsii in NW Europe, and thus have adapted to a later
molt timing.
There are numerous photos of birds from Texas at
http://www.martinreid.com/lbbginx.html
- including some that are still growing P10 in late Jan/early Feb; I just
received a Video grab of a bird currently on South Padre Island (a presumed
returning bird in at least its 4th year there); the pic is from mid Jan,
2000, and only THREE primary tips are visible beyond the tertials,
indicating that P8 - P10 are still growing.
The fly in the ointment is that heuglini in known to molt later than
graellsii/intermedius in Europe, and I do not know if anyone on the
Americas knows how to separate heuglini from graellsii/intermedius -
especially adult birds. Sadly, many photos do not show enough detail to
determine any differences in the age of feather tracts in the scaps and
coverts - which may be vital in this process.
The recent recovery in Texas of a BHGU from Finland suggests that the
likelihood of fuscus and heuglini occurring in the Americas is higher than
previously thought.
Maybe we need to club together and fly Lars Jonsson over here to look at
all our photos!
Regards,
Martin
Martin Reid
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com or http://www.cyberramp.net/~upupa
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks
From: Harry LeGrand <Harry.LeGrand(AT)NCMAIL.NET>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 8:55am
Thanks to the numerous people who have listened to, and responded back
to me (8+), the voice recordings of the Pacific-slope Flycatcher at
Jordan Lake, NC. We have some fairly good photos (should be identifiable
to Western Flycatcher), plus the voice recordings; all comments were in
agreement that the recording is of P-s rather than Cordilleran.
This is the first record of Pacific-Slope Flycatcher for NC.
Fortunately, there is a slight pattern emerging, as there are now quite
a handul of reports (with recordings) of PSF for the East Coast in late
fall or winter. With 20 inches of snow dumped on us yesterday, plus
temperatures from 15-40 for 10 straight days, with no end in sight, I'd
be surprised if the flycatcher makes an appearance this coming weekend.
But, dozens of folks have seen the bird over its 8+ day stay so far, and
it was seen as late as this past Saturday, Jan. 22. It has survived two
3-inch snows already, but 20-inch snows and prolonged subfreezing temps
are brutal on kinglets, wrens, warblers, and the like, at least around
here.
Harry LeGrand
--
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1615
Office: (919) 715-8687
Home: (919) 832-3202
FAX: (919) 715-3085
e-mail: harry.legrand(AT)ncmail.net
http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/nhp/index.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Connecticut L. a. argentatus/hybrid gull
From: Nick Lethaby <nickl(AT)COWARE.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 9:59am
At 10:50 PM 1/25/00 -0500, Robert H. Lewis wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
> I have just posted 11 photos by Patrick Comins of a very interesting
>first winter gull found in Connecticut in December. I believe the bird
>was discussed a bit here back in December. Anyway, the photos are at
>http://www.bway.net/~lewis/birds/tatus/tatus.html
>
>Regards,
>
>Bob Lewis
>Sleepy Hollow NY
In CA, I would have no problem assigning this to Herring x Glaucous.
Nick Lethaby
Technical Marketing Manager
CoWare, Inc.
Tel: 408 845 7646
E-mail: nickl(AT)coware.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)SLIP.NET>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 10:31am
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:55:30 -0500, Harry LeGrand
<Harry.LeGrand(AT)NCMAIL.NET> wrote:
>all comments were in
>agreement that the recording is of P-s rather than Cordilleran.
How did they determine that? Birds which are genetically Cordilleran
Flycatchers in the Warner Mountains of California routinely give the
sinusoidal call of Pacific-slope Flycatchers.
I don't believe the identity of the bird can be determined from those
recordings. I posted the following to ID Frontiers in 1997. Since
then, the situation does not seem to have changed.
>The recent thread on Cordilleran Flycatchers was originally
>started based on some observations by Jennifer Matkin and myself
>in the Warner Mountains in July. Unfortunately we were away from
>access to BIRDWG01 during most of January, but have obtained all
>the messages from the archives. These messages were quite
>helpful, but leave certain questions unanswered. Also I have
>some personal correspondence on this subject from Ned Johnson and
>Jennifer has corresponded with Dick Cannings which sheds some
>light on the problem.
>
>I was particularly interested in Louis Bevier's discovery of
>typical Cordilleran male position notes (MPN) on the east side of
>the Warners. Our observations were on both sides of the Warners
>but primarily at the summit of Cedar Pass where we camped and
>spent considerable time studying a pair of Western Flycatchers.
>The male never gave the distinctly two-parted call which Bevier
>and Marantz reported from the east side. Furthermore Johnson (in
>litt) stated that birds in the Warners "rarely give" the
>distinctly two parted call.
>
>The calls we heard were actually of three different types. The
>most common MPN was a very slightly two-parted sharp "pseeet"
>(Johnson terms this "steeply rising). It also seemed to give the
>same call without the almost inaudible first part. Thus a single
>high sharp "seeeet." This bird also gave the lower, fuller,
>upslurred (Johnson calls it sinusoidal) call "suwheeet" typical
>of Pacific-slope Flycatcher. The sinusoidal calls were given
>more frequently in the late afternoon and early morning. Johnson
>(in litt) states that these vocalizations are all typical of
>Cordilleran Flycatcher in this region. The implications of this
>have been touched upon, but I'm not sure they have been clearly
>articulated in prior discussion. Many Cordilleran Flycatchers
>from the western part of their breeding range do not give the
>distinctive two-parted call note of birds from further east. In
>particular, migrants giving the typical sinusoidal call of
>Pacific-slope Flycatchers might actually be Cordilleran
>Flycatchers. Such birds would almost certainly be misidentified
>by most birders using current field criteria. In sum, migrants
>giving typical Cordilleran MPNs can be confidently identified as
>Cordilleran, but those giving typical Pacific-slope MPNs could be
>either one.
>
>Johnson (in litt to Cannings) has stated that the best
>distinction is the SONG. The song is three parted in both
>species as described by Chris Benesch. However Johnson describes
>the distinction quite differently from Benesch. According to
>Johnson, it is the third part of the song that differs consistently
>between the species. This part may consist of two or three
>syllables. One must consider only the two accented notes if the
>section is three parted. On Pacific-slope the sequence of the
>two accented notes is low-high (sounds like "pittick" to me) and
>on Cordilleran it is high-low. Notice that this approach pretty
>much eliminates the so-called "intermediate" song types.
>
>I have not yet had a chance to visit the breeding grounds early
>enough in the season to test this difference in song and would
>like to learn what others think about it. Does anybody have any
>recordings they can check?
>
>One other question remains unresolved in my mind. Although it is
>clear that Cordilleran may give Pacific-slope MPNs as well as the
>high thin "pseet" or "seet," I wonder if the reverse is true.
>Can Pacific-slope Flycatchers give a single steeply rising
>"pseet" or "seet" as a MPN. I can give a partial answer. I
>recall that Pacific-slope Flycatchers on Santa Cruz Island gave
>both calls. This goes along with Johnson's view that the Island
>race is somewhat similar to Cordilleran. But I simply cannot
>recall Pacific-slope Flycatchers elsewhere giving this call as a
>MPN. I'm pretty sure I've heard it incorporated into some
>Pacific-slope songs though.
>
>Any further comments would be most welcome.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044: mailto:jmorlan(AT)slip.net
Birding Classes begin Feb 8 in SF: http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee: http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks
From: Tom Crabtree <tcrabtree(AT)TRANSPORT.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 10:47am
Joe:
I had provided Harry with your comments as well as those of Chris Benesch
and the others who had written back in 1997 and had told him that the
Cordillerans on the eastern slope of the Cascades in Oregon also give the
sinusoidal call of the Pacific Slopes. I also sent him an article
indicating that most of us in the northwest think that it was a bad split
and the birds should be considered "Westerns," period.
Tom Crabtree Bend, OR
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)SLIP.NET>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pacific-slope Flycatcher - thanks
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:55:30 -0500, Harry LeGrand
> <Harry.LeGrand(AT)NCMAIL.NET> wrote:
>
> >all comments were in
> >agreement that the recording is of P-s rather than Cordilleran.
>
> How did they determine that? Birds which are genetically Cordilleran
> Flycatchers in the Warner Mountains of California routinely give the
> sinusoidal call of Pacific-slope Flycatchers.
>
> I don't believe the identity of the bird can be determined from those
> recordings. I posted the following to ID Frontiers in 1997. Since
> then, the situation does not seem to have changed.
>
> >The recent thread on Cordilleran Flycatchers was originally
> >started based on some observations by Jennifer Matkin and myself
> >in the Warner Mountains in July. Unfortunately we were away from
> >access to BIRDWG01 during most of January, but have obtained all
> >the messages from the archives. These messages were quite
> >helpful, but leave certain questions unanswered. Also I have
> >some personal correspondence on this subject from Ned Johnson and
> >Jennifer has corresponded with Dick Cannings which sheds some
> >light on the problem.
> >
> >I was particularly interested in Louis Bevier's discovery of
> >typical Cordilleran male position notes (MPN) on the east side of
> >the Warners. Our observations were on both sides of the Warners
> >but primarily at the summit of Cedar Pass where we camped and
> >spent considerable time studying a pair of Western Flycatchers.
> >The male never gave the distinctly two-parted call which Bevier
> >and Marantz reported from the east side. Furthermore Johnson (in
> >litt) stated that birds in the Warners "rarely give" the
> >distinctly two parted call.
> >
> >The calls we heard were actually of three different types. The
> >most common MPN was a very slightly two-parted sharp "pseeet"
> >(Johnson terms this "steeply rising). It also seemed to give the
> >same call without the almost inaudible first part. Thus a single
> >high sharp "seeeet." This bird also gave the lower, fuller,
> >upslurred (Johnson calls it sinusoidal) call "suwheeet" typical
> >of Pacific-slope Flycatcher. The sinusoidal calls were given
> >more frequently in the late afternoon and early morning. Johnson
> >(in litt) states that these vocalizations are all typical of
> >Cordilleran Flycatcher in this region. The implications of this
> >have been touched upon, but I'm not sure they have been clearly
> >articulated in prior discussion. Many Cordilleran Flycatchers
> >from the western part of their breeding range do not give the
> >distinctive two-parted call note of birds from further east. In
> >particular, migrants giving the typical sinusoidal call of
> >Pacific-slope Flycatchers might actually be Cordilleran
> >Flycatchers. Such birds would almost certainly be misidentified
> >by most birders using current field criteria. In sum, migrants
> >giving typical Cordilleran MPNs can be confidently identified as
> >Cordilleran, but those giving typical Pacific-slope MPNs could be
> >either one.
> >
> >Johnson (in litt to Cannings) has stated that the best
> >distinction is the SONG. The song is three parted in both
> >species as described by Chris Benesch. However Johnson describes
> >the distinction quite differently from Benesch. According to
> >Johnson, it is the third part of the song that differs consistently
> >between the species. This part may consist of two or three
> >syllables. One must consider only the two accented notes if the
> >section is three parted. On Pacific-slope the sequence of the
> >two accented notes is low-high (sounds like "pittick" to me) and
> >on Cordilleran it is high-low. Notice that this approach pretty
> >much eliminates the so-called "intermediate" song types.
> >
> >I have not yet had a chance to visit the breeding grounds early
> >enough in the season to test this difference in song and would
> >like to learn what others think about it. Does anybody have any
> >recordings they can check?
> >
> >One other question remains unresolved in my mind. Although it is
> >clear that Cordilleran may give Pacific-slope MPNs as well as the
> >high thin "pseet" or "seet," I wonder if the reverse is true.
> >Can Pacific-slope Flycatchers give a single steeply rising
> >"pseet" or "seet" as a MPN. I can give a partial answer. I
> >recall that Pacific-slope Flycatchers on Santa Cruz Island gave
> >both calls. This goes along with Johnson's view that the Island
> >race is somewhat similar to Cordilleran. But I simply cannot
> >recall Pacific-slope Flycatchers elsewhere giving this call as a
> >MPN. I'm pretty sure I've heard it incorporated into some
> >Pacific-slope songs though.
> >
> >Any further comments would be most welcome.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044: mailto:jmorlan(AT)slip.net
> Birding Classes begin Feb 8 in SF: http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jmorlan/
> California Bird Records Committee: http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Brazilian tyrannid?
From: Jim Mountjoy <J_Mountjoy(AT)ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 11:26am
Birders - I have put on the web some images of a specimen that I came
across in the collection of Bowdoin College. The bird was labeled as a
'Golden Vireo', but that seems to be wrong. It appears to me to be a small
tyrannid, *possibly* a _Phylloscartes_ or some similar genus. However, I
have been unable to identify it and I could be completely off base. The
images can be seen at:
http://www.fandm.edu/Departments/Biology/People/Mountjoy/tyrannid_-_one.htm
I would be interested in opinions from anyone with a knowledge of Brazilian
flycatchers, or even suggestions for names of people who might be
interested in such a bird.
Cheers,
Jim Mountjoy
D. James Mountjoy, Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Biology, Franklin & Marshall College
P.O. Box 3003, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003, USA
(717) 399-4404 j_mountjoy(AT)acad.fandm.edu
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: California Short-tailed Albatrosses
From: Don Roberson and/or Rita Carratello <creagrus(AT)MONTEREYBAY.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 2000 11:06pm
Given the recent surge in records over the past 13 months, and presumably with
many more to come, I've created a summary page of California
status/distribution with a selection of photos, details on all records, a
history, and some i.d. thoughts of topics to be considered. Included is a fine
Norwood Hazard photo of the most recent bird on the Morro Bay Bird Festival
boat on 15 Jan 2000. The page is at:
http://montereybay.com/creagrus/CA_STAL.html
Cheers, Don Roberson
Pacific Grove CA
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: bill shape of Green winged Teal
From: Pierre Andre Crochet <pierre_andre.crochet(AT)EVOLUTION.UU.SE>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 8:38am
Dear all,
Could anybody with an access to large numbers of Anas crecca carolinensis check
the amount of variation in bill shapes in males of this form?
Starting from a picture of a strange looking, female plumaged teal taken on
Ouessant island (France) this autumn (September), we realised by examining
published pictures that in at least some males carolinensis, the bill was
swollen at the base, a bit like in americana scoters or in white headed duck
(not as obvious as in WH Duck of course).
European crecca teals do not seem to show this feature.
But the question is: how common is this feature in carolinensis (females don't
show it apparently)
Also, could a juvenile or eclipse male carolinensis still be in full female type
plumage in September (late September)?
Any idea on how to age/sex carolinensis in September (separating juv from adult
and eclipse males from females)? I just started this year to see some
differences between different age class on crecca in autumn, but I'm not sure
how useful this is with carolinensis...
Sorry if these questions seem naive to some of you, but I must confess that
ageing and sexing of many dabbling ducks remain a bit of a mystery for me...
> Pierre-Andre Crochet
> Dept. of Animal Ecology
> Evolutionary Biology Centre
> Norbyvägen 18D
> S-752 36 Uppsala
> Sweden
> Tel . 018 471 64 85 or 46 18 471 64 85 from abroad
Mobile: 070 241 72 38 or 00 46 70 241 72 38 from abroad
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Mark Stackhouse <westwings(AT)SISNA.COM>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 10:19am
Harry,
I would like to echo the comments of Joe Morlan and Tom Crabtree on your
"Western" Flycatcher. Yes, the MPN does sound like a "typical" PSFC, but
does that really mean anything? For several years I've been convinced that
PSFC should occur in Utah during migration, and was actively searching for
one. I've largely abandoned that quest, since I've become convinced that it
is impossible to positively identify (in the field) a PSFC away from the
breeding grounds. I don't know if the same is true for COFC.
Joe's post from 1997 refers to the problem presented by COFC in the Warner
Mtns. of Oregon, which can give a PSFC MPN. Let me expand that problem a
bit further east. Two years ago, I recorded a "Western" Flycatcher in Big
Cottonwood Canyon, near Salt Lake City, which was not giving the typical,
two-part MPN of COFC, but was giving the single, upslurred (Johnson's
"sinusoidal") MPN of the PSFC. I never heard it give a COFC call in over an
hour of observation at that time, nor on two return visits over the next
few days. The problem was that this was in June, during the height of the
breeding season - and we are hundreds of miles from any known PSFC breeding
range. Since then, I have recorded one other individual, and heard at least
four others at various locations in northern Utah, which were also giving
the upslurred, single-note call during the breeding season. Some of these
(but not all) also gave the two-part MPN typical of COFC. The calls of
these birds are (to my ears) indistinguishable from the call of your NC
bird.
If you want to "get it right," I think you should simply call it a
"Western" Flycatcher, and leave it at that. I would also be skeptical of
the "pattern" of PSFC occurrence along the East Coast which you mentioned
in your later post. Without a specimen, I don't think any PSFC record
outside of the breeding range can be substantiated, including in places
like AZ, NM, and TX. While guiding a tour last week in west Mexico, our
group saw many "Western" Flycatchers, only one of which called for us. It
gave the typical PSFC MPN, and went on our list as another "Western."
I guess I have to agree with Tom Crabtree (and apparently others in the
northwest) that this was not a very good split.
Mark Stackhouse
Westwings, Inc.
1432 Downington Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
(801) 487-9453
westwings(AT)sisna.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Larry Gorbet <lgorbet(AT)UNM.EDU>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 11:35am
Mark Stackhouse wrote:
>I would like to echo the comments of Joe Morlan and Tom Crabtree on your
>"Western" Flycatcher. Yes, the MPN does sound like a "typical" PSFC, but
>does that really mean anything? For several years I've been convinced that
>PSFC should occur in Utah during migration, and was actively searching for
>one. I've largely abandoned that quest, since I've become convinced that it
>is impossible to positively identify (in the field) a PSFC away from the
>breeding grounds. I don't know if the same is true for COFC.
Well, I certainly don't know as much about this complex as many
who've written so far in this thread, but let me offer a tentative
disagreement with Mark's assertion about identifiability of
Pacific-Slopes away from the breeding grounds.
I'll be specific. I feel pretty strongly that Pacific-Slopes occur
regularly, probably even predominate, in the lowland riparian
habitats of New Mexico in the fall. The essence of the evidence that
leads me to this conclusion is the combination of
(1) multiple birds measured either in the hand or as museum skins
that fall into the range that Pyle indicates should be PSFC.
Substantial difference here between spring and fall birds, with
spring birds almost all measuring like COFL's. Yes, I know that
Johnson and others have asserted that these measurements are not
definitive, although I have not seen any information about either the
basis for or the magnitude of the disagreement.
(2) of the birds measured live in the hand whose measurements
strongly suggested PSFL, *none* gave the expected COFL call and one
whose measurements suggested not just PSFL, but male nominate PSFL,
gave the expected male PSFL call. This call was heard at other times
within several days of this occurrence.
So I guess my question is, what is the likelihood that multiple birds
from the breeding range of vocally aberrant COFL's would appear in
the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico and rather consistently measure
quite differently from what is expected of COFL? In particular, what
is the likelihood that this presumably small number of COFL's would
outnumber COFL's which breed much closer to where they are observed?
I'll add that I've measured skins of birds whose collection sites and
times strongly suggest one species or the other (e.g. mid-summer in
the known N.M. breeding range, vs. western Arizona or California in
the fall or late summer), and of about a dozen I've measured, *none*
had measurements that contradicted the expected identification and
almost all had measurements that strongly suggested the expected ID.
Just in case anyone out there doesn't already know this, there are
other "west coast" passerine's which migrate through the Rio Grande
Valley in the fall. For example, Cassin's Vireos clearly outnumber
(nearby breeding) Plumbeous Vireos in the fall.
I'd welcome any thoughts on this from anyone out there.... Thanks.
- Larry
--
Rio Grande Bird Research, Inc. (Albuquerque, NM)
(An all-volunteer non-profit organization,
banding in the Middle Rio Grande Valley
since 1979)
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <alvaro(AT)SIRIUS.COM>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 12:04pm
At 10:24 AM 1/27/00 -0600, Mark Stackhouse wrote:
>Harry,
>
>I would like to echo the comments of Joe Morlan and Tom Crabtree on your
>"Western" Flycatcher. Yes, the MPN does sound like a "typical" PSFC, but
>does that really mean anything? For several years I've been convinced that
>PSFC should occur in Utah during migration, and was actively searching for
>one. I've largely abandoned that quest, since I've become convinced that it
>is impossible to positively identify (in the field) a PSFC away from the
>breeding grounds. I don't know if the same is true for COFC.
>
Birders
Its great that this discussion has surfaced again, and even better now
that we are getting more input from birders in the 'trouble area' where
Cordillerans can sound like Pacific Slopes. I don't have Johnson's papers
and can't look this up, so I wonder if he did do playback experiments in
some of these trouble spots? Are there data from playback experiments from
the Warner mountains? I assume there must be. Someone needs to see what
occurred during playback experiments, and it may clear up the situation for
the NC people. The NC folks conducted playbacks of known identity birds
(Pacific Slope and Cordilleran) and only had their bird respond to Pacific
Slope. I think this is noteworthy and would not hesitate to consider the
bird a Pacific Slope based on this information. If the bird was a
Cordilleran, even one that sometimes makes a Pacific Slope type call, then
it should have responded to the Cordilleran call. If it was a presumed
intergrade, it presumably would have responded to both calls, or shows some
interest in the Cordilleran calls or perhaps it would not have responded at
all. The birds I hear annually in Alberta seem to be intergrades, possibly
with more Pacific Slope influence than Cordilleran. Their contact calls
vary, but are never distinctly two parted and are often intermediate. The
calls which sound most like Pacific Slope increase steadily, listen to the
crappy recording at:
http://www.sirius.com/~alvaro/wefl.wav
Calls of Pacific Slopes don't tend to rise steadily, but hesitate half way
through. Thus, they are sinusoidal on a sonogram while the bird I have on
my website shows very little of this patter althought its there. The North
Carolina bird is clearly sinusoidal, and thus is a "classic" Pacific Slope
call. Again, someone needs to compare to the sonograms published in Johnson
and make sense of this.
Having said that, maybe we should be content to use the name which makes
the least number of assumptions - Western Flycatcher. Either way, its a
damn good bird for North Carolina!!!
regards,
Alvaro
Alvaro Jaramillo
Senior Biologist
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
P.O. Box 247
Alviso, CA 95002
(408)-946-6548
http://www.sfbbo.org/
Home of the California Fall Challenge!!
alvaro(AT)sirius.com
Birds of Chile and
New World Blackbirds at : http://www.sirius.com/~alvaro
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Mark Stackhouse <westwings(AT)SISNA.COM>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 12:41pm
Larry Gorbet wrote:
>Well, I certainly don't know as much about this complex as many
>who've written so far in this thread, but let me offer a tentative
>disagreement with Mark's assertion about identifiability of
>Pacific-Slopes away from the breeding grounds.
>
I don't think I disagree with you at all, Larry (or, I think, you with me).
My assertion was "it is impossible to positively identify (in the field) a
PSFC away from the breeding grounds." The key parts are "positively," and
"in the field" (as opposed to specimen-in-hand). I don't doubt that PSFC
occurs in most western states (including Utah), but the problem of
adequately documenting that occurrence is certainly very difficult. Without
the specimen records you cited (or perhaps even with), could you be at all
certain of the identity of any particular individual based upon
field-observable characteristics?
The problem of discounting the possibility of COFC giving PSFC calls due to
the low probability of its occurrence, is that it depends upon the
assumption that the number of COFC's giving PSFC calls is small, and that
the range of these individuals is restricted. The main purpose of my post
was to point out that the phenomena of COFC giving PSFC calls is not
restricted to a few birds in a small part of Oregon, but rather may be much
more widespread. I've been surprised by how often I've heard it in Utah.
Given the sparse coverage through much of the northern part of the breeding
range of COFC, it wouldn't surprise me to find many more COFC giving PSFC
calls.
Alvaro Jaramillo wrote:
"The NC folks conducted playbacks of known identity birds
(Pacific Slope and Cordilleran) and only had their bird respond to Pacific
Slope. I think this is noteworthy and would not hesitate to consider the
bird a Pacific Slope based on this information. If the bird was a
Cordilleran, even one that sometimes makes a Pacific Slope type call, then
it should have responded to the Cordilleran call."
I would agree with Al's point on this, especially if the difference in
response is great (it was unclear to me from what I read as to how great
the difference in response was, since they did say that it showed interest
in the COFC playback). As a cautionary note, if they used the PSFC call on
the Stoke's guide, it was recorded in WA, which could be in the "danger
zone." :-)
Alvaro Jaramillo also wrote:
"Having said that, maybe we should be content to use the name which makes
the least number of assumptions - Western Flycatcher. Either way, its a
damn good bird for North Carolina!!!"
Absolutely!!!
Mark Stackhouse
Westwings, Inc.
1432 Downington Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
(801) 487-9453
westwings(AT)sisna.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Evan Obercian <ewilsono(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 2:37pm
>The main purpose of my post was to point out that the phenomena of >COFC
>giving PSFC calls is not restricted to a few birds in a small >part of
>Oregon, but rather may be much more widespread. I've been >surprised by how
>often I've heard it in Utah.
In keeping with this point, I might add that I observed a bird in the
Chiricahuas (SE AZ) which was giving a "classic" Pacific-slope call. I
stayed with the bird for about 20 minutes and it never so much as uttered
the two-noted COFL call. This was in July and the bird was obviously
territorial and obviously a Cordilleran by range. I don't see how a bird so
far from the contact zone could have any genetic Pacific-slope influence;
are flycatcher calls instinctual or are they learned? I wonder whether
birds wintering together could have effects on each other's repertoires?
Evan Obercian
Tewksbury, NJ
ewilsono(AT)hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Tony Leukering <GreatGrayO(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 6:26pm
Hi all:
I have been sitting on this discussion but am impelled to post on it, due to
Larry Gorbet's post. While, I have almost no experience with calling
Pacific-slope Flycatchers (PSFL) or those annoying 'tweeners of the northern
Sierras and the Cascades, I mainly wish to expound on the likelihood of
"Western" Flycatchers (WEFL) in the east.
Ever since my arrival at Colorado Bird Observatory in fall '94, I have been
insisting that we identify every migrant WEFL as WEFL, not as COFL. While I
believe that a goodly number of the migrants we see and catch are probably
COFLs, there are absolutely NO data that can confirm that. No one out here
has really looked at the problem.
While understanding that different species of birds are different and that it
can be dangerous to generalize across taxa, I here plan on doing just that.
I believe that the "Solitary" Vireo complex provides at least marginal
argument that PSFLs could be migrating through the Rocky Mountains,
particularly in fall. My fall banding station at Barr Lake sits only 30
miles east of the foothills out on the plains. That means that it is only 30
miles from breeding Plumbeous Vireos (PLVI). Despite that short distance,
Cassin's Vireo (CAVI) greatly outnumbers PLVI at my banding station. In
spring, the situation is reversed.
The two Pacific-slope species (CAVI and PSFL) have fairly-similar breeding
and wintering ranges and the two Rocky Mountain "species" also have similar
breeding and wintering areas. Of the two vireos, only CAVI has been
documented as occurring on the east coast. The female WEFL caught on Long
Island, NY, in fall 1995 measured out to be a PSFL (if I remember that
correctly).
I suggest that PLVI migrates through the mountains, but that non-conducive
weather conditions (read, "snow") typical of the Colorado mountains in spring
may be the cause of many spilling out onto the plains in that season. Fall
is generally rather clement in CO and the birds are able to migrate south in
the mountains, thus taking the shorter route. CAVI is an uncommon migrant in
CO in fall, being quite rare in spring. Since I have only caught immatures
of this species in CO, I suggest that either the stupid youngsters that wind
up in the Rocky Mountains during fall migration either don't make it or they
"learn" that they're supposed to be further west, thus producing very small
numbers in the state in spring.
In general:
1) Species breeding on the Pacific slope and wintering in Mexico or
anywhere further south are required to head SE; species breeding in the Rocky
Mountains and wintering in Mexico or further south head S.
2) Species breeding on the Pacific slope generally have breeding
distributions extending well into Canada, often to panhandle Alaska whereas
those species that are typical of the drier forests of the Rocky Mountains
generally breed only as far north as Montana.
This combination of factors possibly favors long-distance displacement of
Pacific-slope taxa to the east as compared to that in Rocky Mountain species.
As further support, many common breeding species that are restricted as
breeders in CO to the Rocky Mountain cordillera are rare or accidental more
than some 20 miles off the mountains in CO, e.g. Red-naped Sapsucker, Western
Bluebird, and Lesser Goldfinch.
Getting back to the main point, I would suggest that if WEFLs are at all like
the vireos, PSFL would be the more likely of the two "species" on the east
coast.
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Lesser Black-backed Gulls
From: Peter and Carol Wilkinson <pcwilkinson(AT)CLARA.CO.UK>
Date: 28 Jan 2000 7:34am
Hi All,
Firstly, Alvaro's questions for Europeans. From casual rather than intensive
observations (basically from noticing when gulls overhead are obviously in
primary moult), my impression is that the moult timings in BWP are right.
Primary moult from this type of observation is over well before December.
Secondly, Martin's most interesting suggestion about the origin and
migration distance of LBBGs in the US. The great circle distance between
Reykjavik and Houston (a piece of string on my son's old school globe!) is
almost exactly the same as that between Reykjavik and Sierra Leone, which is
at the southern end of British-banded LBBG recoveries. British banded LBBGs
do include Icelandic birds (recoveries both ways), but I do not have access
to Icelandic recoveries to tell whether they do not go quite so far south.
The great circle route from Iceland to Sierra Leone does take in rather a
lot of sea, so birds could still travel the same distance as to Houston but
by a non great circle route and only get as far as, say, Morocco where a lot
of LBBGs are seen in winter.
My initial reaction would be that if a bird is not moulting reasonably
typically for graellsii or intermedius (and if there is no obvious reason to
suspect that the moult is abnormally late on an individual bird) then I
would start with a rebuttable presumption that it isn't graellsii or
intermedius. Martin is absolutely right that the fly in the ointment is
heuglini. My only experience of this is when I was researching a different
question from skins in the British Musem. I happened to be close to the
cabinet with heuglini, so I put one alongside a graellsii and wished I
hadn't! If they had not been labelled I would not have known which to put
back in which cabinet. One day I have promised myself that I will go back
and look at them again.
Peter Wilkinson
Wheathampstead, Herts, England
pcwilkinson(AT)clara.co.uk
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Lesser Black-backed Gulls
From: Nick Lethaby <nickl(AT)COWARE.COM>
Date: 28 Jan 2000 10:26am
At 12:43 PM 1/28/00 +0000, Peter and Carol Wilkinson wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>
>
>My initial reaction would be that if a bird is not moulting reasonably
>typically for graellsii or intermedius (and if there is no obvious reason to
>suspect that the moult is abnormally late on an individual bird) then I
>would start with a rebuttable presumption that it isn't graellsii or
>intermedius. Martin is absolutely right that the fly in the ointment is
>heuglini. My only experience of this is when I was researching a different
>question from skins in the British Musem. I happened to be close to the
>cabinet with heuglini, so I put one alongside a graellsii and wished I
>hadn't! If they had not been labelled I would not have known which to put
>back in which cabinet. One day I have promised myself that I will go back
>and look at them again.
I really don't buy into the Heuglin's Gull theory for a number of reasons:
1/ It's wintering range (Indian Ocean to the Yellow Sea, with a few in
Japan) and overland migration routes don't make a likely vagrant to N.
America. Of course, breeding so far north, I think it's conceivable
that it could occur very occasionally.
2/ Vega Gull occurs in numbers in W. Alaska but appears to be totally or
almost unreported from the Lower 48 states. Based on distribution in E.
Asia, we should be getting hundreds of Vega Gulls if these late molting LBB
Gulls are really Heuglin's.
3/ The growth in occurrence of LBB Gulls started in the east and spread
west. This is consistent with a European origin for these birds.
Since there seem to be multiple occurrences of late-molting LBB Gulls, it
seems unlikely that these could all be Heuglin's Gulls.
Nick Lethaby
Technical Marketing Manager
CoWare, Inc.
Tel: 408 845 7646
E-mail: nickl(AT)coware.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Brazillian mystery bird - identified?
From: Jim Mountjoy <J_Mountjoy(AT)ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 2000 2:10pm
Birders - recently I posted a note about a puzzling bird specimen labelled
'Golden Vireo', with a link to photos
(http://www.fandm.edu/Departments/Biology/People/Mountjoy/tyrannid_-_one.htm).
My initial guess was that it might be some sort of tyrannid. I have
recieved several responses and a consesnsus seems to be building that this
bird is actually a Flavescent Warbler (Basileuterus flaveolus) (so I was
way off!). This ID has been suggested by Doug Stotz & John Bates at the
Field Museum in Chicago, Mark Robbins & Richard Prum at U. Kansas, and by
Dan Lane at Louisiana State.
Flavescent Warbler is not illustrated in Ridgely & Tudor (which might have
helped me...), but is in 'Warblers of the Americas' (Curson et al.). Their
illustration shows more solid yellow underparts (lacking the dusky/olive
wash) and a more prominent supercilium than the specimen, but is not too
far off. The total length of the specimen (15.3 cm) is a bit larger than
the 14.5 cm listed in both sources, but also probably not a fatal
objection. Apparently the bill shape and prominent rictal bristles are OK
for a Basileuterus. The long pale legs also seem to fit this partially
terrrestrial species.
A few others suggestions were made (sometimes half-heartedly), including a
Tachyphonus tanager, a Tolmomyias flycatcher, or possibly an elaenia. None
of them seem to be good contenders. One person who has field experience
with Golden Vireo assured me that the specimen certainly wasn't of that
species.
Thanks to all for their assistance,
Jim
D. James Mountjoy, Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Biology, Franklin & Marshall College
P.O. Box 3003, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003, USA
(717) 399-4404 j_mountjoy(AT)acad.fandm.edu
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Canvasbacks
From: paullarkin <paullarkin(AT)PGEN.NET>
Date: 30 Jan 2000 10:58am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hi,
Is there anyone out there that can help me? Does anyone know the =
difference between the upperwing pattern of adult drake Canvasbacks and =
first winter birds? What would the expected pattern of both be in early =
December? I have been studying adult drake Canvasbacks in collections in =
the UK and they all seem to be in full plumage (as opposed to eclipse) =
by mid October is this typical of wild birds? Are there any other =
features that may distinguish first year drakes from adult drakes in =
early December? Finally does anyone know of any photographs on the net =
that may illustrate any of these features?
Cheers.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Hoary & Common Redpoll Subspecies ID
From: Jean Iron <jeaniron(AT)GLOBEDIRECT.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 2000 2:11pm
Hello Ontbirders et al.
During February and March in southern Ontario, expect to see more and more
redpolls coming your feeders, allowing excellent opportunities to study
them closely. Several people have asked me how to identify a Hoary Redpoll.
Other birders have asked me how to tell the subspecies (races) apart of
both Common Redpoll and Hoary Redpoll.
Taxonomy: Most authorities, including the American Ornithologists Union
(1998), recognize two species of redpolls: Common Redpoll and Hoary
Redpoll. The Common Redpoll is divided into two subspecies in North
America: (1) the nominate Carduelis flammea flammea and (2) the Greater
Common Redpoll, C.f. rostrata. The Hoary Redpoll is divided into two
subspecies in the world and both are found in Canada: (1) nominate
Hornemann's Hoary Redpoll, Carduelis hornemanni hornemanni, and (2)
Southern Hoary Redpoll, C.h. exilipes. Note: Declan Troy (1985) in the Auk
102:82-96 studied the nominate race of Common Redpoll (flammea) and
southern race of the Hoary Redpoll (exilipes). Troy concluded that these
two forms should be lumped as one variable species. I know that Declan
subscribes to Ontbirds, Frontiers and Birdchat. Perhaps he'll expand on his
findings.
In order to identify redpoll species and subspecies, one requires a
knowledge of plumages, age classes, and the effects of wear and molts. See
below.
Adult (definitive basic) redpolls undergo a complete molt once a year after
the breeding season. Because of buffy or grayish feather edges which
gradually wear off, adults in fresh (new) plumage in the fall are much
paler than the same birds in worn (old) "breeding" plumage. In males, the
pink coloration is also pale when fresh, gradually becoming richer and
redder by spring. Feather wear allows redpolls to don a breeding dress
without the need to molt. Redpolls do not have an alternate plumage. This
change is well illustrated in the National Geographic Society's Field Guide
(1999). Compare the Common Redpolls labelled winter and breeding on page 455.
Juvenals lack the red cap and black chin of the older birds. On the
breeding grounds in late summer, juvenals undergo a partial (body feathers)
molt to first year (first basic) plumage, retaining the juvenal wing and
tail feathers. Seasonally compared, first year birds are darker and more
streaked than their respective adults. Redpolls wear their first year
plumage for about one year, after which they molt completely to adult
plumage.
Why is there so much variation of plumages in a flock of redpolls? A large
flock of only flammea Common Redpolls will show four plumage types: adult
males, adult females, first year males and first year females. Because
there are four redpoll forms, a large flock of redpolls potentially has 16
plumage types. As well, there is indivdual variation in all four forms,
just like individuals in most animal populations vary from the average!
Nominate Common Redpoll: This low Arctic form is the commonest of the four
forms in southern Ontario, far outnumbering the other three forms. It is
the standard by which the other three forms are compared and recognized. In
all plumages, this form is usually noticeably streaked on the sides, rump
and undertail coverts. Adult males are richly coloured with rosy pink. See
illustration of adult male on plate 69 of The Birds of Canada (Godfrey
1986). First year males are somewhat darker and often washed with light
pink. Adult females usually lack any pink (sometimes tinged) and first year
females are the darkest and most heavily streaked of the age classes, some
are almost siskin-like. Caution: Some individuals appearing intermediate
between C.f. flammea and C.h. exilipes are best left unidentified.
Greater Common Redpoll: This large and dark form (rostrata) breeds on
Baffin Island and Greenland. Similar to the two subspecies of the Hoary
Redpoll, there is an apparent gap (hiatus) between the breeding ranges of
nominate flammea and Greater Redpoll (rostrata). See range map in Godfrey
(1986). Greater Redpolls are a winter visitor in small numbers to the
southern parts of the East from Ontario to Newfoundland and to the
northeastern United States. Greaters are more common than Hoarys some
winters. The Greater is somewhat larger (averages 14.0 cm) than nominate
flammea (averages 12.5 cm). The differences between the two subspecies are
fairly obvious when the two are together for comparison. The field marks of
Greater are its larger size, thicker bill, and somewhat darker and browner
coloration than flammea. Adult male Greaters have "red of underparts less
extensive and less intense" than flammea (Godfrey 1986). Some observers
have described classic Greaters as somewhat House Finch-like because of
their stout bills, heavy builds and generally darker coloration with
conspicuous streaking on the underparts. See the excellent identification
article on Greater (aka Greenland) Redpoll in Birders Journal 5(1):44-47 by
David Beadle and Brian Henshaw (1996) and illustrated by Beadle.
Southern Hoary Redpoll: This form (exilipes) breeds in the low Arctic and
much of its range overlaps that of flammea Common Redpoll. It is the more
common of the two Hoary Redpoll subspecies in southern Ontario and closer
in size and plumage characters to flammea Common Redpoll. There is a good
comparison of adult male exilipes Hoary Redpoll and flammea Common Redpoll
on plate 69 in Godfrey (1986). See how the exilipes Hoary is not that much
different from the Common flammea! During repoll flight years, it is
usually possible to find a few classic adult male exilipes Hoarys. They are
more frosted with pure white rumps, paler with less extensive pink
suffusion on the breast, lightly streaked flanks and very lightly streaked
to immaculate undertail coverts. Adult females and especially first year
females, can be noticeably streaked. Exilipes Hoary is similar in size to
flammea Common, but may look slightly larger because of its frosted
appearance. Hoarys also have shorter, more obtuse (stubby) bills imparting
a distinctive "pushed in face" appearance. The bill difference is well
shown on plate 69 in Godfrey (1986). Other differences pointed out to me
this morning by Ron Tozer who was watching Hoarys and Commons at his
feeders near Algonquin Park as we talked on the phone are: the red cap is
smaller on Hoary, looking more forward on the forehead, and exilipes Hoarys
are often streaked on the sides. See Cameron Eckert's exilipes Hoary
Redpoll photos and ID tips below:
http://www.yukonweb.com/community/ybc/ybc_bird.jpg
Hornemann's Hoary Redpoll: The Hornemann's or Greenland Hoary Redpoll
(nominate hornemanni) is the largest and palest of the redpolls. It is a
dream bird for us birders in southern Canada. There is apparently a gap
between the breeding ranges of the two subspecies of Hoary Redpoll.
Hornemann's breeds in the Canadian high Arctic and Greenland and is a great
rarity in southern Ontario and Quebec. Caution: Hornemann's is overly
reported, but it does occur! Hornemann's is larger (averages 14.0 cm) than
exilipes Hoary and flammea Common Redpolls. It is overall whiter with less
prominent streaking on the sides and flanks and has immaculate undertail
coverts. Adult males have less pink which is of a different hue than
exilipes, some showing only a mere trace of pink suffusion on the breast.
Females and first year birds are recognizable if directly compared to the
two small forms (flammea and exilipes) by their pale coloration and larger
size. Note the size of the Hornemann's in the photo in American Birds
42(2):239. See also the excellent article on redpoll identification by Dave
Czaplak (1995) in Birding 27(6):446-457. The photo of nominate hornemanni
on page 448 is correctly identified in my opinion.
Summary: Common and Hoary Redpolls appear to be valid species. The
intermediate birds reported between flammea Common and exilipes Hoary
Redpolls are apparently due to age, sex and individual variation and not
hybridization. Some authorities recognize four species of redpolls. Not all
redpolls will be identifiable to species or subspecies in the field, but
classic individuals of each form are very recognizable.
Please e-mail me your full postal address if you would like a copy of my
paper on the Recognizable Forms of Redpolls that appeared in December 1992
issue of Ontario Birds 10(3):108-114. It has a discussion of the taxonmic
opinions of several published redpoll experts and an illustration of the
heads and bill shapes of the four redpoll forms by Michel Gosselin of the
Canadian Museum of Nature.
My intentions with this post are to share some of the information that is
known about redpolls. I hope that Declan Troy in Alaska, Cameron Eckert in
the Yukon, birders in Quebec and elsewhere will contribute additional
information!
Warm regards,
Ron Pittaway
Co-editor, Ontario Birds
Jean Iron
President, Ontario Field Ornithologists
9 Lichen Place
Toronto, Ontario M3A 1X3
Canada
Phone: 416-445-9297
jeaniron(AT)globedirect.com
Web Page: www.interlog.com/~ofo
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Weathertap.com
From: John Wilson <jcwilson(AT)LIGHTSPEED.NET>
Date: 30 Jan 2000 7:45pm
Dear fellow birders (and weather watchers),
Weathertap is a subscription web site that provides direct access to several
types of weather information for the continental United States. Of
particular interest (I think?) is the real time Next Generation Doppler
Radar (NEXRAD) available through this web site. The site may be visited for
free until February 20, 2000 at:
http://www.weathertap.com
Click on "Local Weather", type in "weather" and "preview" for user and
password respectively and you're in.
According to the "Radar Tutorial" NEXRAD operates in one of two modes:
Precipitation (when its raining or snowing) and Non-precipitation (when its
not). Some of the Non-precipitation echos are what they term "ground"
clutter and includes, among other things, birds and insects.
I know that the use of NEXRAD to monitor bird movement (such as migration)
has been around for some time now, but I wonder if it could be of value to
amateur birders. The subscription to the site costs $5.95/month or
$63.00/year. I'm sure the NEXRAD doppler images are available somewhere
else for free but I doubt that it can be had so quickly and conveniently as
they are from this site.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether this particular site could be
useful to birdwatchers? Does the use of NEXRAD to detect bird movement have
serious limitations? (For instance does it work only over open water?)
Would the ability to detect major flight nights be useful to birdwatchers
here on the west coast? Anybody ever try this?
Just thought I would put the information of this interesting web site out
there. Any comments are welcome.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Weathertap.com
From: Richard Rowlett <Pterodroma(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 2000 9:27pm
In a message dated 1/30/00 6:56:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jcwilson(AT)LIGHTSPEED.NET writes:
<< I know that the use of NEXRAD to monitor bird movement (such as migration)
has been around for some time now, but I wonder if it could be of value to
amateur birders. The subscription to the site costs $5.95/month or
$63.00/year. I'm sure the NEXRAD doppler images are available somewhere
else for free but I doubt that it can be had so quickly and conveniently as
they are from this site.
>>
Good Lord! A pay site?!? For NEXRAD and everything else, try this one
...and don't leave home without it.
<A HREF="http://www.intellicast.com/">Intellicast.com: Weather for Active
Lives</A>
****************************************************
Richard Rowlett (Pterodroma(AT)aol.com)
47.56N, 122.13W
Seattle / Bellevue, WA, USA
"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what
nobody has thought" --Albert Szent-Gyorgi (1893-1986).
****************************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Weathertap.com
From: David Muth <dmuth(AT)BELLSOUTH.NET>
Date: 30 Jan 2000 10:34pm
ID Frontiers:
I am certainly not trying to sell subscritions to Weathertap, and Richard
Rowlett is absolutely correct that Intellicast gives free access to Nexrad
images. However, I did just visit the Weathertap site, and it has some real
advantages. The first is that its Nexrad image is in real time. Intellicast
updates every half hour or so (often, in my experience, emphasis on "or
so"). Second, Weathertap provides an animated loop of the Nexrad image over
the previous 35 minutes (at least that is what it is doing for New Orleans
right now). This allows you to see, among other things, direction of
movement without having to interpret the radial velocity data. (Intellicast
has a radar summary loop feature, but not a Nexrad loop). Third, weathertap
has a really nice zoom feature, allowing you to click on a point of interest
and zoom-in up to four times. You can even animate the loop in the zoomed-in
position. This allowed me to see a close up of a rain band passing just
south of Grand Isle--and would, of course, allow me to see a close up of
birds coming in off the Gulf and landing there this spring. (Another minor
point for me is that Weathertap's base geographical map of Louisiana's coast
is more accurate than Intellicast's).
All of this may not be worth $63 a year to most of us; for just getting a
picture of what is going on, free sites like Intellicast fill the bill, as
Rowlett pointed out. But if one were seriously interested in tracking
migration with Nexrad, it might be worth it to have these added features.
(It would really be nice if they would offer both Clear Air and Precip modes
all the time...)
David Muth
New Orleans
dmuth(AT)bellsouth.net
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]On Behalf Of Richard Rowlett
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 10:26 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Weathertap.com
In a message dated 1/30/00 6:56:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jcwilson(AT)LIGHTSPEED.NET writes:
<< I know that the use of NEXRAD to monitor bird movement (such as
migration)
has been around for some time now, but I wonder if it could be of value to
amateur birders. The subscription to the site costs $5.95/month or
$63.00/year. I'm sure the NEXRAD doppler images are available somewhere
else for free but I doubt that it can be had so quickly and conveniently as
they are from this site.
>>
Good Lord! A pay site?!? For NEXRAD and everything else, try this one
...and don't leave home without it.
<A HREF="http://www.intellicast.com/">Intellicast.com: Weather for Active
Lives</A>
****************************************************
Richard Rowlett (Pterodroma(AT)aol.com)
47.56N, 122.13W
Seattle / Bellevue, WA, USA
"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what
nobody has thought" --Albert Szent-Gyorgi (1893-1986).
****************************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Chris Elphick <elphick(AT)UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 2000 10:03am
Evan Obercian wrote:
>are flycatcher calls instinctual or are they learned? I wonder whether
>birds wintering together could have effects on each other's repertoires?
Calls in the Tyrannidae are all thought to be innate. Experimental work in
which young birds are raised by parents of the "wrong" species support this
for several species (e.g., Willow and Alder Flycatchers; I think also
Eastern Phoebes), and I believe that there is no evidence for learning
within the family. Additional support for a lack of learning is the
geographic similarity within species, quite unlike the level of variation
in many oscine passerines. Hence, it is unlikely that the "wrong" calls
are learned during winter.
It seems to me more likely that the recent divergence of these two taxa
means that they may retain calls that their common ancestor had - a genetic
influence can occur through time as well as space, and these two taxa have
had very little time to lose that influence. There are a couple of
possibilities that could expain the occurrence of an occasional call in the
wrong species: (1) the shared call is now used for different things by the
two species and is perhaps much less commonly heard in one species because
it is not used as a primary form of communication; and (2) if there is a
genetic basis for the calls, it may require only a very minor mutation
(i.e., change in the genetic code) to switch between calls - hence, a few
individuals may have this mutation and hence make the "wrong" call. (BTW,
I think that a couple of years ago there was a similar discussion along
these lines with regard Willow and Alder flycatcher calls and these
explanations may apply there too).
As to whether any of this discussion means that the split was "bad", I
think that it is important to keep in mind that splits are primarily
proposed and made on the basis of evolutionary divergence, reproductive
behaviour, or both (depending on your predilictions for species concepts)
and that neither of these things necessarily bears on whether the taxa can
be identified in the field (though of course it would make it easier for
everyone if they could be identified). Biologists studying other groups of
organisms don't have any trouble with naming biological units that cannot
be safely field identified; birds seem easier to deal with because they are
visual animals, like us, and thus generally do provide visual clues - but
this doesn't mean that they always will.
It seems to me that the bottom line is that birders and scientists to a
large extent want different things from their classification schemes, so it
is inevitable that there will be disatisfaction and apparent
inconsistencies when they use the same system.
Chris
************************************
Chris Elphick
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
University of Connecticut
75 North Eagleville Road, U-43
Storrs
CT 06269
elphick(AT)uconnvm.uconn.edu
(860) 486-4547 (Tel)
(860) 486-6364 (Fax)
************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: new photos (duck and hummingbird)
From: Dave Rintoul <drintoul(AT)ksu.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 2000 11:02am
Greetings,
For those interested in the mystery duck and wintering hummingbird seen here
in KS in the last month, some new photos have been added to those respective
sites. Both are accessible from appropriate and obvious links at the KOS
website
http://www.ksbirds.org/
Enjoy
Dave
Dave Rintoul, Ph.D. mailto:drintoul(AT)ksu.edu
Biology Division - KSU ICBM: 39.18N, 96.34W
Manhattan KS 66506-4901 VOX: 785-532-6663
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~drintoul/ FAX: 785-532-6653
"When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve." M. Decker, 1999
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Nexrad
From: Kenneth Able <kpa(AT)CSC.ALBANY.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 2000 1:02pm
First, the disclaimer. I am not the real expert on Nexrad ornithology.
Sid Gauthreaux is that person. I have, however, done a lot of radar work
on bird migration, including a bit with WSR-88D (Nexrad). I have used
Intellicast images and have just taken a look at the Weathertap site. I
think I can answer some of the queries that have been posted.
First, Nexrad can definitely be used to provide quite detailed information
about bird migration. By looking, e.g., at incoming trans-Gulf flights
one could get a good idea about whether and where birds were landing.
Similarly, by looking at the radar during the exodus of nocturnal
migration one can get a good idea of where birds were concentrated on the
ground. This works especially well in landscapes with patchy habitats.
Years ago while working with the previous generation of weather radars in
coastal Louisiana, one could watch the departure of spring migrants right
after dark and literally see a topo map of the wooded cheniers near the
coast because those were the places where the birds were concentrated. Of
course, this works only during the brief window at the beginning of
nocturnal migration. Once lots of birds are in the air, the pattern will
quickly dissipate. The radar will reveal birds migrating over land or
water, but detection of targets basically requires line of sight. In
mountainous areas, birds may be invisible especially if the radar antenna
is in a valley surrounded in some directions by higher ground.
That said, a number of cautions are warranted. Radar reveals migration
in the air. How that relates to what a birder will see on the ground is
not a straightforward matter. Under favorable weather conditions for
migration, radar might reveal a very large flight, but these birds might
well pass out of the area and the following day birding on the ground
might be poor. Much depends upon local weather and topography. Second,
weather radar detects much in addition to birds. Of course, the systems
are designed to detect precipitation and they do. Usually precipitation
echoes can be readily distinguished from birds with a little practice.
Insects are another matter and based on the radar display alone I don't
believe it is possible always to tell the difference.
Nexrad operates in two modes: precipitation mode and clear air mode. In
clear air mode the system is much more sensitive. This means, among other
things, that it is more likely to detect insects when operating in clear
air mode. So contrary to what might seem to be the case, precipitation
mode is generally better for looking at birds. My understanding is that
the radar equipment is operating in EITHER precipitation mode or clear air
mode; this is set by the operators at the local weather station.
Therefore, it is not possible to obtain simultaneous images in the two
modes.
Intellicast versus Weathertap - Intellicast provides useful images that
would certainly suffice for casual purposes. You could tell whether
migration was occurring, get some idea of its magnitude, direction (from
the radial velocity image; but see below), etc. And it is free. There
are a number of ways in which the Weathertap information is superior. As
David Muth noted, Intellicast images are not updated frequently (and
sometimes not for hours), and the Weathertap images of are generally
superior quality. More importantly, Weathertap provides the base velocity
product (the image that reveals direction and speed of movement relative
to the ground). The corresponding image on Intellicast is called Storm
Radial Velocity. It is not the same as the raw base velocity that comes
directly from the radar. It is, by means unknown to me, a processed image
derived from the base velocity information. Sid Gauthreaux has told me
that the directions and speeds indicated by the Storm Radial Velocity
image are not always the same as those indicated by the Base Velocity
image and he does not think the SRV provides an accurate estimate of the
direction of bird movement. To the extent that this is true, Weathertap
is a superior product. The animations and printer-friendly displays are
both nice features. As with most of life, each person will have to weigh
the costs and benefits.
Anyone interested in using Nexrad to look at bird migration should read:
Gauthreux, S.A.,Jr. and C.A. Belser. 1998. Weather and Forecasting,
July, 1998.
Ken Able
Kenneth P. Able, Professor
Department of Biology
University at Albany, SUNY
Albany, New York 12222
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NC Pacific-slope Flycatcher
From: Tony Leukering <GreatGrayO(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 31 Jan 2000 7:21pm
In a message dated 1/31/2000 10:13:42 AM Mountain Standard Time, Chris
Elphick writes:
<< It seems to me that the bottom line is that birders and scientists to a
large extent want different things from their classification schemes, so it
is inevitable that there will be disatisfaction and apparent
inconsistencies when they use the same system. >>
Well put! I think that it's quite interesting that people complain about
"Western" Flycatchers, but are quite happy to have Western and
Glaucous-winged gulls as separate species!
This has been a great thread.
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland
