ID-FRONTIERS for February 10-16, 2002

Messages are displayed in the order they were received.  Subject  From  Date   Time   Re: Italy. New photos of the controversial hybrid/pale argentatus   Dick Newell    Mon, 11 Feb 2002   4:11pm   Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley   Florida Nature Tours   Tue, 12 Feb 2002   1:57am   Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley   Jeff Wilson    Tue, 12 Feb 2002   5:21am   Re: Finland. New photos of pale argentatus gulls   Harry Lehto    Wed, 13 Feb 2002   7:01am   Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley   Wayne C. Weber   Thu, 14 Feb 2002   8:56am   Hybrid ducks in Spain   =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ricar   Thu, 14 Feb 2002   2:29pm   Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley   Florida Nature Tours   Thu, 14 Feb 2002   3:39pm   Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley   Jeff Wilson    Thu, 14 Feb 2002   4:36pm   Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley   Laurent Raty    Thu, 14 Feb 2002   5:37pm   Listowner comment   will russell    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   7:43am   BC Doves and Selasphorus photo ID Question   Don Gorney    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   9:43am   Re: Selasphorus photo ID Question   Mike Patterson    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   10:18am   BC dove ID   Paul Lehman    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   11:11am   Re: BC dove ID   Michael Retter    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   1:41pm   Re: BC dove ID   Ross Silcock    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   2:10pm   Re: BC dove ID   Sebastian Patti    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   2:36pm   TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   ian paulsen    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   3:01pm   Re: TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   Mark W. Eaton   Fri, 15 Feb 2002   3:19pm   Re: BC dove ID   creagrus    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   4:09pm   Re 2 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   Michel Bertrand    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   5:54pm   Re: TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   Michael Retter    Fri, 15 Feb 2002   11:24pm   Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   Michel Bertrand    Sat, 16 Feb 2002   12:41am   Re: Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   Martin Reid    Sat, 16 Feb 2002   7:17am   Re: Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??   Michael Retter    Sat, 16 Feb 2002   10:30am   Re: BC dove ID   Peter Wilkinson    Sat, 16 Feb 2002   3:09pm   Kamchatka Gull in MA?, addendum   Jim Barton    Sat, 16 Feb 2002   6:54pm

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

[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Italy. New photos of the controversial
         hybrid/pale argentatus
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)MACUNLIMITED.NET>
Date: 11 Feb 2002 4:11pm

The previous time this bird appeared, my view was that it is a hybrid
Glaucous x Herring Gull. I know that there is an alternative opinion that it
is no more than a pale argentatus Herring Gull. It bears a close resemblance
to a number of gulls that have turned up here in Cambridge, England. In my
opinion, the sub-terminal spot on each of the primaries is a trait derived
from the sub-terminal chevrons on the primaries of Glaucous Gull which does
not appear in Herring Gull. Further, the bill and head-shape are not really
like argentatus and tend towards a Glaucous look, there is even a hint of a
broken eye-ring. Tertials with patterning this dense are most unusual in
Herring Gull. It has been said that birds like this probably come from the
Kola peninsular, exactly where one would expect hybrid Herring x Glaucous
Gulls to be produced.
In my opinion, Menotti, your gull is not controversial.
Dick

On 11/2/02 9:54 PM, "Menotti Passarella" <aster_men(AT)YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> Today 11-Feb-2002 I was able to relocate the
> controversial possible hybrid Herring X Glaucous or
> pale Herring Gull first winter. The Gull was observed
> in the same place as the first time, at the Chioggia
> harbour (NE Italy).
>
> Old photos (taken on 29-Jan-2002)
>
> http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/glaucher01
>
> http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/glaucher02
>
> http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/glaucher06
>
> New photos, today:
>
> Probale hybrid or pale Herring first winter with
> Yellow-legged Gull first winter:
>
> http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/twogulls0049
>
> The same birds:
>
> http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/twogulls0048
>
> The controversial gull (right) with a second winter
> Mediterranean Gull (left):
>
> http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/twogulls0059
>
> Ciao
>
> Menotti Passarella
> Italy
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley
From: Florida Nature Tours <fnt(AT)GDI.NET>
Date: 12 Feb 2002 1:57am

Mike Alibone wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> >From your description, below, your doves appear to be ECDO as you are
> suggesting. The plumage description is fine and the voice is perfect. I do
> not know about captive status for this species in Canada or USA (although I
> believe it has become established in the south east US). In the UK, where
> ECDO is a common widespread resident, it is the Barbary Dove (=Ringed-Turtle
> Dove (Streptopelia risoria)) which is kept in captivity (also in USA)
> probably more often than the Collared Dove. Barbary Dove call is quite
> different to Collared Dove, with a number of 'R's being evident in the
> middle syllable of the call.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Mike Alibone
> Northampton, UK.
>
> Chris Charlesworth wrote:
>
> >Birders,
>
> >Chris Siddle and Ryan Tomlinson and I ventured S. from Kelowna towards the
> >South Okanagan (BC) this morning, with high hopes of finding all kinds of
> >exciting birds. Our hopes were pretty much smashed when Chris' car had
> fatal
> >problems on Hwy 3, E. of Keremeos. We had to abort mission! Luckily we had
> >made a brief stop in at Summerland and added the LEWIS' WOODPECKER, a
> winter
> >and year bird for us, so the day wasn't a complete loss.
>
> >After Chris' wife, Sonja, picked us up, she offered to take us to Keremeos
> >in search of the recently discovered colony of doves we so badly wanted to
> >see. What a great lady! We pulled into the Keremeos / Cawston area in the
> >Similkameen Valley, and after some searching finally found the right
> >neighbourhood. In all we counted 20 - 30 doves which were very possibly
> >EURASIAN COLLARED-DOVES (Streptopelia decaocta. I have seen this species in
> >Texas, but these birds troubled me very slightly. Here is my description:
>
> >- larger than Mourning Dove.
> >- primaries darker than rest of wing, especially visible in flight.
> >- tail had classic "H" pattern of ECDO with black extending down sides of
> >the outer retrices.
> >- breast, belly and undertail pale grey / white.
> >- call a distinctive "coo-coooo-coo".
>
> >The only troubling feature was the undertail coverts. In Sibley, the ECDO
> >pictured have grey undertail coverts, that do contrast with the rest of the
> >underparts. I checked in (Mullarney, Svennson, Zetterstrom & Grant) the
> >birds of Europe and found that they do not emphasize the grey undertail. In
> >fact they picture a white undertail. Some sources say the call of the
> >Eurasian Collared-Dove is distinctive from the other main species of
> >confusion, the Ringed-Turtle Dove (Streptopelia risoria). If so, these
> birds
> >were definitely ECDOs.
>
> >Upon talking to local Cawston and Keremeos residents, a school teacher kept
> >captive doves in the area in the late 60s and early 1970s. The birds
> >accidentally escaped and small numbers were seen, especially in winter,
> when
> >the birds flocked together and converged on feeders in region. During the
> >summer, the birds disperse and nest in the hills and heavily wooded yards
> >around the towns. They have been steadily increasing, although raptors take
> >a toll in the winter, since then, and now number close to 100. We saw the
> >birds at two locations: 2201 Ferko Road and at a yard near the end of
> >Coulthard Road (both in the Cawston area). The birds were free flying and
> >seemed to coming in from all directions. By ABA rules, these birds should
> be
> >countable. There's a breeding population that has been present since the
> >1970s and they are breeding. These birds may account for the recent rash of
> >ECDO sightings in the S. Okanagan Valley of BC.
>
> >Does anyone have any comments on the acceptability and identification of
> >these doves?
>
> >Chris Charlesworth
> >Kelowna,BC,Canada

 Chris, Mike & all,

 I agree, you have ECDOs for sure. AS far as ABA rules go, you
 can only count them if your state's checklist committee has
 them on the state list. If not, don't worry, the established
 population in Florida has made it all the way to NM & CO, so
 you may be in line for an invasion

 Wes Biggs
 Florida Nature Tours, Orlando  407/363-1360  fnt(AT)gdi.net
 http://www.floridanaturetours.com   ABA sponsored


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley
From: Jeff Wilson <OLCOOT1(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 12 Feb 2002 5:21am

----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----

In a message dated 2/12/02 2:59:41 AM Central Standard Time, fnt(AT)GDI.NET
writes:

> I agree, you have ECDOs for sure. AS far as ABA rules go, you
> can only count them if your state's checklist committee has
>

I can find no place in the ABA rules that require a state list to accept a
bird before being counted on your list sent to ABA. You may have to wait to
list it on a state sponsored list if there is such a depository but not if
sent to ABA. Below are the list rules for ABA. All can be read at:

http://www.americanbirding.org/resources/reslistru2.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lifelist and Annual List totals submitted to ABA must be in accordance with
the ABA Listing Rules. That is, any bird counted on these lists must be:

within the prescribed area and time period when observed;
a species currently accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee for lists within
its area, by the AOU Checklist for lists outside the ABA area and within the
AOU area, and by Clements for all other areas;
alive, wild, and unrestrained for at least 24 hours when observed;
identified by the lister, and
observed under conditions that conformed to the ABA Code of Ethics.

Excerpt from interpretations segment:

B. currently accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee means:
(i) the species must be (a) included in the current published ABA Checklist,
as modified by subsequent Supplements, or (b) formally accepted by the ABA
Checklist Committee for inclusion in the next published ABA Checklist or
Supplement. Species in the category "Origin Uncertain" are considered to be
accepted

AND

(i) ABA Checklist Area is defined in the current ABA Checklist as the 49
continental United States, Canada, the French islands of St. Pierre et
Miquelon, and adjacent waters to a distance of 200 miles from land or half
the distance to a neigh boring country, whichever is less. Excluded by these
boundaries are the Bahamas, Hawaii, and Greenland.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If I were driving across the USA and saw my lifer adult male Painted Bunting
in a state with no records for the species, I would certainly list that bird
on my ABA and US list and on the state list in which it was found, if the
bird met the above rules.

This has been discuss quite a few times on various lists, all with the same
results and the rules have not changed. Unless the ABA were to publish an
accepted list for each state, there is no way one can write a rule
restricting you to the whims of a state's records committee. As long as it is
an accepted species within the ABA area, it is countable as the ABA does not
check with each committee for a confirmed list nor print an accepted list.
There is a distinct but unlikely possibility that a state would accept a
species that Clements, AOU or ABA has not, that bird could not be listed on
your totals for the ABA area or the state in which it was seen if sent to the
ABA list for the supplement.

In the overlap of rules, you might have a completely acceptable bird that has
been split by Clements on your ABA world list, see this bird and it meeting
all the ABA rules in a state but not be able to list it in the US until ABA
accepts it. So the rules are far from complete and probably beyond getting
there for such reasons but you go by the rules as written............

Good Birding!!!

Jeff R. Wilson
OL' COOT / TLBA
Bartlett Tenn.

----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Finland. New photos of pale argentatus gulls
From: Harry Lehto <hlehto(AT)OJ287.ASTRO.UTU.FI>
Date: 13 Feb 2002 7:01am

Dear Larophiles,
               as there appears to be some interest in the variation of
coloration of 1st winter argentatus Herring Gull, I have posted a couple
of newly scanned images under the gulls section of my photopage at
www.astro.utu.fi/hlehto/photo (note minor changes in my web address).
Included at the bottom of the Gull page are pale Herring Gulls - just
three individuals and a couple of typical Finnish hybrid Herring x
Glaucous gulls of the same age. Unfortunately, I am unable right now (or
for the next 3-4 months) to put on display more images, although I have
them in stock.

Reference: > > Menotti Passarella
> > Today 11-Feb-2002 I was able to relocate the
> > controversial possible hybrid Herring X Glaucous or
> > pale Herring Gull first winter. The Gull was observed
>...
> > http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/glaucher01
> > http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/glaucher02
> > http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/glaucher06
> > http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/twogulls0049
> > http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/twogulls0048
> > http://it.geocities.com/podeltabirds/twogulls0059
> > Ciao
> > Menotti Passarella
> > Italy

Regards
Harry J. and Henry Lehto
hlehto(AT)astro.utu.fi, henry.lehto(AT)sampo.fi


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)SHAW.CA>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 8:56am

Birders,

Thanks to Mike Alibone and Wes Biggs for their comments on the
identity of the doves in the Similkameen Valley of south-central
British Columbia. Because there is a possibility of hybrids between
EURASIAN COLLARED DOVES and RINGED TURTLE-DOVES (BARBARY DOVES), I
have encouraged the observers to take photos of the birds and obtain
tape recordings of the songs, so that the identity can be conclusively
established.

However, Jeff Wilson is correct that a bird species needs to be
accepted only by the ABA checklist committee for the ABA area-- not by
a state or provincial records committee-- before it can be included on
lists submitted to the ABA.

British Columbia does have a Bird Records Committee (sponsored by B.C.
Field Ornithologists), but it is currently inactive, and has never
issued a provincial bird checklist. There are plans to reactivate this
committee soon.

Therefore, it is up to local observers to decide for themselves at
this point whether the birds are "countable" by ABA standards. In this
connection, it is worth noting than EURASIAN COLLARED-DOVES have been
recorded as close to British Columbia as Spokane, Washington and
Joseph in northeastern Oregon-- presumably, strays from the rapidly
expanding populations in the eastern and southwestern U.S.

Wayne C. Weber
Kamloops, BC
contopus(AT)shaw.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: Florida Nature Tours <fnt(AT)GDI.NET>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Doves in the Similkameen Valley

> Mike Alibone wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > >From your description, below, your doves appear to be ECDO as you
are
> > suggesting. The plumage description is fine and the voice is
perfect. I do
> > not know about captive status for this species in Canada or USA
(although I
> > believe it has become established in the south east US). In the
UK, where
> > ECDO is a common widespread resident, it is the Barbary Dove
(=Ringed-Turtle
> > Dove (Streptopelia risoria)) which is kept in captivity (also in
USA)
> > probably more often than the Collared Dove. Barbary Dove call is
quite
> > different to Collared Dove, with a number of 'R's being evident in
the
> > middle syllable of the call.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Mike Alibone
> > Northampton, UK.
> >

                                            <  big snip  >
>
>  Chris, Mike & all,
>
>  I agree, you have ECDOs for sure. AS far as ABA rules go, you
>  can only count them if your state's checklist committee has
>  them on the state list. If not, don't worry, the established
>  population in Florida has made it all the way to NM & CO, so
>  you may be in line for an invasion
>
>  Wes Biggs
>  Florida Nature Tours, Orlando  407/363-1360  fnt(AT)gdi.net
>  http://www.floridanaturetours.com   ABA sponsored


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Hybrid ducks in Spain
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ricard_Guti=E9rrez?= <GUTARB(AT)TERRA.ES>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 2:29pm

Hello all:

In the website www.rarebirdspain.net I've included a couple of new pages on
hybrid ducks after the one I announced some time ago and caused some
interest amongst Spanish & foreign birders. These two new pages depict
drawings and
descriptions of birds having been found at Albufera de València, València,
Spain and the case (with photos) of an hybrid Aythya at Euskadi, N Spain
last summer that
either seems an hybrid Pochard A.ferina x Tufted duck A.fuligula or x
Ferruginous duck A.nyroca and in any case resembling at first sight and in
some angles an American Redhead A.americana but being ruled out by a number
of characters.We would appreciate opinions as this crossing appears to be
one of the commonest amongst hybrid ducks. Our doubts arise both in the lack
of experience in these hybrids plus in the interpretation of the literature:
both Svensson et al (Collins bird guide) and HBI (Beaman and Madge) give
different options for the more or less same patterned bird. The lack of any
white/whitish undertail covers would rule out the Ferruginous parentage but
head pattern is enough good for Tufted origin? -the first option I guess -
because nail pattern seems to be different from those e.g. depicted in
Randler (2001) Alula,4: 148-156.

On the other hand, in the following days I'm going to post a page on the
finding of the first
record for the Western Palearctic of the African Crake (or Corncrake) Crex
egregia in Tenerife. The text is being updated with last comments from
SEO/Birdlife delegation in Canarias. I'll announce the posting in the list
as
well.

Yours

Ricard Gutiérrez
www.rarebirdspain.net
14.2.2002


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley
From: Florida Nature Tours <fnt(AT)GDI.NET>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 3:39pm

"Wayne C. Weber" wrote:
>
> Birders,
>
> Thanks to Mike Alibone and Wes Biggs for their comments on the
> identity of the doves in the Similkameen Valley of south-central
> British Columbia.
>
> However, Jeff Wilson is correct that a bird species needs to be
> accepted only by the ABA checklist committee for the ABA area-- not by
> a state or provincial records committee-- before it can be included on
> lists submitted to the ABA.
>
> British Columbia does have a Bird Records Committee (sponsored by B.C.
> Field Ornithologists), but it is currently inactive, and has never
> issued a provincial bird checklist. There are plans to reactivate this
> committee soon.
>
> Therefore, it is up to local observers to decide for themselves at
> this point whether the birds are "countable" by ABA standards. In this
> connection, it is worth noting than EURASIAN COLLARED-DOVES have been
> recorded as close to British Columbia as Spokane, Washington and
> Joseph in northeastern Oregon-- presumably, strays from the rapidly
> expanding populations in the eastern and southwestern U.S.
>
> Wayne C. Weber

 Wayne & All:

 I didn't read what Jeff wrote, so I don't know exactly what he said,
 but from what you wrote, I would agree that he is technically correct
 in stating that once a bird is on the ABA list it can be submitted
 with your list totals without it necessarily being accepted by that states
 or provinces records committee. In fact, one could go a step further
 & state that if a species is on the ABA Checklist you can submit it
 with your list totals from a state or provence even if that state or
 provincial records committee has voted to not accept that record. A good
 case in point would be the BC record of Xantus's Hummer. I've been told
 by a number of people (from BC & elsewhere), who saw that bird, that
 they were not going to count it because the BC records committee did not
 accept the record. I informed them that the local committee's OK was not
needed
 for them to count it on their ABA life list & include it with their list
 totals. The hummer was already on the ABA Checklist from a CA record
 that the ABA Chicklist Committee had accepted several years before the
 BC bird showed up. When a bird that is thought to be an accidental is
 first found in the ABA area, the ABA Checklist Committee usually waits
 until the appropriate records committee has reviewed the available
 evidence (specimen, photos, sound recordings, video tape & written
 descriptions), & has made their determination as to whether they will
 add the bird to the official list for that state or provence. When the
 materials are reviewed by the ABA Checklist Committee, they may, or may
 not agree with the local committee's conclusions & decision. This is
 the way it usually is done, but there is no hard & fast rule about this.
 The ABA Checklist Committee could review information & materials on a
 first ABA Area record before any local committee does so. After an
 accidental goes on the ABA Checklist subsequent records in other states
 & provinces are not reviewed by the ABA. It's up to you the ABA member
 as to whether you want to go along with local committees or not.

 The case of the Eurasian Collared-Dove is not the same thing, because it
 is an established exotic, not an accidental. Common sense tells us that
 if you see a Red-whiskered Bulbul in BC you can't count it on your ABA
 list even though it is on the ABA Checklist. Reason being, it is not
 established there. But this dove is no bulbul either. The bulbuls have
 stayed in Miami-Dade County but the dove has exploded out of there in
 a big way. If I were living in BC (please, no cracks about how that would
 raise the average IQ in Florida & lower it in BC), & wondering if I could
 count the bird on my ABA area & BC provincial life list totals, I would
 read 3 things before I made my decision:

 1. ABA Checklist Report, 1992. Birding, Vol.26, No.2, April 1994 pp 94 &
95.
 2. ABA Checklist Fifth Edition, 1996 pp 10 & 11.
 3. The 2000 Big Day Report & The 2000 List Report p 82, ABA Recording Rules
    & Interpretations, Rule 2, B, (iii).

 It may not be quite as cut & dried as Jeff thinks.

 Wes Biggs
 Florida Nature Tours, Orlando  407/363-1360  fnt(AT)gdi.net
 http://www.floridanaturetours.com   ABA sponsored


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley
From: Jeff Wilson <OLCOOT1(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 4:36pm

----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----

In a message dated 2/14/02 4:39:58 PM Central Standard Time, fnt(AT)GDI.NET
writes:

> It may not be quite as cut & dried as Jeff thinks.
>
>
>

You can't tell what I think unless you take the time to read all I wrote.;o)
I have read all that you listed and even copied some of the rules in my
answer to the list. I still hold to what I wrote. It is again up to the
individual not up to the state and provincial record committees.............

Good Birding!!!

Jeff R. Wilson
OL' COOT / TLBA
Bartlett Tenn.

----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Doves in the Similkameen Valley
From: Laurent Raty <l_raty(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 5:37pm

Wayne, Jeff, Wes and all,

>However, Jeff Wilson is correct that a bird species needs to be
>accepted only by the ABA checklist committee for the ABA area-- not by
>a state or provincial records committee-- before it can be included on
>lists submitted to the ABA.

As I understand it, they *also* need to be "wild"... which, for birds
descendant from escape birds, means that they have to meet the ABA Rule 3 B.
(iii): "be part of a population which meets the ABA definition of an
established introduced population" (ie, be part of a species that has
established populations in the ABA area is NOT enough; this also means that
an isolated record has NO significance unless it can be proved to be a stray
from an established population which, I'm afraid, is nearly impossible).

Frustratingly, I couldn't find this definition on the ABA website.
The only thing I could find about it was in a post by Allen Chartier to
BirdChat (http://birdingonthe.net/chat/17_Dec_2001_to_18_Dec_2001.html):

"This definition states that an exotic bird is established when:
a) there is a deme, a more-or-less contiguous wild population of potentially
interacting individuals, rather than a scattering of isolated individuals or
pairs;
b) the population is large enough to survive a normal amount of accidental
mortality and nesting failure;
c) sufficient numbers of offspring are being fledged annually to maintain or
increase the population level; and
d) the population is not directly dependent on human support."

I don't really know if you have to wait for your State/Provincial BRC to
decide about it for you or not... But I'm sure of one thing: this definition
is complex enough to make it nearly impossible to determine if a population
meets it just by watching the birds. You'd need a more in-depth study.

That said, I'm not completely sure this list is the best place to discuss
this issue...

Regards,
Laurent


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Listowner comment
From: will russell <russellbw(AT)EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 7:43am

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----

The identification of the Similkamen doves is, of course, an appropriate =
topic for Id-Frontiers but any discussion of their "acceptability" =
should be carried out elsewhere.

Thanks,

Will Russell - Listowner

Will Russell
russellbw(AT)earthlink.net

----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: BC Doves and Selasphorus photo ID Question
From: Don Gorney <dongorney(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 9:43am

I am surprised by the lack of discussion about the ID of the doves
reported by Chris Charlesworth in British Columbia.  I e-mailed Chris
privately with my dissenting view of the doves ID being Eurasian
Collared-doves (ECDOs) based on his description.  Chris' original
e-mail and his private response back to me indicate the doves in
question had WHITE undertail coverts.  From personal observations and
what I have read in the literature, ECDOs should not have white
undertail coverts.  I have closely viewed approximately 125-150 ECDOs
from a number of locations in Florida.  Not one of these birds had
white or whitish undertail coverts.  So, does anyone have information
that indicates ECDOs (the ones being seen here in US) sometimes have
white undertail coverts?

An almost first or second state record here in Indiana involved a bird
very similar to Chris' description.  The bird appeared to be an ECDO
and gave a three-parted song that matched that of ECDO.  However,
besides the very white undertail coverts there were a few other
physical characteristics that were bothersome.  (I also had lingering
doubts about the origin of this bird based on a few things that are
irrelevant for this discussion).  But, the important thing here is the
bird gave the call of an ECDO and the song was heard by many birders.
Bill Smith viewed the photos of the bird on-line and indicated his
doubts about the bird being a true ECDO.  In the end, I assume the bird
was a hybrid (and probably of captive origin) even though it gave what
sounded like the correct song.  Photos are available at
http://www.indianaaudubon.org/gallery/eucdindy.htm

I guess another question is do ECDOs outside of the US sometimes have
white undertail coverts?  If the BC flock truly dates back to the
1970's then it predates the released Bahama flock and one would need to
consider an Old World origin for the original bird stock.

If you're still with me I have a question about a Selasphorus photo.
Can the bird in the picture at the link below even begin to be called a
Rufous Hummingbird based solely on the picture?  I assume that the
photo ID has to be relegated to the Selasphorus category.  Although I
believe the bird to be an immature male Rufous based on visual
observations, the picture just didn't capture enough details.  The
photo can be viewed at <http://www.dongorney.com/hummer.htm>

Thanks for any response.

=====
Don Gorney
Indianapolis, IN
dongorney(AT)yahoo.com
www.dongorney.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail
http://mail.yahoo.com


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Selasphorus photo ID Question
From: Mike Patterson <celata(AT)pacifier.com>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 10:18am

I downloaded your photo and brightened it.  It does appear to
be a Selasphorus Hummingbirds, probably a first winter male.
The tail is very short looking in the photograph which suggests
it may be still growing in (it's really too short looking for
any Selasphorus).

A shorter tail would favor Allen's, but is way too hard to
judge except in hand.  Without clearer images of the tail,
I'm afraid you're stuck at Selasphorus sp.

Don Gorney wrote:
>
> If you're still with me I have a question about a Selasphorus photo.
> Can the bird in the picture at the link below even begin to be called a
> Rufous Hummingbird based solely on the picture?  I assume that the
> photo ID has to be relegated to the Selasphorus category.  Although I
> believe the bird to be an immature male Rufous based on visual
> observations, the picture just didn't capture enough details.  The
> photo can be viewed at <http://www.dongorney.com/hummer.htm>
>
> Thanks for any response.
>
> =====
> Don Gorney
> Indianapolis, IN
> dongorney(AT)yahoo.com
> www.dongorney.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail
> http://mail.yahoo.com

--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
celata(AT)pacifier.com

http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/bird/bird.html


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: BC dove ID
From: Paul Lehman <lehmfinn(AT)BELLATLANTIC.NET>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11am

IDFrontiers:

I was happy to read Don Gorney's posting about the identification of the
BC doves because, like him, I had been bothered by the described color
of the undertail coverts, and had written Chris Charlesworth about this
"problem" when the news was first spread, and wondered if the birds
might be some sort of domestic form of collared-dove. Given that the BC
birds were the result of local releases and not from the exploding
population to the southeast, this possibility is even more likely. This
situation is a good example of how perhaps not all "Eurasian
Collared-Doves" turning up in new places are, in fact, that species. I
believe that Michigan's overdue first Eurasian Collared-Dove last summer
turned out to be a Ringed Turtle-Dove. And escaped domestic
collared-doves or hybrids/intergrades, or whatever some dove fanciers
might conceivably create, are more difficult to separate from a true
Eurasian Collared-Dove than is a Ringed Turtle-Dove.

Now, I know most of us really want to spend our free time checking out
every report of "Eurasian Collared-Dove" when they turn up at new
localities....!!  But the identification of some of these birds is less
than certain.

Paul Lehman
Cape May, NJ


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: BC dove ID
From: Michael Retter <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 1:41pm

Paul Lehman's comments are expecially relevant here in the Midwest.  For
decades, there has existed in NE Illinois a very viable 'hybrid swarm' of
Streptopelia doves, making the occurence of "real" EUCDs in Illinois,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana (and especially in the Chicago area) very
difficult to prove.  It sounds as if the British Columbian population is
similar to the one in Chicagoland.  Perhaps the IL population may even have
produced the aforementioned Michigan bird?  I wasn't sure if the rest of the
country knew of the existence of this population, so I thought I'd lay it
out on the table, so to speak.  Its mere presence should caution finders of
Streptopelia in the surrounding states to be especially careful when trying
to identify them.  But still, there are now many populations (some of up to
100 birds) of what appear to be "good" EUCDs in southern and central
Illinois.  There is an article on Chicago's hybrid Streptopelia population
in Meadowlark, the journal of the Ill. Ornithological Soc.  If anyone is
interested in this article, please feel free to contact me.

Michael L. P. Retter
Illinois Wesleyan Univ.
Bloomington, IL

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: BC dove ID
From: Ross Silcock <rsilcoc(AT)SIDNEY.HEARTLAND.NET>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 2:10pm

Hi all:
In this context I think the distribution of Eur Collared-Dove (ECDO) in
Nebraska is interesting and perhaps instructive. Currently most towns in the
Panhandle (west) have a few ECDOs, whereas in central and eastern Nebraska
ECDOs are almost non-existent. It seems clear that western birds have spread
from the south (I believe the distribution is similar in Kansas to that in
Nebraska) and that eastern Nebraska birds may be stragglers from captivity
or from populations such as that in Illinois (as well as a few "genuine"
birds). As Paul points out, discriminating ID of these birds could provide
clues to the derivation of these birds.
Ross

Ross Silcock
First Express Insurance
P.O. Box 369
Sidney, IA  51653
rsilcoc(AT)firstexpressinsurance.com
http://firstexpressinsurance.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Retter" <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] BC dove ID

> Paul Lehman's comments are expecially relevant here in the Midwest.  For
> decades, there has existed in NE Illinois a very viable 'hybrid swarm' of
> Streptopelia doves, making the occurence of "real" EUCDs in Illinois,
> Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana (and especially in the Chicago area) very
> difficult to prove.  It sounds as if the British Columbian population is
> similar to the one in Chicagoland.  Perhaps the IL population may even
have
> produced the aforementioned Michigan bird?  I wasn't sure if the rest of
the
> country knew of the existence of this population, so I thought I'd lay it
> out on the table, so to speak.  Its mere presence should caution finders
of
> Streptopelia in the surrounding states to be especially careful when
trying
> to identify them.  But still, there are now many populations (some of up
to
> 100 birds) of what appear to be "good" EUCDs in southern and central
> Illinois.  There is an article on Chicago's hybrid Streptopelia population
> in Meadowlark, the journal of the Ill. Ornithological Soc.  If anyone is
> interested in this article, please feel free to contact me.
>
> Michael L. P. Retter
> Illinois Wesleyan Univ.
> Bloomington, IL
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: BC dove ID
From: Sebastian Patti <sebastianpatti(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 2:36pm

Many things seem to move from Kansas to Nebraska . . .

:~)

sebastianpatti(AT)hotmail.com
Sebastian Patti
Chicago, ILLINOIS

>From: Ross Silcock <rsilcoc(AT)SIDNEY.HEARTLAND.NET>
>Reply-To: Ross Silcock <rsilcoc(AT)SIDNEY.HEARTLAND.NET>
>To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
>Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] BC dove ID
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:11:04 -0600
>
>Hi all:
>In this context I think the distribution of Eur Collared-Dove (ECDO) in
>Nebraska is interesting and perhaps instructive. Currently most towns in
>the
>Panhandle (west) have a few ECDOs, whereas in central and eastern Nebraska
>ECDOs are almost non-existent. It seems clear that western birds have
>spread
>from the south (I believe the distribution is similar in Kansas to that in
>Nebraska) and that eastern Nebraska birds may be stragglers from captivity
>or from populations such as that in Illinois (as well as a few "genuine"
>birds). As Paul points out, discriminating ID of these birds could provide
>clues to the derivation of these birds.
>Ross
>
>Ross Silcock
>First Express Insurance
>P.O. Box 369
>Sidney, IA  51653
>rsilcoc(AT)firstexpressinsurance.com
>http://firstexpressinsurance.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Retter" <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
>To: <BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] BC dove ID
>
>
> > Paul Lehman's comments are expecially relevant here in the Midwest.  For
> > decades, there has existed in NE Illinois a very viable 'hybrid swarm'
>of
> > Streptopelia doves, making the occurence of "real" EUCDs in Illinois,
> > Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana (and especially in the Chicago area)
>very
> > difficult to prove.  It sounds as if the British Columbian population is
> > similar to the one in Chicagoland.  Perhaps the IL population may even
>have
> > produced the aforementioned Michigan bird?  I wasn't sure if the rest of
>the
> > country knew of the existence of this population, so I thought I'd lay
>it
> > out on the table, so to speak.  Its mere presence should caution finders
>of
> > Streptopelia in the surrounding states to be especially careful when
>trying
> > to identify them.  But still, there are now many populations (some of up
>to
> > 100 birds) of what appear to be "good" EUCDs in southern and central
> > Illinois.  There is an article on Chicago's hybrid Streptopelia
>population
> > in Meadowlark, the journal of the Ill. Ornithological Soc.  If anyone is
> > interested in this article, please feel free to contact me.
> >
> > Michael L. P. Retter
> > Illinois Wesleyan Univ.
> > Bloomington, IL
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: ian paulsen <ipaulsen(AT)KRL.ORG>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 3:01pm

HI ALL:
 I read recently that the "blue" morph of Ross's Goose is actually a
hybrid between the Blue morph Snow Goose and Ross's Goose. Is this
true? Are there any true blue morph Ross's Geese??

Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way"


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: "Mark W. Eaton" <mweaton(AT)PACBELL.NET>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 3:19pm

There's a photo of a blue morph Ross's Goose from the 23rd of November from
Sacramento NWR at:

        http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jmorlan/gallery.htm

Mark

---
Mark Eaton
mailto:mweaton(AT)pacbell.net
SFBirds Web Page
http://home.pacbell.net/mweaton
SFBirds mailing list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SFBirds

"Moving from one Brooklyn or Staten Island Neighborhood to another was
fine, but unless you had children to think about, even the homeless
saw it as a step down to leave Manhattan."               DAVID SEDARIS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
> [mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu]On Behalf Of ian paulsen
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:01 PM
> To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
>
>
> HI ALL:
>  I read recently that the "blue" morph of Ross's Goose is actually a
> hybrid between the Blue morph Snow Goose and Ross's Goose. Is this
> true? Are there any true blue morph Ross's Geese??
>
> Ian Paulsen
> Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
> ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
> A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
> "Rallidae all the way"
>


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: BC dove ID
From: creagrus <creagrus(AT)MONTEREYBAY.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 4:09pm

I am very glad to see the recent commentary on i.d. and distribution of
collared-doves. Here in northern California (Middle Pacific Coast Region
in NAB) we published a short note in our Regional report in the past
year that "new" populations of Eurasian Collared-Doves around King City,
Monterey County, proved not to be range expansion from the populations
in southern California, but were traced (rather fortuitously!) to
intentional releases in the immediate vicinity a couple years ago. The
birds appear to be breeding now. Thus this is an example of the spread
of this dove by human-aided releases -- not range expansion.
[Incidentally, feathers from this population have been collected and
sent for DNA analysis in the on-going project in Florida on this topic.]
I believe that the entire California population, wherever it exists, is
the result of continued releases by people, and not at all related to
range expansion in the southeastern U.S.

Also, various reports of Eurasian Collared-Doves around the Monterey
area this fall proved to be Ringed Turtle-Doves or variants.
Identification caution is certainly warranted with claims of this dove
in new locales, and the impact of human agency should not be
underestimated.

Don Roberson
Pacific Grove CA
[Regional Editor, North Amer. Birds]


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re 2 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: Michel Bertrand <bertrmi(AT)COLBA.NET>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 5:54pm

Mark W. Eaton has written :
> There's a photo of a blue morph Ross's Goose from the
> 23rd of November from Sacramento NWR at:
> http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jmorlan/gallery.htm
________________________________________

I have seen the photos and I'm inclines to think that this blue morph bird
is a Ross's x Snow Goose hybrid. See how the border at the base of bill is
curved and how it compares to the true Ross's Goose around which have a
straight border between bill and cheek. Also, the bird is not so small (it
seems larger than most birds beside it seeming pure Ross's), has not a very
short bill and seems to have a thin "grin line". The darkish area at bill
base shows it has something from the Ross's, but the bird seems intermediate
in structure.

See, especially in the two photos in the middle of the "plate", how the blue
morph bird look large when compared to the nearer Ross's and how it doesn't
have the gentle look of that species.

I have seen a few white morph hybrids until now. Last fall, in Saint-Jean
(Richelieu river, Québec province), there were thousands of geese and I have
had a few Ross's Geese, many Snow Geese and an Hybrid at the same time in my
scope, at a relatively close distance. The hybrid was really intermediate in
structure and size between the two species. And the hybrid had a curve
border at bill's base, where the Ross's Geese were having a very straight
border.

I still remember my first Ross's x Snow hybrid found a few years ago at
Baie-du-Febvre (Québec) in front of many thousands of Snow Geese. The bird
had a somewhat Ross's look among those Snow Geese, but was not small enough,
had not an enough small bill, had not the typical gentle appearence and had
a curved border at base of bill. A true Ross's Goose is so typical when we
really meet one.

Be happy...

     MICHEL BERTRAND
     Sainte-Julie, Qc
     bertrmi(AT)colba.net

Caressez longuement votre phrase, et elle finira par sourire.
-- Anatole France


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: Michael Retter <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:24pm

It is my understanding that a "true" blue morph Ross' would show much more
blue than the bird photographed at Sacramento NWR.  I would call this bird
an "intermediate" morph, personally.  For instance, it lacks the dark neck
and upper breast shown by a "true" blue morph Ross'.  However, the bird
pictured from 15 April 1999 in the same photo gallery looks like what I
think of when I hear "full" Blue morph Ross'--provided it's a full-blooded
Ross' Goose that is--whatever that means.

Michael L. P. Retter
Illinois Wesleyan Univ.
Bloomington, IL

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: Michel Bertrand <bertrmi(AT)COLBA.NET>
Date: 16 Feb 2002 12:41am

Michael Retter has written :
> It is my understanding that a "true" blue morph Ross' would
> show much more blue (...) However, the bird pictured from
> 15 April 1999 in the same photo gallery looks like what I
> think of when I hear "full" Blue morph Ross'--provided it's a
> full-blooded Ross' Goose that is--whatever that means.
_____________________________

The 1999 bird has quite a long bill too. I don't think the coloration is the
first thing to be taken in consideration to tell if a blue morph is a pure
Ross's Goose. Such a bird must qualify structurally to be a pure Ross's
Goose at first. After finding one which qualifies, it will be time for
analyzing the coloration.

The first question was about the existence of a true blue morph Ross's
Goose. That is a question I ask to myself too and for which I still haven't
an answer. All what I can say is that I have never seen a blue morph goose
being a true
Ross's Goose.

A good answer perhaps should come from somebody seeing larger numbers of
Ross's yearly that we can see in the East. I see only between one and five
Ross's a year here, putting a great emphasis in searching them. It is great,
in spring and fall, to look for one among thousands of Snow Geese. Doing so,
I have been able to see that some reported white Ross's Geese are, in fact,
hybrids.

Another question to which I'm searching an answer is if a pure Ross's can
have a grin line. Could it be that birds looking like Ross's with such a
dark line on bill are the result of introgression (and so not pure Ross's) ?

Salutations amicales...

     MICHEL BERTRAND
     Sainte-Julie, Qc
     bertrmi(AT)colba.net

Caressez longuement votre phrase, et elle finira par sourire.
-- Anatole France


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 16 Feb 2002 7:17am

Dear all,
To add to this debate, here are some (not too great) images of three "Blue
Ross's" from Texas during the same winter; two were in the same flock of
120+ Ross's and 2,000+ Snows.
http://members.tripod.com/~tbrc/brossgo.html
The Ribbles have extensive video of the first two birds, but at a distance;
I believe that Matt White has good video of the Tawakoni bird.  The first
bird is a juv/1B ( when do juv Chens molt?) - and thus is the first of this
age to appear in this discussion.
I would say that judging bill size/shape from just one or two cuts can be
misleading...In the field I studied the imm. bird at length via my scope,
and felt that its bill size and shape were the same as the Ross's it was
with, and its overall size and structure was identical; the adult-type bird
in the same flock looked to be a tad smaller than most of the nearby Ross's
(I have one image showing this) - but I was not able to study the bill well
enough to make a statement about it.

Has anyone else noticed that first-winter Ross's tend to look "different"
about the head, in that the bill APPEARS larger/deeper than on adutls?
(they also tend to look more "bull-necked" than adults, to my eye).  I
suspect that some of this is an optical illusion created by the subtle
dusky tones ahead and behind the eye and around the bill, but is there a
true, measurable difference in bill structure between imms and
adults?  look at the imms in the pics of the Nov 2001 Sacramento bird here:
http://fog.ccsf.org/~jmorlan/gallery.htm
- and this bird from the UK:
http://www.surfbirds.com/Rarities/ukstoppress-nov0106.html - and again here:
http://birdingpix.topcities.com/rosssgoose.htm - is this a pure Ross's - ?
I've seen published photos of "Ross's" with a strong grinning patch
(possibly in Birding World or Dutch Birding?) and:
- the head close- up in "Handbook of Waterfowl Identification" by Frank S.
Todd shows an adult with a dead-straight baseline, but a definite - small -
grinning patch
-Plate 16 in "California Birds" by Arnold Small shows an adult with dead
straight baseline, but longish bill and hint of grinning patch
-in the "Audubon Soc. Master Guide to Birding" both birds have a small
curve at the top of the baseline, and the imm's bill looks longish
-in the Kaufman Guide note the dark areas above/below the bill on the imm,
and how this affects our perception of the bill proportions compared  to
the adult (assuming these pics have not been retouched in this area)
http://www.fnal.gov/ecology/wildlife/specs/Rosss_Goose.html - straight
baseline, but "big" bill and sloping forehead
http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/DesJardin/Ross'sGoose(DD).JPG - bills
look very untypical!
http://pintolake.com/rossgoose.htm - much closer to "normal", but still
rather large bill, with sloping forehead
http://azwildbird.com/birdfoto/goose/ross.htm - close-up bird seems to have
a curve at the top of the baseline, and a hint of a grin; the "pair" both
look long-billed and the near bird has a curved baseline
http://personal.riverusers.com/~ghrosenberg/Arizona%20Photos/BlueRossGoose.html
- a blue adult; the bill appears to be a bit odd, but hard to be certain
http://www.greglasley.net/snowross.html - the Ross's has a curve at the
bottom of the baseline
http://www.citruscounty-fl.com/Gallery/pic20.jpg - from Florida - is the
culmen a bit too "straight"?
http://lupus.northern.edu:90/tallmand/ross.html - a Blue specimen; the bill
is tiny, but note the ginning patch and slight curve to the baseline
The question that comes to mind is: how much of this variation is within
the pure Ross's gene pool, and how much is due to hybridization
with/introgression from Snow?  This ID issue has not been seriously
addressed (to my knowledge) and is  important because a conservative
interpretation of this variation ( i.e. it is all due to introgression from
Snow)  might lead to the invalidation of numerous records away from the
expected range, and would mean that Ross's are NOT identifiable in flight
any more (as  F1 or F2 hybrids cannot be ruled out on structure and size).
Comments?
Cheers,
Martin

At 2/16/2002 02:57 AM -0400, you wrote:
>Michael Retter has written :
> > It is my understanding that a "true" blue morph Ross' would
> > show much more blue (...) However, the bird pictured from
> > 15 April 1999 in the same photo gallery looks like what I
> > think of when I hear "full" Blue morph Ross'--provided it's a
> > full-blooded Ross' Goose that is--whatever that means.
>_____________________________
>
>The 1999 bird has quite a long bill too. I don't think the coloration is the
>first thing to be taken in consideration to tell if a blue morph is a pure
>Ross's Goose. Such a bird must qualify structurally to be a pure Ross's
>Goose at first. After finding one which qualifies, it will be time for
>analyzing the coloration.
>
>The first question was about the existence of a true blue morph Ross's
>Goose. That is a question I ask to myself too and for which I still haven't
>an answer. All what I can say is that I have never seen a blue morph goose
>being a true
>Ross's Goose.
>
>A good answer perhaps should come from somebody seeing larger numbers of
>Ross's yearly that we can see in the East. I see only between one and five
>Ross's a year here, putting a great emphasis in searching them. It is great,
>in spring and fall, to look for one among thousands of Snow Geese. Doing so,
>I have been able to see that some reported white Ross's Geese are, in fact,
>hybrids.
>
>Another question to which I'm searching an answer is if a pure Ross's can
>have a grin line. Could it be that birds looking like Ross's with such a
>dark line on bill are the result of introgression (and so not pure Ross's) ?
>
>Salutations amicales...
>
>      MICHEL BERTRAND
>      Sainte-Julie, Qc
>      bertrmi(AT)colba.net
>
>Caressez longuement votre phrase, et elle finira par sourire.
>-- Anatole France

Martin Reid
Fort Worth, Texas
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
From: Michael Retter <mretter(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 16 Feb 2002 10:30am

Michel Bertrand wrote,

"The 1999 bird has quite a long bill too. I don't think the coloration is
the first thing to be taken in consideration to tell if a blue morph is a
pure
Ross's Goose. Such a bird must qualify structurally to be a pure Ross's
Goose at first. After finding one which qualifies, it will be time for
analyzing the coloration."

Just to clarify, it my previous post, I did not mean to convey that plumage
was the first step in proving a bird is a "pure" Ross' Goose . . . those
efforts would prove futile in my opinion.  I was not referring in any way to
introgression with Snow Goose, but rather to purity of "blueness," if that
makes any sense.  While fully acknowledging that there is a full spectrum of
plumages from "blue" to "white", I still don't see how one "pure blue morph"
bird can be bluer than the next bird unless the latter is in actuality an
intermediate morph bird.

Sorry for the confusion.

Michael L. P. Retter
Illinois Wesleyan Univ.
Bloomington, IL

>From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
>Reply-To: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
>To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
>Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Re 4 : TRUE BLUE Morph Ross's Goose??
>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:18:44 -0600
>
>Dear all,
>To add to this debate, here are some (not too great) images of three "Blue
>Ross's" from Texas during the same winter; two were in the same flock of
>120+ Ross's and 2,000+ Snows.
>http://members.tripod.com/~tbrc/brossgo.html
>The Ribbles have extensive video of the first two birds, but at a distance;
>I believe that Matt White has good video of the Tawakoni bird.  The first
>bird is a juv/1B ( when do juv Chens molt?) - and thus is the first of this
>age to appear in this discussion.
>I would say that judging bill size/shape from just one or two cuts can be
>misleading...In the field I studied the imm. bird at length via my scope,
>and felt that its bill size and shape were the same as the Ross's it was
>with, and its overall size and structure was identical; the adult-type bird
>in the same flock looked to be a tad smaller than most of the nearby Ross's
>(I have one image showing this) - but I was not able to study the bill well
>enough to make a statement about it.
>
>Has anyone else noticed that first-winter Ross's tend to look "different"
>about the head, in that the bill APPEARS larger/deeper than on adutls?
>(they also tend to look more "bull-necked" than adults, to my eye).  I
>suspect that some of this is an optical illusion created by the subtle
>dusky tones ahead and behind the eye and around the bill, but is there a
>true, measurable difference in bill structure between imms and
>adults?  look at the imms in the pics of the Nov 2001 Sacramento bird here:
>http://fog.ccsf.org/~jmorlan/gallery.htm
>- and this bird from the UK:
>http://www.surfbirds.com/Rarities/ukstoppress-nov0106.html - and again
>here:
>http://birdingpix.topcities.com/rosssgoose.htm - is this a pure Ross's - ?
>I've seen published photos of "Ross's" with a strong grinning patch
>(possibly in Birding World or Dutch Birding?) and:
>- the head close- up in "Handbook of Waterfowl Identification" by Frank S.
>Todd shows an adult with a dead-straight baseline, but a definite - small -
>grinning patch
>-Plate 16 in "California Birds" by Arnold Small shows an adult with dead
>straight baseline, but longish bill and hint of grinning patch
>-in the "Audubon Soc. Master Guide to Birding" both birds have a small
>curve at the top of the baseline, and the imm's bill looks longish
>-in the Kaufman Guide note the dark areas above/below the bill on the imm,
>and how this affects our perception of the bill proportions compared  to
>the adult (assuming these pics have not been retouched in this area)
>http://www.fnal.gov/ecology/wildlife/specs/Rosss_Goose.html - straight
>baseline, but "big" bill and sloping forehead
>http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/DesJardin/Ross'sGoose(DD).JPG - bills
>look very untypical!
>http://pintolake.com/rossgoose.htm - much closer to "normal", but still
>rather large bill, with sloping forehead
>http://azwildbird.com/birdfoto/goose/ross.htm - close-up bird seems to have
>a curve at the top of the baseline, and a hint of a grin; the "pair" both
>look long-billed and the near bird has a curved baseline
>http://personal.riverusers.com/~ghrosenberg/Arizona%20Photos/BlueRossGoose.html
>- a blue adult; the bill appears to be a bit odd, but hard to be certain
>http://www.greglasley.net/snowross.html - the Ross's has a curve at the
>bottom of the baseline
>http://www.citruscounty-fl.com/Gallery/pic20.jpg - from Florida - is the
>culmen a bit too "straight"?
>http://lupus.northern.edu:90/tallmand/ross.html - a Blue specimen; the bill
>is tiny, but note the ginning patch and slight curve to the baseline
>The question that comes to mind is: how much of this variation is within
>the pure Ross's gene pool, and how much is due to hybridization
>with/introgression from Snow?  This ID issue has not been seriously
>addressed (to my knowledge) and is  important because a conservative
>interpretation of this variation ( i.e. it is all due to introgression from
>Snow)  might lead to the invalidation of numerous records away from the
>expected range, and would mean that Ross's are NOT identifiable in flight
>any more (as  F1 or F2 hybrids cannot be ruled out on structure and size).
>Comments?
>Cheers,
>Martin
>
>At 2/16/2002 02:57 AM -0400, you wrote:
>>Michael Retter has written :
>> > It is my understanding that a "true" blue morph Ross' would
>> > show much more blue (...) However, the bird pictured from
>> > 15 April 1999 in the same photo gallery looks like what I
>> > think of when I hear "full" Blue morph Ross'--provided it's a
>> > full-blooded Ross' Goose that is--whatever that means.
>>_____________________________
>>
>>The 1999 bird has quite a long bill too. I don't think the coloration is
>>the
>>first thing to be taken in consideration to tell if a blue morph is a pure
>>Ross's Goose. Such a bird must qualify structurally to be a pure Ross's
>>Goose at first. After finding one which qualifies, it will be time for
>>analyzing the coloration.
>>
>>The first question was about the existence of a true blue morph Ross's
>>Goose. That is a question I ask to myself too and for which I still
>>haven't
>>an answer. All what I can say is that I have never seen a blue morph goose
>>being a true
>>Ross's Goose.
>>
>>A good answer perhaps should come from somebody seeing larger numbers of
>>Ross's yearly that we can see in the East. I see only between one and five
>>Ross's a year here, putting a great emphasis in searching them. It is
>>great,
>>in spring and fall, to look for one among thousands of Snow Geese. Doing
>>so,
>>I have been able to see that some reported white Ross's Geese are, in
>>fact,
>>hybrids.
>>
>>Another question to which I'm searching an answer is if a pure Ross's can
>>have a grin line. Could it be that birds looking like Ross's with such a
>>dark line on bill are the result of introgression (and so not pure Ross's)
>>?
>>
>>Salutations amicales...
>>
>>      MICHEL BERTRAND
>>      Sainte-Julie, Qc
>>      bertrmi(AT)colba.net
>>
>>Caressez longuement votre phrase, et elle finira par sourire.
>>-- Anatole France
>
>Martin Reid
>Fort Worth, Texas
>upupa(AT)airmail.net
>http://www.martinreid.com

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Re: BC dove ID
From: Peter Wilkinson <pcwilkinson(AT)clara.co.uk>
Date: 16 Feb 2002 3:09pm

Hi All,

This is an ID in which I have been interested for some time. I see ECDOs
every day here and have banded somewhere over 500 in recent years. I see
Ringed (or Barbary as we tend to know them) at least once a week as a
friend has them in captivity and I have been through the skins in the
British Museum looking at African Collared Dove, the wild species from
which Ringed derives.

I too have responded to Chris privately about the white undertail
coverts. They really do need to be grey(ish) for ECDO, at least from the
many thousands I have seen over here. The photo in October 2001's
Birding Quiz (repeated with the answer in Dec 2001) is spot on in tone.
Interestingly at least one correspondent on another e-mail list thought
they were white rather than grey. That photo also shows the pattern of
the outermost tail feather very well, though not all are quite as well
marked as that one. Hybrids are not an issue over here as there are
hardly any places where Ringed has established any toehold as a feral
species and the only hybrids I have ever seen were three or four,
unfortunately rather briefly, in Majorca in 1997 (they never called, so
I don't know what they would have sounded like).

I have looked at the photos referred to by Don Gurney at

http://www.indianaaudubon.org/gallery/eucdindy.htm

I doubt whether anyone would have given it a second look as anything
other than ECDO over here. I take it that there was independent evidence
apart from the photos that the undertail coverts were white as I am
having some difficulty making them out reliably from the photos. On the
top one, there is just a hint of them, but they look grey on my screen;
on the second, third and fourth the white looks as though it may be an
artefact of the photography and on the fifth photo they look pale but
not the really contrasting white one might expect. Overall the bird is
certainly not a standard Ringed, which would be much paler. I have read
that breeders have managed to get Ringed to look like its original
parent, African Collared, but have never seen one. From the skins, wild
African Collared are very similar in colour on the upperparts to ECDO,
but with paler pinkish underparts turning to white, which runs to the
undertail coverts; structurally, they are noticeably smaller and
daintier. This bird looks a trifle slimmer than most ECDO (though not in
the fifth photo), but it is always difficult to tell from photos.

Very occasionally ECDO throws a pale fawn sport (I've banded two - for
one of them we got a captive Barbary out of its cage to compare! - and
seen a third, but that's in over forty years). That's a spectacular
bird!

They are certainly worth looking at.

Peter Wilkinson
Wheathampstead, Herts, England
pcwilkinson(AT)clara.co.uk


[ << | >> | ^^ ]

Subject: Kamchatka Gull in MA?, addendum
From: Jim Barton <redwing1986(AT)ATTBI.COM>
Date: 16 Feb 2002 6:54pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----

    Hello.  I should have added that a noticeable length of the tibi was =
visible above the knee.  Ordinarily, I would have interpreted the =
apparent long legs of the bird as a sign of Ring-billed. =20

    Yours,

Jim Barton
redwing1986(AT)attbi.com
brdbk(AT)aol.com
Cambridge, MA

Proact...campaigning for birds and their habitats,=20
before it's too late
www.proactnow.org

----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----