ID-FRONTIERS for May 14-20, 2000

Messages are displayed in the order they were received.  Subject  From  Date   Time   RFI: Separating Bicknell's Thrush and Veery by Vocalizations   Phil Davis    Mon, 15 May 2000   6:13pm   Re: RFI: Separating Bicknell's Thrush and Veery byVocalizations   James H. Barton   Tue, 16 May 2000   1:11pm   RFI: variation in Pacific Golden Plovers   Martin Reid    Tue, 16 May 2000   6:40pm   RFI: variation in Pacific Golden Plovers - again   Martin Reid    Tue, 16 May 2000   6:51pm   RFI, the Oct. 1998 "fallout" in Mass.   Ian Mclaren    Fri, 19 May 2000   6:33am   Re: RFI, the Oct. 1998 "fallout" in Mass.   Ian Mclaren    Fri, 19 May 2000   8:24am   Field studies of Veery and Swainson's Thrush   Beth and Will Russel   Fri, 19 May 2000   8:36am   Snow Bunting   Swmavocet(AT)AOL.COM   Sat, 20 May 2000   2:03pm

To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'. This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.

[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: RFI: Separating Bicknell's Thrush and Veery by
         Vocalizations
From: Phil Davis <PDavis(AT)IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: 15 May 2000 6:13pm

Hi Birdwg01 -

I sent the following message to the local Maryland listserver
yesterday.  If anyone has experience separating Bicknell's Thrush and Veery
by song and call, I would appreciate any feedback/insights on this topic.

Davidsonville, MD is west of Annapolis.

Rereading my message, I note that I did not provide much detail on the
quality/pitch/cadence of the vocalization.  I think describing calls and
songs is very difficult as is and since I failed to write down any notes (a
la field notes), I shouldn't try to retrospectively attempt this after
listening to many recordings on Sunday.  Hopefully, my original message
will provide the basis for some comments, anyway.

Thanks.

Phil

>Sender:       Maryland Birds & Birding <MDOSPREY(AT)HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
>From:         Phil Davis <PDavis(AT)IX.NETCOM.COM>
>Subject:      [MDOSPREY] Bicknell's Thrush in Davidsonville,
>               Anne Arundel County,  MD
>
>Hi All -
>
>This morning (Sunday, 5/14/2000) I walked out the front door at about 6am
>to see what was happening bird-wise in the yard and vicinity and was
>immediately greeted by a singing thrush  from the edge of the woods across
>the street.  The first thing I was struck by was how loud the song was.
>Clearly not a (resident) Wood Thrush, nor a Swainson's/Hermit (not
>ascending, no long introductory note), my first gestalt impression (based
>on no real experience!) was Bicknell's ... it just didn't sound right at
>all for a Gray-cheeked.  There seemed to be two birds singing, one in the
>aforementioned woods and another further away, back behind our house. The
>volume level of the song competed with the local Wood Thrushes.  I listened
>for a while, noting the descending "in harmony" call and paying attention
>to the end of the call to note whether it rose, stayed level, or dropped
>off.  My sense was that it stayed rather level.  The call note reminded me
>more of the call of a Great-crested Flycatcher than anything else
>(coincidentally, Great-crested were calling in the area, but the calls were
>different (louder, etc.) and they came from higher up in the trees, not
>down at ground-level and from the same area as the thrush's song).  The
>habitat is the edge of deep woods, ravines, but no active streams in the
>immediate vicinity ... about 1/2 mile from the head waters of the South River.
>
>I know that Bicknell's is a significantly later migrant than Gray-cheeked,
>but don't have the actual date ranges for our area.  I believe we are "in
>the window" on 5/14 (?).
>
>I came back inside and checked the calls of Bicknell's and Gray-cheeked on
>my Thayer's 2.5 CD-ROM software.  Clearly not a Gray-cheeked, the cadence
>and quality was noticeable different.  I woke up Barbara and headed back
>out to listen some more.  After listening, I suggested to Barbara that she
>check the Thayer's software, too.  After a while, I came back inside and
>from the PC she said, "Why isn't it a Veery?".  My jaw dropped ... good
>question ... I never considered that.  Clearly this was the vocalization ID
>problem ... Bicknell's or Veery ... not Bicknell's or Gray-cheeked.  Why
>hadn't I considered Veery?  Probably two reasons ... (1) we have never had
>Veerys in the yard-vicinity before, ever ... but on several occasions we
>have had Gray-cheekeds, including one that was calling in the yard in May
>of last year (I tried to make that one into a Bicknell's, but
>couldn't).  Also, (2) it just did not strike me as a Veery.
>
>So, Bicknell's or Veery ... what's the problem, just get a look at
>it.  Wrong.  Back outside, with cheap tape recorder in hand.  Recorded a
>few calls (on the tape they are very faint);  I noted that the bird sang at
>two volume levels, one very loud and the other very soft--basically the
>same song, however.  Then, into the woods to try a get a visual.  Well, the
>bird disappeared. No more calls, no visual.  The other bird had stopped,
>prior to this, plus it was now getting "late"--around 7 am.
>
>During the day, I pulled out all the references I had on Bicknell's and
>mentally reviewed the encounter.
>
>For everyone's info, besides the Thayer's CD-ROM, Bicknell's is also on the
>following audio CDs:
>
>        Stokes Eastern
>        More Birding by Ear, East
>
>Also, there is a very complete Canadian web site with lots of information
>on Bicknell's Thrush, including six different vocalizations.  The URL is:
>
>        http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/bicknells_thrush/e/index.html
>
> From the web site, I determined that the bird was singing it's "regular"
>song, and one or more versions of it's softer songs.  The call that
>reminded me of the Great-crested's is the one called the "weeer" call on
>the web site:
>
>        http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/bicknells_thrush/e/audio.html
>
>I did not hear any of the calls that are more like the Veery's call (the
>"Beeeaaa" call on the web site).
>
>Some time later, I'll TRY to pull the faint recording from my tape into my
>PC and see if I'm able to produce a sonogram from it (I sort of doubt it ...).
>
>I stayed outside for an hour and a half at dusk this evening, hoping the
>bird(s) was still around and to see if it would start vocalizing again ...
>no luck.  I'll try again early in the morning.
>
>I feel pretty good about this, but if anyone has any feedback to pass long,
>please do.
>
>Well, have both Great-horned and Barred Owls calling outside at the moment ...
>
>Good night !
>
>Phil
>
>
>==================================
>Phil Davis      Davidsonville, Maryland     USA
>                mailto:PDavis(AT)ix.netcom.com
>==================================


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: RFI: Separating Bicknell's Thrush and Veery
         byVocalizations
From: "James H. Barton" <redwing1986(AT)MEDIAONE.NET>
Date: 16 May 2000 1:11pm

     Phil and friends-- To my ear, the quality of the note in GCTH and BITH
song
differs markedly from the quality of the note in Veery.  GCTH and BITH notes
are
soft, dry, wiry and wispy, and reminiscent of steel wool.  Veery notes are
deep,
resonant,  liquid, throaty, and reminiscent of an oboe.

    The quality of Veery reminds me far more of the quality of Swainson's
Thrush
than of the quality of the note of GC/BITH

    Like Veery song, GC/BITH song appears to spiral.  But the shapes of the
spirals
differ.  In Veery the spiral descends vertically in pitch from top to bottom in
a
single phrase.  In GC/BITH song the pitch rises, falls and rises, or falls,
rises
and falls in what sounds to me like a series of spiral phrases  processing
horizontally one after another, like the smoke rings I used to blow (I quit in
l980).

    GC/BITH song doesn't seem to record very well.  In the field, I always find
it
a bit eerie.  On records it just sounds dull and flat.

    Different people  hear things differently.  I will be curious to know how
others judge the differences between the songs of these thrushes.

    Yours,

    Jim Barton
    redwing1986(AT)mediaone.net
    Cambridge, MA


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: RFI: variation in Pacific Golden Plovers
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 16 May 2000 6:40pm

Dear all,
During this lull in posts, perhaps I could ask those "in the Know" to
provide some information about PAGP:
1) is there geographic variation in wing length? - more specifically, do
the birds that breed in Alaska tend to have longer wings than those from
the western end of their breeding range?
2) I have noticed a tendancy for European birders toplace more emphasize
overall wing length (in terms of extension beyond the tail) than West Coast
American birders - is this related to the answer to 1) above?  Put another
way, do birds seen in western USAt more regularly have longer-looking wings
than the birds seen in Europe?
3) Just how reliable is the notion that a bird with only 3 primary tips
showing beyond the tertials should be a fulva?
4) can anyone provide substance to the notion that on fulva the undertail
coverts fall short of or just reach the tip of the longest tertial, whereas
on dominica the utcs rearch either slightly or greatly beyond the longest
tertial tip?
5) are there any data comparing the tibia/tarsus ratio? -  looking at
photos, this may be useful (or not?)
6) just how much of the foot projects beyond the tail on dominica?
7) Dennis Paulson ( in Shorebirds of the Pacific Northwest) mentions the
primary projection compared to bill length:- on fulva it is "just longer",
while on dominica it is "substantially longer" can anyone comment on this
or provide data?
Please reply privately, unless you feel the Group may benefit from your
input - thanks,
Martin
Martin Reid
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com  or  http://www.cyberramp.net/~upupa


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: RFI: variation in Pacific Golden Plovers - again
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 16 May 2000 6:51pm

Dear all,
oops - I forgot three last points:
8) are there any fulvas seen in CA/OR/WA in May that have more basic
feathers than alternate feathers? - I know there is a difference in the
averages, but is migration or molt timing significant?
9) voice: I believe there was a recent LGP that caused some discussion
about voices on ID-Frontiers; is it true that there is overlap? is this
partial or complete - e.g. can AMGP give a "chu-wit" call and/or can a PAGP
give a "duu-du-wee" call?
10) does anyone know if there is a useful difference in primary tip spacing
between PAGP and AMGP?  can the occasional AMGP have shorter spacing? how
often does PAGP have the longer spacing?
Again, thanks for any wisdom you can share.
Martin
Martin Reid
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com  or  http://www.cyberramp.net/~upupa


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: RFI, the Oct. 1998 "fallout" in Mass.
From: Ian Mclaren <iamclar(AT)is.dal.ca>
Date: 19 May 2000 6:33am

I am revising an MS on the great fallout of "southern" birds in NS 11
October 1998 and need a bit more insight from coastal Massachusetts, where
an evidently weaker event also occurred. I have the reports from "N. Am.
Birds" and "Bird Observer" (of eastern MA), but they do not give
information on the timing of the event, which was in afternoon 11 October
in NS.

Does anyone who was out and about on, e.g., Cape Cod that windy day have
some useful observations? Can anyone add to the accounts in the above
references? Does anyone haave a contact e-mail for the Manomet Bird
Observatory?

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers, Ian M.

Ian A. McLaren, PhD
Professor Emeritus                              e-mail: iamclar(AT)is.dal.ca
Biology Department                              phone: (902) 494-2565 (W)
Dalhousie University                                   (902) 429-7024 (H)
Halifax, NS  B3H 4J1                            Fax: (902) 494-3736


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: RFI, the Oct. 1998 "fallout" in Mass.
From: Ian Mclaren <iamclar(AT)IS.DAL.CA>
Date: 19 May 2000 8:24am

All:

Thanks to respondants, I now believe I have enough information on sources
of information. So don't scramble for contacts on my behalf, but I would
still appreciate any direct observations of the event.

Cheers, Ian M.

Ian A. McLaren
Biology Department                              phone: (902) 494-2565 (W)
Dalhousie University                                   (902) 429-7024 (H)
Halifax, NS  B3H 4J1                            Fax: (902) 494-3736


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Field studies of Veery and Swainson's Thrush
From: Beth and Will Russell <russell(AT)RTD.COM>
Date: 19 May 2000 8:36am

Separation of western Veery from nominate Swainson’s Thrush has been an
issue in the west.  I suspect much of the insecurity  stemmed from Allan
Phillip’s comment in The Birds of Arizona (University of Arizona Press,
Tucson,  1978) that the two groups were “almost identical.”   There are
presently a number of  records making their way through the Arizona
Records Committee, for example,  and while the final votes have not been
released, an informal polling of some committee members suggests that
most if not all of these will be rejected due to the unappreciated
similarity between the two taxons.

While on the Upper Texas coast in late April, I was fortunate to
experience a major overnight fall of passerines including hundreds  of
Catharus thrushes.  Working the trails in the Houston Audubon’s
Society’s Smith Oaks Sanctuary, I was able to study at close range more
than 50 Veerys, many of them showing the characters of “salicicola”,
the relatively un-rufous, heavily spotted western form.  Last week in
Northern New Jersey, I was able to look closely at more than 10 nominate
Veerys and a similar number of “swainsonii” type Swainson’s Thrushes.
In the last few days near Tucson,  I’ve looked closely at a half dozen
“ustulatus” type Swainson’s Thrushes including two fresh window kills.

These observations strengthened my previous sense that the supposed
similarity between western Swainson’s Thrush and western Veery is
overrated.  I agree that dorsal color in the two taxons is similar and
probably difficult to separate under typically shaded field
conditions.   I agree as well that western Veery is on average more
heavily spotted than eastern Veery, and that western Swainson’s Thrush
is less heavily spotted that eastern Swainson’s Thrush.  However, my
recent studies suggests that there is little or no overlap with the most
heavily spotted Veerys having fewer, smaller and less extensive spots
than the least spotted Swainson’s Thrush.

The most important field character remains the face pattern.  Veerys of
all races have blank faces with a dark eye set in a featureless
featherscape.  There is no hint of eyering or supra loral line.  In some
light there appears to be an amorphous pale area surrounding the eye,
perhaps the result of reflection off  feather tracts that surround the
eye, but it would never be construed as an “eye-ring” in the Swainson’s
Thrush sense.  Swainson’s Thrush eye-rings and supra loral lines are
boldest in the fall and grow less conspicuous with wear through the
winter and spring (the species lacks a pre alternate molt according to
Pyle).  However I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they are ever less
than noticeable given a reasonable view.

I'm not sure why Phillips came to his "almost identical" conclusion.
Perhaps in specimens the important eye ring/ loral patterns are
disturbed in preparation and rendered less or invisible.  Whatever the
reasons, my recent experiences suggests that Phillips overstates the
difficulty in separating these two species, at least in the field.

Will Russell
russell(AT)rtd.com


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Snow Bunting
From: Swmavocet(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 20 May 2000 2:03pm

I am looking for a volunteer or two for a conversation on Snow Bunting
identification.

Any takers?

Thank you.

Steve McConnell
Trussville, AL
swmavocet(AT)aol.com