 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for May 1-5, 2001
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Re: Charadrius plover revisited | Martin Reid | Tue, 1 May 2001 | 6:46am |
| SemipPlovervs.which Ringed? | Millington/BIS | Tue, 1 May 2001 | 8:51am |
| Black-tailed Godwit | Millington/BIS | Tue, 1 May 2001 | 8:51am |
| Pacific Island Acrocephalus | Brian Small | Tue, 1 May 2001 | 1:13pm |
| possible Tawny-shouldered Blackbird | Michael Retter | Tue, 1 May 2001 | 11:11pm |
| Short-toed Treecreeper | Brian Small | Wed, 2 May 2001 | 6:16am |
| Black-tailed Godwits in North America | Angus Wilson | Wed, 2 May 2001 | 4:12pm |
| Re: Black-tailed Godwit | norman van swelm | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 2:00am |
| Semipalmated and Common Ringed Plovers. | Chandler, Richard J | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 3:44am |
| Re: Black-tailed Godwit | Millington/BIS | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 4:19am |
| Semip plovers | Killian Mullarney | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 5:05am |
| Black-tailed Godwit subspecies | Jennifer Hanson | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 6:41am |
| Re: ID of Spotted X Eastern Towhee hybrids | Steven Mlodinow | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 7:43am |
| Baikal Teal? | Steven Mlodinow | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 8:49am |
| Re. Baikal Teal? | Millington/BIS | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 10:32am |
| Re: Re. Baikal Teal? | Martin Reid | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 11:20am |
| Icelandic Godwit | Gunter De Smet | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 11:55am |
| hybrid juncos | Matthew Kenne | Thu, 3 May 2001 | 10:19pm |
| Re: Baikal Teal? | Alan Wormington | Fri, 4 May 2001 | 8:40am |
| Re: hybrid juncos | Matthew Kenne | Fri, 4 May 2001 | 8:32am |
| Re: hybrid juncos | Peter Pyle | Fri, 4 May 2001 | 12:34pm |
| Murrre ID Help | John Idzikowski | Fri, 4 May 2001 | 6:40pm |
| Murre ID | Gunter De Smet | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 7:22am |
| Re: Murre ID | Joseph Morlan | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 7:56am |
| RFI on A. marila mariloides | paullarkin | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 10:55am |
| Re: Baikal Teal? | Tony Leukering | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 1:06pm |
| Murre ID | Gunter De Smet | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 2:09pm |
| Re: Baikal Teal? | Eran Tomer | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 2:38pm |
| Baikal Teal | Andrew Harrop | Sat, 5 May 2001 | 10:50pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Charadrius plover revisited
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 1 May 2001 6:46am
Dear all,
I've been enjoying the thread about identifying CRPL and SEPL, and I feel
that it demonstrates how difficult this can be with certain individuals
(birds, not birders) - but normally, most birds will be fairly obvious.
I'd like to suggest a potential field mark that has not been mentioned yet
in this thread (unless I missed it) - bare parts colour: I get the
impression that the legs of CRPL average a more-intense orange colour that
do those of SEPL; conversely, SEPL average a richer, more reddish-orange
bill base (when present) than CRPL. A rule-of-thumb MIGHT be that (on
birds with any colour in the bill base), when the bill-base colour is
brighter/richer orange than the legs, it strongly favours SEPL; when the
legs are brighter than the bill base, it strongly favours CRPL. Like all
rules, there will probably be exceptions, but I encourage those with access
to either species in the field to test this, so we can get some idea of its
value (if any). On a brief scan of my available photos (published ones and
originals - computer images are less reliable, IMHO), plus a field check on
6 SEPLs recently, I found no exceptions on the 12 SEPLs and 8 CRPLs
examined - a very small sample, but I think it may be worth checking.
On some birds the pare parts may appear fairly equal in this regard, but
when this is true for a SEPL the colour involved is a rich, deep orange
that almost no CRPL would have on the bill-base; conversely, when the legs
and bill seem similar on a CRPL, it is due to the legs being less-bright
that usual, and the colour is more of a neutral orange, lacking any hints
of richness - i.e. a colour that is not normally seen on the bill base of
SEPL (true?).
Looking back at photos of the Seattle bird, in most images the bare parts
seem rather similar - this may in part be due to the image reproduction,
and is a cautionary example showing that this comparison is most valuable
in the field - but the colour involved is an intense rich reddish-orange,
plus in the lowest two images, the bill looks slightly richer than the
legs. Both these assessments would favour SEPL for this bird, but this
method is tentative - I look forward to getting feedback from those lucky
enough to see lots of SEPLs or CRPLs in the field.
Lastly, I fully endorse the statements saying that the normal flight call
is perhaps THE most reliable difference. In my ten years in Texas I've
seen hundreds of SEPLs, while back in my native UK (and more recently in
Bahrain) I've seen thousands of CRPLs . Both species are capable of making
an "intermediate" type call-note, but I do not think that SEPL ever utters
the classic "poo-ee" call of CRPL.
While on plover voices, can anyone on this list udpate me/us on whether the
normal flight call of Pacific Golden Plover ("chuWIT") is considered
diagnostic? - I know that breeding-ground vocalizations are complex, but
flight calls on migration may be a reliable feature for most of the plovers - ?
Regards,
Martin
Martin Reid
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com or http://www.cyberramp.net/~upupa
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: SemipPlovervs.which Ringed?
From: Millington/BIS <sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk>
Date: 1 May 2001 8:51am
Hi all
I have been following the Ringed vs. Semipalmated Plover thread with
interest.
From a UK perspective, the bird in question would be a good Semipalmated
contender if it was on a beach with our local hiaticula Ringed Plovers,
although if it chose to hide in a flock of migrating tundrae RPs, then it
would be much harder to spot!
Which brings me to the first of my points.
1.
Whenever looking at photo references (on the wwweb or elsewhere), it is
always important to determine the racial identity of that particular Ringed
Plover.
This is because, as a population, tundrae differ from hiaticula in many
ways, especially in size and plumage tones. Being a long-distance migrant,
slight structural differences may also be evident (especially at the level
of minutiae that this thread has probed) and finer points of head and breast
pattern (e.g. breast band width and post-ocular white stripe) also differ.
Certainly tundrae are obviously as different 'feeling' when they migrate
through UK as a vagrant Semipalmated might be from hiaticula at first
glance.
The differences in moult are of course well documented: hiaticula have a
complete post-breading moult, where as tundrae delay their primary moult
until the winter quarters and (again unlike hiaticula) undergo an extensive
partial pre-breeding moult prior to spring migration. In young birds,
juvenile hiaticula have only a partial post-juvenile moult Aug-Dec (moulting
the primaries the next summer), whereas tundrae have a complete
post-breeding moult in the winter (moulting the primaries late winter).
It is likely that the differences between the average tundrae and the
average hiaticula may not have been fully and critically quantified. That
said, the quoted differences between Semipalmated and 'Ringed' Plover may
still hold water whichever form of Ringed is used as a yardstick.
And my second point is:
2.
Always be sure the photo you are referring to is really of the species that
it's titled!
This discussion reminded me of a particular photo in 'The Photographic Field
Guide to the Birds of Australia (Jim Flegg & Steve Madge). The photo of
Ringed Plover in that book actually appears to depict a Semipalmated Plover!
(This was pointed out to me by Killian Mullarney some while ago, and I have
it here in front of me as I write). What makes this all the more intriguing
is that Ringed Plover is only a vagrant to Australia, whilst Semipalmated is
...as far as I know... not on the Australian list: If that photo was taken
in Australia, it may represent a first for the Continent!
good birding
Richard Millington
sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
(Birding World, Books for Birders & Birdline)
Bird Information Service, Stonerunner, Coast Road,
Cley next the Sea, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 7RZ, UK
(VAT Reg 676 8589 56)
Tel. 44 (0) 1263 741139 Fax. 741173
Website www.birdingworld.co.uk
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Black-tailed Godwit
From: Millington/BIS <sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk>
Date: 1 May 2001 8:51am
Hi all
My last posting about the two races of Ringed Plover prompted me to mention
the Black-tailed Godwit recently seen at Eastport, New York, fabulously
photographs of which are at:
http://www.hmana.org/nybirds
It is an adult of the form islandica, which appears to be the only form
illustrated (all plumages) in the new Sibley Guide.
In contrast, the Nat Geographic illustrates only the form melanuroides (in
both summer and - dark - winter plumage).
Given the location of the recent N.Y. bird, it being islandica is not at all
surprising.
Nor is the fact that melanuroides is an occasional visitor to the far NW of
North America.
What does intrigue me greatly though, is that the two 'main' field guides
choose to illustrate just one form whilst completely ignoring the other...
The third form, limosa, is of course the least likely to reach North
America.
Apart from geography, size and structure, the three forms of Black-tailed
Godwit differ in various aspects of their plumages, moult, and possibly
voice.
Given the great interest in all 'forms' of bird nowadays, and the recent
upsurge in PSC-type splits, keen Nearctic listers might do worse than invest
in seeing both forms (at least for 'insurance' purposes)!
good birding
Richard Millington
sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
(Birding World, Books for Birders & Birdline)
Bird Information Service, Stonerunner, Coast Road,
Cley next the Sea, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 7RZ, UK
(VAT Reg 676 8589 56)
Tel. 44 (0) 1263 741139 Fax. 741173
Website www.birdingworld.co.uk
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Pacific Island Acrocephalus
From: Brian Small <BrianJSmall(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 1 May 2001 1:13pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Dear All
A plea.
As part of my research for illustrations of 'reed and bush warblers of the
world' (A&C Black), I am wondering if anybody has or knows the existence of
photographs of any of the Pacific Island Acrocephalus (in hand or field)?
Those I am interested in are:-
Cook Islands Reed Warbler A kerearako
Pitcairn Reed Warbler A vaughani
Vaughani
Taiti
PolynesianReed Warbler A aequinoctialis
Aequinoctialis
Pistor
Marquesas Reed Warbler A mendanae
Mendanae
Fatihivae
Idae
Aquilonis
Tahiti Reed Warbler A caffra
Caffra
Tuamotu Reed Warbler A atypha
Atypha
Erema
Flavida
Nightingale Reed Warbler A luscinia
Luscinia
Caroline Reed Warbler A syrinx
Syrinx
Nauru Reed Warbler A rehsei
Rehsei
Hawaiian Reed Warbler A kingi
All help will be gratefully received and acknowleged in the book.
Brian Small
Southwold
UK
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: possible Tawny-shouldered Blackbird
From: Michael Retter <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 1 May 2001 11:11pm
Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with a blackbird ID problem . .
. while scouting for the Great Texas Birding Classic, two friends (Michael
Andersen and Nick Block) and I came across a strange blackbird in Port
O'Connor, TX. This was on 23 April 2001. Unfortunately I have no access to
Jaramillo's new Icterid book, hence this email.
After reviewing what literature I have (Bond, Rafaelle et al.) I see no
reason why the bird was not a Tawny-shouldered Blackbird. It was
associating with Red-winged Blackbirds and Brown-headed and Bronzed Cowbirds
at a feeder that was being frequented by two male Shiny Cowbirds. We
observed the bird for about 3 minutes under good light conditions from about
25 feet away.
It appeared toally black save the greater, median, and lesser wing coverts
which were a dirty burnt orange color--darker than what I would call
fulvous. The color was slightly brighter in the lesser coverts than the
greaters, with the medians intermediate in brightness. The upper portion of
the coverts (mostly the lessers, ostensibly) was peppered with black
mottling. More black mottling and (as mentioned before) overall duller
coloration was present in the greater coverts. There was no red or yellow
at all in the coverts--only this ugly, rather uniform, orangish color. The
bird appeared to be the same size and build as the adjacent Red-winged
Blackbirds.
My question is this: can Red-wings EVER attain a plumage like this, and why
was the bird NOT a Tawny-shouldered? I am ashamed to say I acquiesced to
the chant of "it's a weird red-wing." I had forgotten about the bird until
this morning when I glanced at Rafaelle et al. After looking at that, I was
finally convinced that there is no reason it wasn't a Tawny-shouldered. I
realize that this sounds outrageous, but there were 2 Shiny Cowbirds at the
same feeder and there had been strong E winds off the gulf for some number
of days. And with the presence of a Cuban Pewee on a Texas oil rig last
fall, one has to wonder what is possible. I plan on submitting my
description to the TXBRC.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
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) 556-2237
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Short-toed Treecreeper
From: Brian Small <BrianJSmall(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 2 May 2001 6:16am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
A Short-toed Treecreeper was recently seen at Dungeness, UK; photographs were
posted at
http://www.surfbirds.com/Rarities/ukmarch1.html
However, one image, taken on 30 March seems to be a different bird. Let me
copy you in on Laurent Raty's comments.
'The page shows three images of the Dungeness Short-toed Treecreeper, in late
March 2001. I won't dispute the ID of the bird shown on Paul Hackett's two
pictures, taken on 28 March (scroll down to see these) -- that one looks
good in all respects -- but I have quite a big concern about the bird shown
on the first picture, photographed at the same location two days later by
Mike Malpass. Among other, this last bird apparently had:
- a whitish fore-supercilium, obvious in front of eye (virtually no trace of
supercilium in front of eye on 28 March);
- a long, pure white rear-supercilium, contrasting sharply against crown
(shortish, strongly obscured by grey-brown flecking on 28 March);
- a rather thin and well-defined dark eye-stripe (broader, more diffuse and
paler on 28 March);
- pure white ear-coverts centre (obviously grey-flecked on 28 March);
- an obvious dark crescent at the rear of ear coverts, similar in colour and
broadness to eye-stripe (thinner dark crescent at rear of ear-coverts on 28
March, looking much thinner and perhaps slightly darker than eye-stripe);
- buff suffusion limited to the rear flanks (much more extensive and browner
on 28 March);
- a mantle seeming quite variegated and contrasted, showing an admixture of
black, buff and white flecks (greyer and plainer on 28 March, with pale
marks limited to thin white shaft streaks);
- a rather shortish-looking bill, with quite continuously down-curved culmen
(looking longer and with proximal half perhaps slightly straighter on 28
March);
- a strongly two-toned bill, with lower mandible straw-coloured, upper
mandible blackish (less contrasted, lower mandible seeming dirty flesh and
upper mandible greyer on 28 March);
- legs apparently straw-coloured (pinkish on 28 March).
I don't think this bird can be the same as the original Short-toed shown on
the 28 March pics. Differences in a bird's appearance on two pictures can
occur due to differences in lighting and posture. This could be the
explanation for some of the above but I find it very hard to believe this
can explain everything. I'm fully convinced that a Short-toed was present
on 28 March but I really wonder why the 30 March pic shows anything but a
Common Treecreeper of the British race, Certhia familiaris britannica.
Unfortunately, owing to the angle, many wing details can't be seen on Mike's
picture. The longest feather of the bastard wing seems to show a complete
white edge, connecting with its white tip, which normally supports
Short-toed but is far to be diagnostic -- identification of a treecreeper
based a on single photograph can be extremely tricky. However, if the
pics indeed show two different individuals (what I really believe), it would
obviously be more likely that the second one be a local Treecreeper rather
than a second (seemingly strongly atypical) vagrant Short-toed.
If this is the case, it can have various implications: either two birds were
present on 30 March and Mike Malpass simply photographed the wrong one,
either all observers had shifted on a Treecreeper while the Short-toed was
actually gone on that date. This could perhaps be sorted out by finding
additional shots from 29-30 March?'
Any thoughts?
Brian Small
Suffolk
UK
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Black-tailed Godwits in North America
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)ENDEAVOR.MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 2 May 2001 4:12pm
I have put together a web page discussing the subspecific identity of the
adult Black-tailed Godwit discovered in Long Island, New York, USA last
month. The page includes a few new pictures of this fantastic bird,
together with links to excellent photos by Steve Walter and Mike
Stubblefield of the same cooperative individual. The URL is:
http://www.oceanwanderers.com/NYBlacktailedGodwit.html
In addition, I've put together some shots of the Asiatic subspecies
_melanuroides_ taken a few days later in Hong Kong. These can be viewed at:
http://www.oceanwanderers.com/AsiaticBTGodwit.html
As Richard Millington pointed out yesterday, the Long Island individual
appears to belong to the subspecies _islandica_ rather than nominate
_limosa_, although this identification remains tentative at present.
Specific comments from those with comparative experience of both subspecies
would be most appreciated.
Evaluation of this bird raises the important issue of the subspecific
identity of other North American records, particularly those away from
eastern Canada (presumed overshoots or strays from Iceland?). I have
compiled a brief list of western hemisphere records away from Alaska and
would like to know more details about each of these records, including any
thoughts or information on the subspecies involved. Are there additional
records that I've missed??
As Richard pointed out, _melanuroides_ is a reasonable possibility in the
Americas away from Alaska. The absence of Black-tailed Godwit records from
states and provinces along the eastern Pacific flyway is puzzling, but may
testify to the ability of this powerful species to reorientate when
displaced from its normal migratory route. I must emphasize that I am not
suggesting the Long Island bird belongs to the asiatic subspecies, but wish
to reiterate Richard's point that observers across North and South American
should be prepared for all three subspecies. The complete absence of
photographs of nominate _limosa_ on these pages simply reflects a major gap
in my slide collection!
Anyway, I hope you'll enjoy the photos and as always, I look forward to
many helpful and interesting comments from experts and friends around the
world.
Angus Wilson
New York, USA
wilsoa02(AT)med.nyu.edu
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Black-tailed Godwit
From: norman van swelm <Norman.vanswelm(AT)WXS.NL>
Date: 3 May 2001 2:00am
As to the Long Island Godwit, Richard Millington wrote:
>It is an adult of the form islandica, which appears to be the only form
illustrated (all plumages) in the new >Sibley Guide. Given the location of
the recent N.Y. bird, it being islandica is not at all
>surprising. The third form, limosa, is of course the least likely to reach
North
>America.
I agree with Richard that the bird does not belong to the West European race
limosa but despite the fact that the occurrence of islandica seems logical
in geographical terms I don' t think the NY bird qualifies. Islandica males
in nuptial plumage are much deeper dark red (indeed a wonderfull and unique
colour) than the NY bird shows while mantle and scapulars contain a lot more
reddish brown. Females islandica on the other hand are much duller than the
NY bird. Therefore my vote goes to the race melanuroides!
>Given the great interest in all 'forms' of bird nowadays, and the recent
>upsurge in PSC-type splits, keen Nearctic listers might do worse than
invest
>in seeing both forms (at least for 'insurance' purposes)!
May I add another reason? Go see them for their astonishing beauty as well!
Norman van Swelm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Semipalmated and Common Ringed Plovers.
From: "Chandler, Richard J" <r.chandler(AT)IC.AC.UK>
Date: 3 May 2001 3:44am
Dear All
Richard Millington mentioned the Australian Photo Guide which shows a
Semipalmated Plover captioned Great/Common Ringed Plover (which I have not
seen). I am reminded of the (perhaps similar/same) photos either in Lane,
B.A., 1987 Shorebirds in Australia or in Pringle, J.D., 1987, The
shorebirds of Australia. One has photos, the other not - I can't remember
which, and I do not have them to hand to check. However, there are photos
of a Semipalmated Plover, at Miranda, New Zealand, again captioned Common
Ringed Plover. I have been shown one of the series of this bird which even
showed the palmations. I understand that the mis-identification has been
pointed out to the NZ Rarities Committee (by, I think Steve Parrish), but so
far as I am aware the record remains as Ringed Plover.
Does anyone know if the id of this bird has been revisited?
Best wishes to all, Richard Chandler.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Black-tailed Godwit
From: Millington/BIS <sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk>
Date: 3 May 2001 4:19am
Hi all
For anyone following the BTG thread, there is more discussion of the NY
Icelandic Black-tailed Godwit, with more pictures -- and a link to two nice
photos of Icelandic BTG taken in UK this spring by Dick Newell, at:
http://www.hmana.org/nybirds/pictures.htm
cheers
Richard Millington
sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
(Birding World, Books for Birders & Birdline)
Bird Information Service, Stonerunner, Coast Road,
Cley next the Sea, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 7RZ, UK
Tel. 44 (0) 1263 741139 Fax. 741173
Website www.birdingworld.co.uk
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Semip plovers
From: Killian Mullarney <kmullarney(AT)EIRCOM.NET>
Date: 3 May 2001 5:05am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I was in touch, last year, with both Tony Palliser and Danny Rogers, of =
the Australian Rarities Committee, and raised the matter of published =
and unpublished photos of what looked like Semipalmated Plovers which =
had been identified as Common Ringed Plovers. I was aware that at least =
some of these had been taken by Brian Chudleigh, on New Zealand =
(recognisable by his trade-mark white sea-shell habitat!) and that =
these, presumably, would be a concern for the New Zealand rather than =
the Australian RC. In any case, it seemed that Australian and New =
Zealand birders were already well aware of the matter, and the last I =
heard was that a revamped NZ Rarities Committee intended to review a =
number of contentious Ringed/Semipalmated records, including the case of =
one bird that was around for two years.
It will be interesting to hear the outcome of these reviews.
regards,
Killian Mullarney
kmullarney(AT)eircom.net
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Black-tailed Godwit subspecies
From: Jennifer Hanson <ammodramus(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 3 May 2001 6:41am
Hi everybody,
Although there are many people on this forum who are better-versed than I in
these things, I decided to throw in my two cents. I was lucky enough to see
the Eastport, NY, Black-tailed Godwit and watched it for about an hour. It
was a very cooperative bird and indulged in a long bout of bathing and
preening so that just about every part of the bird was visible at some
point.
I went to see the bird with the assumption that it was probably _islandica_,
but I discovered that once I got home and began to go through my reference
books, things became less clear. The more I read about variation among
Black-tailed Godwit subspecies, the less confident I became until I decided
it was safer not to put any subspecific label on the bird at all. Although
I have what many would consider to be a good reference library on
shorebirds, it's still not enough. I've seen _limosa_ Black-tailed Godwit,
but only once and a distant view, at that. When it comes to variability in
godwit subspecies, that's just not enough to make an identification that may
be simple to those with extensive field experience of the various
Black-tailed Godwits.
Which brings me to my general point: I think that whenever possible,
observers should try to determine as much as possible about a given bird,
including subspecies, sex and age. However, with limited experience and
limited reference material, I think caution is advised. Even an
identification that may be as clear-cut as _limosa_ vs. _islandica_
Black-tailed Godwits (clear-cut to the experienced, that is) can be
problematic for those of us with limited or no field experience of the taxa
involved.
On another note, I've been enjoying the Semipalmated vs. Common Ringed
Plover thread a great deal. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.
Best regards and good birding,
Jennifer Hanson
Montclair, New Jersey USA
ammodramus(AT)hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: ID of Spotted X Eastern Towhee hybrids
From: Steven Mlodinow <SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 3 May 2001 7:43am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All,
The Birders Journal caption, I believe, is in error (ie, typo) and refers to
a bird listed in the text as a Spotted Towhee.
The NY bird is most interesting. The "check" mark at the base of the folded
primaries and the undertail pattern are most consistent with an Eastern
Towhee. The spotted upperparts, obviously, are not. The undertail coverts
seem too dark for Eastern Towhee as well. It seems to me that the diagnosis
of Hybrid fits the situation best.
I have not lived out east for quite a while, so I can not really comment on
"pure" Eastern Towhees occasionally bearing scapular spots. I have not seen a
Spotted Towhee with the white check mark at the base of the primaries, though
I regularly look at Spotted Towhees carefully (thinking about subspecific
questions).
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Baikal Teal?
From: Steven Mlodinow <SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 3 May 2001 8:49am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
As I was surfing the web (no broken bones, glad to report), I came across a
report of a Baikal Teal from Little Cayman I, Feb 2001. The photo can be
viewed at
http://www.focusonnature.com/CaribbeanBirdPhotoGallery.htm
To my eye (having, admittedly, no experience with this species) this bird
does not look like a Baikal Teal but rather appears to be a Baikal Teal-like
hybrid. Some marks that appear incorrect for Baikal Teal includes
the contour of green on face (too blunt and broad anteriorly)
brown sides of body
bill too large
white on side of neck.
Sibley (June 1994, Birding) discusses hybrid ducks (neither parent being a
Baikal Teal) that can look like Baikal Teal, and after reviewing Sibley's
article, I believe that the Little Cayman bird is indeed such a hybrid.
Comments?
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re. Baikal Teal?
From: Millington/BIS <sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk>
Date: 3 May 2001 10:32am
Hello all
A very similar-looking bird was in UK a few years ago:
Identified as a Baikal Teal as it was just coming into breeding plumage, it
prompted a major twitch.
Unfortunately, it finally matured into something resembling a Teal x Pintail
hybrid...
'Hybrid Ducks' by Eric & Barry Gillham has four or five photographs of drake
hybrids (involving Teal, Shoveler, Wigeon, Falcated Duck, Pintail and
Gadwall in various combinations) showing this 'bimaculated' pattern, which
is presumably some ancestral throwback trait. Similar birds have also been
seen in the field in UK and Europe.
The Little Cayman 'Baikal' Teal is presumably such a bird, I agree ...
although naming its parentage is a bit of a guessing game...
good birding
Richard Millington
sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
(Birding World, Books for Birders & Birdline)
Bird Information Service, Stonerunner, Coast Road,
Cley next the Sea, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 7RZ, UK
(VAT Reg 676 8589 56)
Tel. 44 (0) 1263 741139 Fax. 741173
Website www.birdingworld.co.uk
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Re. Baikal Teal?
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 3 May 2001 11:20am
Dear all,
I'll quote from my email of last year on this subject, for those who may
have missed it:
"In BIRDING WORLD Volume 12 number 9, a letter from Jon King (page 344)
reports on the study of dabbling ducks using analysis of DNA based upon two
different gene sequences. To summarize, this study found that Baikal Teal
was so distant from all other dabblers that it represented a monotypic
clade, with the other three groups being: the blue-winged ducks (Cinnamon
and Blue-winged Teals plus the shovelers); four genera restricted to South
America; and all the rest (i.e. Wigeons, other Teals, Garganey,
Mallard-types, Pintail, etc).
An intriguing speculation (on my part) from this situation is that Baikal
Teal may be much closer
in plumage to the ancestral duck of all the groups (having diverged from it
much earlier and then remaining mostly unchanged), and thus hybridization
within and between the other clades causes some recessive form of the
ancestral face
pattern to appear in the offspring, thus resembling the pattern of male Baikal
Teal."
To enjoy a really stunning close-up of a wing-flapping male Baikal Teal, go
here:
http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~bird/bird/photo/dabble/tomoegamo.html
Cheers,
Martin
At 5/3/2001 06:34 PM +0100, you wrote:
>Hello all
>
>A very similar-looking bird was in UK a few years ago:
>Identified as a Baikal Teal as it was just coming into breeding plumage, it
>prompted a major twitch.
>Unfortunately, it finally matured into something resembling a Teal x Pintail
>hybrid...
>
>'Hybrid Ducks' by Eric & Barry Gillham has four or five photographs of drake
>hybrids (involving Teal, Shoveler, Wigeon, Falcated Duck, Pintail and
>Gadwall in various combinations) showing this 'bimaculated' pattern, which
>is presumably some ancestral throwback trait. Similar birds have also been
>seen in the field in UK and Europe.
>
>The Little Cayman 'Baikal' Teal is presumably such a bird, I agree ...
>although naming its parentage is a bit of a guessing game...
>
>good birding
>Richard Millington
>
>sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
>(Birding World, Books for Birders & Birdline)
>Bird Information Service, Stonerunner, Coast Road,
>Cley next the Sea, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 7RZ, UK
>(VAT Reg 676 8589 56)
>Tel. 44 (0) 1263 741139 Fax. 741173
>Website www.birdingworld.co.uk
Martin Reid
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com or http://www.cyberramp.net/~upupa
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Icelandic Godwit
From: Gunter De Smet <gunter.de.smet(AT)PANDORA.BE>
Date: 3 May 2001 11:55am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
An interesting series of Black-tailed Godwits from the Netherlands can =
be seen at http://people.a2000.nl/fveen/ijslanders/
Unfortunately (or fortunately as there are quite a few mistakes) the =
comments are in Dutch. Many of these birds are islandica (probably more =
than suggested in the comments).
As far as I know, the vocalizations of Icelandic Godwits (on Iceland) =
and Godwits from the Netherlands do NOT differ on sonograms, which may =
be a disappointment to the listers and splitters among us.
Plumage-wise some islandica are very similar to limosa. I have examined =
a set of photographs of Icelandic breeding birds, many of which looked a =
lot more limosa-like than what I would confidently call islandica in =
Belgium. This year, for the first time ever, a Black-tailed Godwit =
ringed in Iceland was seen in Belgium (colour-ringed at Laugaras, =
Iceland as an adult male on 27 April 2000, then at Poole Harbour, =
Dorset, UK in August 2000, and seen again at Zeebrugge, Belgium on 18 =
March 2001).
Roselaar & Gerritsen (1991) summarized the features of islandica quite =
well : 1. bill shorter than 84 mm (males) or 101 mm (females), or tarsus =
shorter than 71 mm (males) or 101 mm (females); 2. head, neck and upper =
breast saturated rusty red; 3. at least 70% of the body feathers in =
summer plumage; 4. upper breast without black barring, flanks barred =
black and rufous. In the field the identification of solitary birds is =
not possible if only based on the features 2-4. Flocks showing the =
features 2-4 are more likely islandica because it would be unusual to =
see these features simulaneously in a whole flock of limosa. None of the =
skins collected in the Netherlands and possibly islandica based on the =
measurements show all of the features 2-4; however, not all islandica =
skins from Iceland show all these features. [Roselaar C.S., Gerritsen =
GJ.(1991):Recognition of Icelandic Black-tailed Godwit and its occurence =
in the Netherlands. Dutch Birding 13:128-135.]
In the field, I tentatively use some additional features, which MAY be =
useful : 1. the most typical males of islandica are shorter-billed and =
shorter-legged than limosa; 2. islandica often has all-grey =
winter-plumage like wing-coverts (although I have seen presumed =
islandica with a few moulted summer-like coverts like the American bird) =
- the coverts are often duller and browner in limosa -; 3. the scapulars =
are often distinctly two-toned (rusty and black), causing a neatly =
chequered appearance; 4. islandica has a tendency of showing a very =
distinct white "eye-ring" - or at least white around the eye - (perhaps =
more striking because the plumage is more saturated rusty red, not so =
pale and yellowish brown as in limosa).; 5. the tertials are often =
strongly patterned in islandica (like in the American bird); 6. perhaps =
the base of the bill is brighter orange, and the contrast with the dark =
tip of the bill more obvious in islandica; 7. in extensively barred =
individuals there is often also barring on the undertail-coverts, which =
is uncommon in limosa; 8. the extensively rusty red underparts in =
classical adult males may even remind of Bar-tailed Godwit (which, =
however, has an all black bill in breeding plumage, a longer upturned =
bill, relatively short legs, a different wing and tail pattern etc.)
I like the cautious approach of the ID problem by Roselaar & Gerritsen =
(1991). Although I believe that some - or even most - "classical" =
solitary adult males islandica may be identifiable in the field, it is =
safer to rely on the "collective identity". The timing of migration is =
also different in Belgium. Limosa is arriving from February onwards, =
whereas migrating flocks of islandica are mostly seen in April, when our =
local breeding birds are already territorial and no longer in flocks. On =
the other hand, islandica may be the only subspecies wintering in =
Belgium (only a few individuals). The last few years islandica seems =
increasingly regular on spring migration in Belgium. The largest flock =
ever recorded in Belgium counted 74 individuals (Uitkerke, 21 April =
2000) and last Sunday I saw 18 at the same site. In late spring, I =
mostly see what seem to be pure islandica flocks (not mixed with =
limosa), although the females and first-summer birds can be confusingly =
similar to limosa.
As I have only very limited field experience with melanuroides (mainly =
birds in non-breeding plumage in Asia - this subspecies is considered =
"extralimital" in Birds of the Western Palearctic -), I am not well =
placed to comment on it. I know from published measurements that they =
should be even smaller than islandica on average. The Long Island bird =
would definitely stand out among breeding birds (limosa) from Belgium =
and the Netherlands. In a flock of islandica, however, it would probably =
not be very different from the average. I would probably have liked it =
even more, if it hadn't any summer-type wing coverts. Looking at the =
excellent photographs of melanuroides at =
http://www.oceanwanderers.com/AsiaticBTGodwit.html I found them =
confusingly similar to islandica. I tried hard to find differences, but =
a much larger sample would be necessary for that. The adult males =
melanuroides do look very small, and perhaps their wing-coverts are =
browner, less grey than in islandica, the barring on the flanks looks =
very pronounced, and the scapulars seem even darker, but these are only =
first impressions based on very few photographs. I would be most =
interested to know if melanuroides and islandica can by separated in the =
field at all. Are there any differences in the tail pattern or the wing =
pattern ? In Belgium, the Long Island bird would look like a good adult =
male islandica to me - and it probably is on geographical grounds also =
-, but how do we exclude melanuroides ?
Gunter De Smet (Belgium)
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: hybrid juncos
From: Matthew Kenne <meekeckk(AT)RCONNECT.COM>
Date: 3 May 2001 10:19pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Birders,
I've been studying my feeder juncos the past two winters, attempting to =
get a handle on the variation in the Slate-coloreds. Like others in the =
Midwest and East, I try to search for the markings that will enable me =
to identify one of the western juncos. There may be a field mark that =
will allow us to eliminate possible "Oregon" contenders from =
consideration during the late winter and spring. Several possible "imm. =
female" Oregons that I examined after January had faint darker streaking =
down the back. I don't remember seeing this on Fall birds, but I plan on =
checking for it next time around. The bird at the top of =
http://home.earthlink.net/~nwlabsg/mbr_pics.html (not mine, just one I =
found on the web) is an example of what I'm describing. I first thought =
that this streaking was some kind of first-basic "memory" of the =
streaked juvenile plumage- an indicator of a first-year bird. However, =
in reading Alden Miller's 1941 paper, I was struck by his description of =
a change caused by wear in Slate-colored/Oregon hybrids: "This gives a =
spotted appearance to the back when the basal slate parts are exposed =
through wear.". According to Miller, this effect does not occur in =
Oregons without the influence of hybridization. Does this hold true in =
areas where Oregon Juncos are banded in winter? Do birds with =
streaky/spotty backs have intermediate characteristics that put them =
outside the range of "regular" Oregon Juncos? Not that there's that many =
birders out there dieing to see cismontanus juncos, I'm just wondering.
And while I'm on the subject of juncos, what about this statement in =
Pyle?: "wing morphology (e.g., longest p - p9) varies geographically and =
may provide a useful means of separating subspecies; more study is =
needed." Anybody got an idea of where he's going with that?
Matthew Kenne
Algona, Iowa
meekeckk(AT)rconnect.com
=20
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Baikal Teal?
From: Alan Wormington <wormington(AT)JUNO.COM>
Date: 4 May 2001 8:40am
Everyone,
for your information, there is a record of Baikal Teal near Ottawa,
Ontario, during the peak of spring duck migration some 20 years ago.
Alan Wormington
Leamington, Ontario
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: hybrid juncos
From: Matthew Kenne <meekeckk(AT)RCONNECT.COM>
Date: 4 May 2001 8:32am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Birders,
Upon re-reading Miller's statement in context at a decent hour, it =
appears to refer to "adult" males, and not to brownish imm./female =
types. This makes most of my last post pointless- sorry! However, my =
question regarding possible subspecific differences in junco primary =
projection still stands.
Matthew Kenne
Algona, Iowa
meekeckk(AT)rconnect.com
=20
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: hybrid juncos
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle(AT)PRBO.ORG>
Date: 4 May 2001 12:34pm
Hi Matthew et al.
I do think that HY/SY females average streaker in the Slate-colored
group than in the Oregon group, although some of the intermediate races
(cismontanus, shufeldti) also show it to some degree and certain purer
Oregons can also show a hint of it. As with other junco characters it is
clouded by variation both within and among age/sex/subspecies groups.
As for variation in wing morphology, see the 1990-1992 papers by
Mulvihill and Chandler (Auk 107:490-499, Condor 93:172-175, Ornis
Scandinavica 19:212-216).
Peter Pyle
> Matthew Kenne wrote:
>
> Birders,
>
> I've been studying my feeder juncos the past two winters, attempting
> to get a handle on the variation in the Slate-coloreds. Like others in
> the Midwest and East, I try to search for the markings that will
> enable me to identify one of the western juncos. There may be a field
> mark that will allow us to eliminate possible "Oregon" contenders from
> consideration during the late winter and spring. Several possible
> "imm. female" Oregons that I examined after January had faint darker
> streaking down the back. I don't remember seeing this on Fall birds,
> but I plan on checking for it next time around. The bird at the top
> of http://home.earthlink.net/~nwlabsg/mbr_pics.html (not mine, just
> one I found on the web) is an example of what I'm describing. I first
> thought that this streaking was some kind of first-basic "memory" of
> the streaked juvenile plumage- an indicator of a first-year bird.
> However, in reading Alden Miller's 1941 paper, I was struck by his
> description of a change caused by wear in Slate-colored/Oregon
> hybrids: "This gives a spotted appearance to the back when the basal
> slate parts are exposed through wear.". According to Miller, this
> effect does not occur in Oregons without the influence of
> hybridization. Does this hold true in areas where Oregon Juncos are
> banded in winter? Do birds with streaky/spotty backs have intermediate
> characteristics that put them outside the range of "regular" Oregon
> Juncos? Not that there's that many birders out there dieing to see
> cismontanus juncos, I'm just wondering.
>
> And while I'm on the subject of juncos, what about this statement in
> Pyle?: "wing morphology (e.g., longest p - p9) varies geographically
> and may provide a useful means of separating subspecies; more study is
> needed." Anybody got an idea of where he's going with that?
>
> Matthew Kenne
> Algona, Iowa
> meekeckk(AT)rconnect.com
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Murrre ID Help
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 4 May 2001 6:40pm
Please help me with the identity of the mounted Murre pictured at
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1596768&a=12818125
Thanks,
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Murre ID
From: Gunter De Smet <gunter.de.smet(AT)PANDORA.BE>
Date: 5 May 2001 7:22am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
John's mounted Murre looks like a Common Murre to me. The taxidermist =
has been overgenerous with the filling, giving the specimen an almost =
goose-like shape, and the beady orange eye isn't a very good choice for =
any Murre. The bill-shape, however, is OK for Uria aalge. Thick-billed =
Murre Uria lomvia often shows a white line on the cutting edge of the =
upper mandible, but in the old days, bills of specimens where often =
painted. Identification guides and handbooks fail to mention that the =
white line on the cutting edge of the upper mandible in Thick-billed =
Murre is more than just a line : it is in fact situated on a small =
plate, with a groove around it. Not all Thick-billed Murres show white =
on the cutting edge of the upper mandible (most do), but at least all =
the individuals I watched at very close range in a colony in the =
Varanger, Norway all showed this small plate. I think this is a useful =
structural difference, but I would appreciate any comments on the =
validity of this character from other birders. The mystery specimen is =
lacking the small plate along the cutting edge of the upper mandible : =
this area is smooth, indicating Common Murre. A Common Murre should have =
some streaking on the rear flanks, but this could be hidden under the =
wing. The upperparts are browner, less black in Uria aalge aalge than in =
Thick-billed Murre (and even browner in British U a albionis), but in =
old specimens "foxing" could cause a problem to assess this correctly. I =
would have expected a deeper bill, and a more pronounced gonydeal angle =
in Thick-billed Murre. There is an overlap in both bill length and bill =
heigth in Common and Thick-billed Murre, but in most cases measurements =
should be helpful. From the photographs, the primaries of this bird seem =
quite brownish and worn, possibly indicating a second calendar year =
individual, collected in late winter, but again, I do not know how well =
the specimen is preserved, and if it faithfully represents the original =
colour.=20
Yours,
Gunter De Smet (Belgium)
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Murre ID
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 5 May 2001 7:56am
On Sat, 5 May 2001 14:20:46 +0200, Gunter De Smet
<gunter.de.smet(AT)PANDORA.BE> wrote:
>John's mounted Murre looks like a Common Murre to me.
I think it's a Thick-billed Murre. I have never seen a winter
specimen on Common Murre with dark extending this far down on the
face. Instead the face of Common Murre is largely white, with a black
line extending back from the eye along the feather crease.
Also the photo shows the white breast extending upward to a point.
This is good for Thick-billed Murre, even in winter plumage. Common
Murre tends to molt the breast evenly, so that the upward pointing
white area is not evident as it is here.
Also the area where the white tomium stripe should be is unfeathered
here. This is typical of Thick-billed Murre. On Common Murre (at
least on the Pacific Coast) this area is usually covered by feathers.
On Common Murre, the back is usually grayer, often contrasting with
coffee-brown on the crown. Here the bird seems uniformly black,
lacking the head/back contrast of Common Murre. This is also typical
of Thick-billed Murre.
Lastly the bill looks way too short for any Common Murre (at least
Pacific Coast birds I am familiar with). Perhaps a recently fledged
juvenile might have a bill this short, but this specimen has fully
developed wings and looks older to me. I agree with Gunter De Smet
that it may be second calendar collected in winter. Also I think the
gonydeal angle is not far enough toward the tip of the bill for Common
Murre.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044: mailto:jmorlan(AT)ccsf.org
California Birding, mystery birds: http://fog.ccsf.org/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee: http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RFI on A. marila mariloides
From: paullarkin <paullarkin(AT)PGEN.NET>
Date: 5 May 2001 10:55am
What Ho!
During February 2001 there was present in Kent UK an odd looking drake
Greater Scaup. The most notable feature of the bird was its very dark
looking upperparts. These brought to mind Lesser Scaup. Closer examination
revealed that this effect was brought about by the vermiculations being
wider and blacker than those of the accompanying normal looking drakes. The
rearmost feathers had no vermiculations at all thus making the pale area
shorter from front to rear than the "normal" Greater Scaup.
Whilst looking through a recently acquired copy of Wildfowl of the World by
Ogilvie & Young I can across a photo of a very similar looking bird (p144
plate 6) this is labelled Pacific Greater Scaup. (Athya marila mariloides)
This sub sp. is described as being as European Greater Scaup but with
blacker and more obvious vermiculation on back.
Can anyone answer the following?
1. Is the difference described consistent?
2. Does mariloides occur on the Eastern seaboard of the USA?
3. Are there any other known differences between the two sub sp?
Regards
Paul
["I am prepared to consider evidence and accept if it satisfies me" - M.R.
James.]
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Baikal Teal?
From: Tony Leukering <GreatGrayO(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 5 May 2001 1:06pm
Hi all:
I would agree with Steve about this picture. Though I only glanced at the very
small image, the bird looks much like a bird that wintered in Greeley, CO, that
we id'ed as a GADW x MALL. Pix can be viewed on the CO Field Ornithologists'
website (www.cfo-link.org).
Enjoy,
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Murre ID
From: Gunter De Smet <gunter.de.smet(AT)PANDORA.BE>
Date: 5 May 2001 2:09pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I understand very well why Joseph Morlan thinks the mounted Murre is a =
Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia, and I am ready to reconsider my =
tentative identification if there is any additional information on the =
specimen (date, locality, measurements).
All the downy young of Thick-billed Murre I saw at Varanger in Norway =
showed black throats, making it very easy to separate them from =
Razorbill Alca torda and Common Murre Uria aalge chicks, which were =
invariably white-throated. There are two types of first-winter Thick =
Billed Murres : some are dark-throated and look like summer adults, and =
others are white-throated, and look like adult-winter. I have no idea =
which percentage of the invariably black-throated pulli of Thick-billed =
Murre I saw at Varanger turn into white-throated or black-throated =
first-winters, and I would very much appreciate any statistics on this =
from various areas. Clearly the mounted specimen is not a black-throated =
first-winter, which would have made things a lot easier. In Norway, =
Thick-billed Murre is a rare breeding bird (a few hundred pairs only), =
and the first-winter plumage is difficult to study because young =
Thick-billed Murres disperse very soon and are pelagic in their habits, =
most of them remaining in arctic seas.
Many of the comments Joseph Morlan made, are based on a comparison with =
Pacific Common Murres. Specific status has been proposed for both the =
Atlantic and the Pacific populations which would render the latter as =
Pacific Murre (Uria californica). I have never studied the differences =
between Atlantic and Pacific Murres and I will not comment on these, but =
some of the remarks by Joseph do not apply on Atlantic Murres :
1. the area of the white tomium is not covered in feathers in Uria aalge =
aalge.
2. there is no contrast between the crown and the mantle in Uria aalge =
aalge
3. especially in late winter Uria aalge aalge with a facial pattern like =
the mounted specimen do occur; first-winters will moult into =
first-summer plumage and gradually acquire a black head. In the eastern =
Atlantic, the head pattern of Uria aalge will resemble more and more the =
head pattern of a Razorbill in late winter (not unlike the mounted =
specimen). The mounted specimen doesn't have a black line extending back =
from the eye along the feather crease. If it had such a line, it would =
indicate Common Murre. The lack of this line, however, is not uncommon =
in late winter Uria aalge aalge. If this bird has been collected in fall =
or early winter, the head-pattern would indicate Thick-billed Murre. The =
worn primaries, however, indicate that it was probably collected in late =
winter, when the head pattern is a less reliable feature. The collar of =
this bird is almost closed, but winter-plumaged Uria aalge with =
completely closed Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica-like collars do =
occur (especially in late winter). I am well aware of the white area =
pointing upward on the chest being a feature of adult-summer =
Thick-billed Murre, but doubt its value in winter plumage. Even in =
summer plumage there is some overlap in the white wedge on the chest.
The primaries of the mounted specimen look obviously brownish. =
First-winter Uria lomvia is generally much more difficult to age than =
first-winter Uria aalge. In first-winter Thick-billed Murre, the =
primaries are slightly pointed, there may be a moult contrast between =
slightly browner juvenile greater coverts and black post-juvenile =
greater coverts, and the primary coverts show a looser texture and are =
slightly browner. My experience with first-winter Uria lomvia is very =
limited (I only examined a few skins), but the birds I saw, had =
noticeably less worn and blacker primaries than in Uria aalge of similar =
age. In general first-winter Uria lomvia is more adult-like than =
first-winter Uria aalge. The primaries of the mounted specimen are =
browner than those I saw in museum specimens of Thick-billed Murre.
In live birds, the head shape is often a good identification feature, =
but I am afraid the grotesque shape of the mounted specimen causes great =
difficulty in this respect. Judging bill length is very difficult, if =
you must compare it to an oversized head. In the Eastern Atlantic at =
least, there is an extensive overlap in bill length between Uria aalge =
aalge and Uria lomvia, as shown by measurements in Cramp et al. (BWP); - =
those from Glutz & Bauer are marked * -
All measurements are given in mm. Bill =3D bill to feathering.
The sequence of the measurements is : mean (standard deviation; number =
of specimens measured) lowest value of the series - highest value of the =
series.
=20
URIA LOMVIA
adult males (Eastern Greenland, Bear Island, Iceland and Spitsbergen)
40.5 (2.3;11) 36-44
adult females (Eastern Greenland, Bear Island, Iceland and Spitsbergen)
38.6 (2.0;11) 35-42
adult males (Bear Island)*
53.5 (38) 51-62.5
adult females (Bear Island)*
54.5 (36) 50-60
adult males (Spitsbergen)*
54.9 (20) 51-58
adult females (Spitsbergen)*
54.4 (15) 50-58
URIA AALGE AALGE
adult males (Faeroer)
47.7 (2.14;13) 44-51
adult females (Faeroer)
46.0 (2.14;20) 43-51
It becomes instantly clear that the sample size for Uria lomvia in Glutz =
is larger than in Cramp et al. The measurements in Glutz (as copied in =
Cramp et al) are significantly larger than those taken by Cramp et al. I =
suspect that two measuring techniques (bill to feathering and bill to =
skull) may be involved, although the introduction in Cramp et al =
mentions that bill length is always bill to feathering, unless mentioned =
otherwise. Glutz and Bauer indicate that variation in length of bill is =
more or less clinal, with larger averages occurring in the eastern part =
of the range.
From my own field observations of adults in Norway, I can confirm that =
some adult Uria aalge aalge have visually a similar bill length than =
Uria lomvia. Field identification of both species in this Norwegian =
colony was not always possible on bill length or bill shape alone.=20
Because there are so many overlapping features, I looked for an =
objective difference, and I think I found a consistent structural =
difference (at least in this Norwegian colony) : a narrow elongated =
plate on the upper mandible in Uria lomvia (where the white stripe is =
situated in most individuals). If this plate is always there in Uria =
lomvia, and never in Uria aalge - which was the case in the Varanger =
birds -, the mounted specimen should be Uria aalge. I agree with Joseph =
Morlan that this bird shows a number of features frequently associated =
with Uria lomvia, but most if not all of these features can be present =
on late winter Uria aalge aalge as well.
Until I have seen full documentation of the mounted specimen (date, =
locality, measurements), I cannot say anything definitive about its =
identification.
Yours,
Gunter De Smet (Belgium)
=20
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Baikal Teal?
From: Eran Tomer <etomer(AT)EMORY.EDU>
Date: 5 May 2001 2:38pm
The image on the website is compressed and can be viewed in full by
clicking "View Image". Then, it is easy to see that facial pigmentation
is clearly unlike a Baikal Teal's and head / bill shapes don't quite
match. Size, neck coloration and body pattern also don't fit but these can
be tricky to judge from the photo given potential variation. The
prominent scapulars are also absent. It is possible, however, that this
bird does have true Baikal Teal genes in its ancestry, perhaps an escaped
bird mating with something local.
For another angle, many recent accounts indicate that Baikal Teal
populations have plummeted over the past few decades, making strays less
likely to occur than in the historic past. However, I have come across new
information from Korea stating that its numbers have increased greatly
over the past decade. I don't know whether this information is formally
published or how much it can be trusted, but if true it would visibly
increase the odds of finding stray birds in North America and Europe.
Best regards
- Eran Tomer
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
etomer(AT)emory.edu
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Baikal Teal
From: Andrew Harrop <andrew.harrop(AT)VIRGIN.NET>
Date: 5 May 2001 10:50pm
Dear All,
The following additional references/comments may be of interest:
'Dutch Birding' 22: 207-208 includes two evocative photos of flocks and data
about recent status in South Korea (estimated at 200,000 in 1998/9);
'Birding World' 5: 420 includes some useful reference photographs of adult
male, adult female and juveniles;
the only hybrid with Baikal Teal as a parent listed in my (1996) copy of
Gillham's 'Hybrid Ducks' is one male Baikal x female Speckled (p.80), though
as Richard Millington mentioned there are also several other hybrids which
superficially resemble Baikal;
my printed copy of the photo of the Little Cayman bird isn't as clear as the
on-screen image, but I agree that the bird appears to be a male hybrid for
all the reasons already given - on the basis of its apparent size and
structure, and in particular the contours of its head and bill, I would
tentatively suggest that one parent might have been the 'carrier' species,
Blue-winged Teal.
Best wishes,
Andrew Harrop
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland
