 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for March 17-23, 2002
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Eurasian Wigeon numbers | ian paulsen | Sun, 17 Mar 2002 | 5:13pm |
| Re: Eurasian Wigeon numbers | Bruce Deuel | Sun, 17 Mar 2002 | 9:30pm |
| HYBRID GOLDENEYE AT MERRITT, B.C. | Wayne C. Weber | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 | 2:30pm |
| Mystery Gull | Jonathan Simms | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 | 4:54pm |
| Re: Mystery Gull | Phil Pickering | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 | 6:31pm |
| Early follow-up on Mystery Gull post | Jonathan Simms | Mon, 18 Mar 2002 | 8:29pm |
| Re: Mystery Gull | Dick Newell | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 12:06am |
| Straits of Messina (Sicily - Southern Italy)
Raptors Survey | Andrea Corso | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 2:21am |
| Re: Eurasian Wigeon numbers | Wayne C. Weber | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 6:13am |
| American/Eurasian Wigeon | Paul Larkin | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 7:41am |
| IL Mystery Gull | Matt Sharp | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 10:01am |
| Re: IL Mystery Gull | Dick Newell | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 12:52pm |
| Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull | Jonathan Simms | Tue, 19 Mar 2002 | 4:09pm |
| Re: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull | Laurent Raty | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 3:44am |
| Re: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull | Allen Chartier | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 5:53am |
| Re: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull | Matt Sharp | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 9:11am |
| genes and mystery gull. | Alvaro Jaramillo | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 9:10am |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Martin Reid | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 12:21pm |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Allen Chartier | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 5:55pm |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Allen Chartier | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 6:06pm |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Cliff and Lisa Weiss | Wed, 20 Mar 2002 | 7:02pm |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Chris Elphick | Thu, 21 Mar 2002 | 6:18am |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Cliff and Lisa Weiss | Thu, 21 Mar 2002 | 10:41am |
| Sandpoint, Idaho dark-mantled gull photos (fwd) | ian paulsen | Thu, 21 Mar 2002 | 11:22am |
| Fw: Sandpoint, Idaho dark-mantled gull photos
(fwd) | ian paulsen | Thu, 21 Mar 2002 | 11:41am |
| Eur X Amer Wigeon | Steven Mlodinow | Thu, 21 Mar 2002 | 5:51pm |
| Re: Mystery Gull (fwd) | Harry Lehto | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 6:12am |
| Re: Mystery Gull (fwd) | Laurent Raty | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 8:34am |
| Re: Eur X Amer Wigeon | Lethaby, Nick | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 10:08am |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Dick Newell | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 11:36am |
| Eur X Amer Wigeon | Angus Wilson | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 11:59am |
| Re: Eurasian Wigeon numbers | Jon King | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 12:15pm |
| Re: Glaucous X herring gull hybrids | Jon King | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 12:15pm |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Chris Elphick | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 12:39pm |
| Re: genes and mystery gull. | Dick Newell | Fri, 22 Mar 2002 | 5:35pm |
| Re: Eur X Amer Wigeon | Lethaby, Nick | Sat, 23 Mar 2002 | 7:53pm |
| Re: Eur X Amer Wigeon | Jeff Gilligan | Sat, 23 Mar 2002 | 8:26pm |
| Need help IDing a small bird - Redpoll???? | Jamie Wapisay | Sat, 23 Mar 2002 | 10:08pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Eurasian Wigeon numbers
From: ian paulsen <ipaulsen(AT)KRL.ORG>
Date: 17 Mar 2002 5:13pm
HI ALL:
With all the interest in the Samish Flats, WA Falcated Duck something
there has been overlooked. Up to 150 Eurasian Wigeons have been reported
in the area. I was wondering if any other place in North America has had
such a high total???
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way"
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eurasian Wigeon numbers
From: Bruce Deuel <bkrdeuel(AT)SNOWCREST.NET>
Date: 17 Mar 2002 9:30pm
At the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, Butte Co., California, in 1991 and 1992,
the CBC totals for Eurasian Wigeon were 85 and 87, respectively, but the
person counting them only identified males, so theoretically there may be
double that amount. No one has tried that hard since, however, and our CBC
totals average 25-30 now.
Cheers,
Bruce Deuel
Red Bluff, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "ian paulsen" <ipaulsen(AT)KRL.ORG>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:12 PM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Eurasian Wigeon numbers
> HI ALL:
> With all the interest in the Samish Flats, WA Falcated Duck something
> there has been overlooked. Up to 150 Eurasian Wigeons have been reported
> in the area. I was wondering if any other place in North America has had
> such a high total???
>
> Ian Paulsen
> Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
> ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
> A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
> "Rallidae all the way"
>
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: HYBRID GOLDENEYE AT MERRITT, B.C.
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)SHAW.CA>
Date: 18 Mar 2002 2:30pm
Birders,
Yesterday, March 17, I observed a hybrid male BARROW'S X COMMON
GOLDENEYE in the Nicola River at Merritt, B.C. The hybrid was in the
river close to a bridge on Voght Street, only about 2 blocks north of
the centre of Merritt. It was seen less than 10 metres away, and was
in close company with 2 COMMON GOLDENEYES, 3 BARROW'S GOLDENEYES, and
a pair of COMMON MERGANSERS.
The hybrid goldeneye had a head shape intermediate between the two
species (forehead not as sharp as in Barrow's, not as rounded as in
Common). In bright sunshine, it showed both purplish and greenish
iridescence on the head. The white spot in front of the bill was
teardrop-shaped, again halfway between the circular white spot of the
Common and crescent-shaped white mark of the Barrow's. The wing
coverts looked closer to those of a Common Goldeneye, with a little
more black, but not nearly as much black as in 2 nearby male Barrow's.
This is a rather rare waterfowl hybrid, although I have seen them a
few times previously. Intriguingly, one of my previous sightings was a
bird almost identical in appearance, seen almost exactly 2 years ago
(March 19, 2000) in almost the same locality (on the Nicola River
about 3 km west of Merritt). I strongly suspect that this was the same
goldeneye, which I happened to find on its spring migration 2 years
out of 3! Birds, like people, can be creatures of habit.
Hybrid goldeneyes are scarce enough in the wild that all sightings
are worth reporting. I don't know if there is someone systematically
keeping track of this and other hybrid ducks seen in the wild in North
America, but if so, I'd be interested in contacting any such
person(s).
Wayne C. Weber
114-525 Dalgleish Drive
Kamloops, BC V2C 6E4
Phone: (250) 377-8865
contopus(AT)shaw.ca
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Mystery Gull
From: Jonathan Simms <jaeger78(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2002 4:54pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
View the link below to see images of the 1st winter Mystery Gull digi-sco=
ped by Carolyn Fields on February 16, 2002 during the first annual Gull F=
rolic at Winthrop Harbor, Lake County, IL (on Lake Michigan, north of Chi=
cago, USA, for the ID Frontiers folks). Select the "A Mystery Gull" folde=
r.
http://photos.yahoo.com/c7echoes
Lighting conditions varied throughout the day, at times being strong and =
bright; at other times being overcast. The bird was observed sitting on t=
he water and flying (responding to chumming). There were many other gulls=
in the immediate vicinity: ~1000 - 2000 "American" Herring Gulls, 3 Glau=
cous Gulls, 3-5 "Kumlien's" Iceland Gulls, ~6-10 Thayer's Gulls and <300 =
Ring-billed Gulls. Images of some of these birds are in the "Gull Fest Ph=
oto Quiz" folder, for those who are interested.
The ID of this bird has been the subject of considerable debate including=
extensive literature, video and web-site reviews, and a review of the Gu=
ll Skin collection at the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago, IL - =
many thanks to Dave Willard). Unfortunately, none point to a probable/con=
clusive ID.
I submit the following points for your consideration:
1) the bird was slightly larger than the majority of the Herring Gulls pr=
esent at this location. It appeared somewhat bulkier through the chest an=
d deeper-winged (than Herring). The bill structure appears a bit odd for =
Herring, but does not (I believe) support Glaucous-winged or Glaucous-win=
ged X Western.
2) the bird was quite pale, and (relatively) uniformly so, but there was =
some contrast between the mantle and the tertials/primaries (moreso than =
the Thayer's Gulls present). The overall pattern is strongly suggestive o=
f Herring Gull. Note the pale inner, and dark outer webs of the outer pri=
maries seen in the flying images and the pale-ish head and blotchy neck p=
atterning in the sitting bird. Note also the pattern in the tertials, dif=
ferent from any other bird seen that day, including Thayer's.
3) the bird had unusually pale under-primaries and under-secondaries, con=
trasting heavily with the underwing coverts.
4) the bill was largely dark, but there appears to be the suggestion of s=
ome pinkish at the base.
For those who are interested, the "best guesses" are:
- leucistic "American" Herring Gull;
- a very oddly patterned Thayer's Gull (redundant ?!?);
- "American" Herring X ???? - Glaucous was originally proposed, but does =
not appear to be a good match based upon existing images on the various G=
ull web-sites (i.e. Martin Reid, etc.);
- "Vega" Herring X Slaty-backed (pure conjecture, but no other good possi=
bilities have presented themselves).
I would prefer that responses be sent to the mailing list(s) rather than =
to me, however, I will gladly discuss off-line if desired.
Kinds regards,
Jonathan Simms
jaeger78(AT)hotmail.com
Lombard, Dupage County, IL (USA)Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer=
download : http://explorer.msn.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Mystery Gull
From: Phil Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2002 6:31pm
Structurally it looks like a Herring. I'm not sure what can be
confidently said about it beyond that. It actually doesn't look
that far off from one of those pale European Herrings that
have been debated on this list just a few times. I assume
statistically it's much more likely an unusually pale smithsonianus,
or smithsonianus x something pale. On the west coast, the
Herring structure, pale plumage, and still almost all-dark bill
would suggest Herring x Glaucous-winged, and I don't really
see anything wrong with the plumage for that cross. Can't
see the uppertail/rump area very well.
Cheers,
Phil Pickering
Lincoln City, Oregon
philliplc(AT)harborside.com
View the link below to see images of the 1st winter Mystery Gull digi-scoped by
Carolyn Fields on February 16,
2002 during the first annual Gull Frolic at Winthrop Harbor, Lake County, IL (on
Lake Michigan, north of
Chicago, USA, for the ID Frontiers folks). Select the "A Mystery Gull" folder.
http://photos.yahoo.com/c7echoes
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Early follow-up on Mystery Gull post
From: Jonathan Simms <jaeger78(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2002 8:29pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Thanks for the replies from everyone so far (hopefully there are more to =
come). There are a number of suggestions for Herring X Glaucous-winged, a=
nd, interestingly enough, one decidedly against this combination (an expe=
rienced birder focusing on bill structure - yet I don't think this Myster=
y Gull's bill structure is quite right for HERG). I will continue to cons=
ider all feedback.
Several people have included links to a presumed HERG X GWGU image at The=
Gull Identification Website (thanks, BTW). I did review this image durin=
g my original search, but I discounted it for some reason. I don't recall=
why; I think it had to do with the contrast in the secondary bar and tai=
l/rump contrast, but perhaps I was focusing too narrowly and not consider=
ing typical hybrid variability (for shame!).
Now that I look at it more closely (ESPECIALLY the tertials) I can see me=
rit in this suggestion. Carolyn and I spent a couple of hours going over =
tertial patterns of HERG, THGU, ICGU and GLGU at the Field Museum (and ev=
en got some digital photos). I do recall only briefly reviewing the terti=
als of GWGU and thinking in passing that they looked promising, but did n=
ot investigate further (DOH!).
I will look for more references on this hybrid combination (HERG X GWGU) =
and see what I can find.
For what it's worth, a number of people have commented that the "Vega" He=
rring Gull X Slaty-backed "conjectural" hybrid would/could be too dark to=
be this bird, but I don't think it's that simple. I'm not suggesting tha=
t this bird is such a hybrid (I don't know if such has ever been document=
ed before, let alone occurring in Illinois!), but consider that 1st winte=
r Slaty-backed is rather pale for such a dark-mantled gull; they are pale=
st in 1st summer. I think such a hypothetical hybrid would/could be as si=
milarly pale as this bird and perhaps "dismissed" as a HERG X GLGW or som=
e such, IMHO, of course.
For IBETers who asked about prior discussion of this bird (after all it h=
as been a month since it was seen), this is Gull # 6 and Gull #7 in Carol=
yn's "Gull Fest Photo Quiz" (same link, different folder).
Once again, any thanks for the feedback. I hope there is more to come.
Kind regards,
JonathanGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explo=
rer.msn.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Mystery Gull
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)MACUNLIMITED.NET>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 12:06am
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
If this turned up in the UK, it might go down as a pale northern argentatus
Herring Gull, but more likely, given its very translucent wings and what
appears to be a lack of any tail-band, a Herring x Glaucous hybrid (which
no-one seems to have considered as a possibility). I guess a smithsonianus x
hyperboreus hybrid is less likely to have an all black bill, but it is
possible.
Dick Newell
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Straits of Messina (Sicily - Southern Italy)
Raptors Survey
From: Andrea Corso <fcorso(AT)ISABENERGY.IT>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 2:21am
Hi Friends
We really need volounteers!
Volunteers needed for Straits of Messina raptor
and anti-poaching watch.
(April - May each year)
As in previous springs, since 1984, volunteers are
again sought to survey and protect the migrating
raptors and storks at the Straits of Messina, Sicily, southern
Italy.
The association FMF alongside with LIPU-BirdLife
Italia are organising the international camp on the
Sicilian side of the Straits.
The Straits of Messina are well known as a strategic
migration flyway into Europe; almost all of the raptor
species of the Western Palearctic list have been
recorded there, and so far 315 bird species have been
observed there in total. It is the only place in the
Western Palearctic where Amur Falcon may be seen, and
it is also the best place for Pallid and Montagu's
Harriers. Among the other rare and interesting raptors,
it is possible to see Eleonora’s Falcon, Lanner Falcon
of the rare and scarcely observed feldeggii race,
Red-footed Falcon, Lesser Kestrel, Lesser Spotted
Eagle, Long-legged Buzzard, Steppe Buzzard, Peregrine
of the race calidus and so on.
The survey begins on April 1st and ends on May 28th.
Volunteers may stay for as long as they like;
accommodation, food, drink, guiding, raptors ID.
lessons, materials and so on will be provided for only
13 Euro a day (in order to help the survey).
For more information, please contact Andrea Corso at the following snail
mail address:
Via Camastra 10, 96100 Siracusa, Italy
or, via e:mail, at:
voloerrante(AT)yahoo.it
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eurasian Wigeon numbers
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)SHAW.CA>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 6:13am
Birders,
The Ladner, BC/WA Christmas Bird Count, in which I have participated
almost every year since 1968, has consistently been one of the North
American leaders in high counts of EURASIAN WIGEON. Counts have
averaged 40 to 50 in the last decade. High counts include 69 in 1990,
74 in 1992, 85 in 2001, and a record 108 in 2000. All of these counts
consist almost exclusively of males, and there are presumably as many
females present. I am also aware of one or two reports of more than
100 Eurasian Wigeon seen in a single day by birders in the Vancouver,
BC area.
It is worth noting that, despite the increasing abundance of EURASIAN
WIGEON, hybrid EURASIAN x AMERICAN WIGEON are still reported only
rarely in southwestern British Columbia-- much less often than hybrid
EURASIAN X AMERICAN GREEN-WINGED TEAL (or COMMON TEAL X GREEN-WINGED
TEAL, if you prefer).
Wayne C. Weber
Kamloops, BC
contopus(AT)shaw.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Deuel <bkrdeuel(AT)snowcrest.net>
To: <birdwg01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Eurasian Wigeon numbers
> At the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, Butte Co., California, in 1991 and
1992,
> the CBC totals for Eurasian Wigeon were 85 and 87, respectively, but
the
> person counting them only identified males, so theoretically there
may be
> double that amount. No one has tried that hard since, however, and
our CBC
> totals average 25-30 now.
> Cheers,
> Bruce Deuel
> Red Bluff, CA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian paulsen" <ipaulsen(AT)KRL.ORG>
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:12 PM
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] Eurasian Wigeon numbers
>
>
> > HI ALL:
> > With all the interest in the Samish Flats, WA Falcated Duck
something
> > there has been overlooked. Up to 150 Eurasian Wigeons have been
reported
> > in the area. I was wondering if any other place in North America
has had
> > such a high total???
> >
> > Ian Paulsen
> > Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
> > ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
> > A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
> > "Rallidae all the way"
> >
> >
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: American/Eurasian Wigeon
From: Paul Larkin <paullarkin(AT)PGEN.NET>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 7:41am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
What ho!
It has been noted that the eyelid of American is whitish whilst Eurasian =
is brown or fawn in colour. It has been suggested that this is a result =
of the different head colour, however this suggestion is based on birds =
in collections. I have yet to see a Eurasian bird with a white looking =
eyelid. Perhaps some enterprising person could test this in the Samish =
Flats area, where, I presume, both are present in sufficient numbers to =
make it statistically worth while. Whilst this may seem slightly =
esoteric it could be feature useful in helping to detect difficult juv =
or eclipse birds.
Paul =20
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: IL Mystery Gull
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 10:01am
I agree that structurally this bird looks like a Herring Gull.
I have very little experience with Glaucous-winged Gull
and no experience with Glaucous-wing x Herring but I
would expect if Glaucous-wing were involved with this bird
then it would show more of the chunkiness of that species.
It seems that the distinction between pale HEGU and HEGU
x GLGU is really a matter of degree (as with many thing larid
related) and that apparent Herring Gulls can show many
Glaucous Gull traits often in combination.
This makes me wonder if there is a situation here in N.Am.
similar to that in Europe with a population of Herring Gulls
breeding in Northern Canada somewhere that tend to show
Glaucous Gull traits ala the northern argentatus in Europe
or (perhaps more plausibly)
There is geneflow between Glaucous and Herring with hybrid
young of that pairing being fertile and producing 2nd, 3rd etc
generation hybrids.
If backcrosses are possible then the anomalous bill on the IL
bird could be accounted for and it could be a GLGU x HEGU.
Matt Sharp
Collection Manager
VIREO/ANS
1900 Benjamin Franklin Pkwy.
Philadelphia PA 19103
www.acnatsci.org/vireo
(tel.) 215-299-1069
(fax) 215-299-1182
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: IL Mystery Gull
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)MACUNLIMITED.NET>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 12:52pm
Matt,
Bruce Mactavish may get the kinds of birds you are talking about in
Newfoundland - he certainly gets adults with much reduced black and a lot of
white in the wing-tips. Your arguments align with mine in an unresolved
debate here in Europe concerning the provenance of 1st winter "Herring
Gulls" with pale fringes to their primaries. I contend that they involve a
Glaucous Gull ancestor, as many of them have dark sub-terminal chevrons on
the primaries, as well as demonstrating one or more other Glaucous
influences such as pink at the base of the bill, a broken eye-ring,
translucent primaries in flight, a minimal or no tail-band etc. I have
trawled the internet for Nelson's Gull images and have not managed to find
one that shows the primary chevrons (nor does the IL bird:
http://photos.yahoo.com/c7echoes )
My pictures, with links, are here:
http://www.magikcircle.com/birds/image.asp?title_id=478
You will see that opinion is divided.
Dick (Cambridge, UK)
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull
From: Jonathan Simms <jaeger78(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 2002 4:09pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Now that the debate is underway, I feel comfortable discussing my observa=
tions and opinions. I deliberately attempted to limit my opinions in the =
previous messages so as to provide minimal bias to those who graciously t=
ake the time to review and respond. Thanks again to all.
#1 question being asked: Why is this bird not a Thayer's Gull?
Good question! Answer (my opinions about the bird and observations from m=
yself and others who saw it):
When first seen (by Steve Harley and myself) at approx. 9:30ish that morn=
ing, my first suggestion was GWGU because the bird was so bulky-chested, =
deep-winged and so very uniform (think of a Thayer's Gull on steroids), m=
uch more so than other birds present (this features were obvious during f=
light to most who saw the bird in the afternoon). Actually the "Thayer's =
Gull on steroids" concept is used to describe GWGU X WEGU; I have limited=
experience with GWGU and GWGU X WEGU, so I am relying on feedback from w=
estern North America. But I digress.
The bird was not seen again until approx 1:30 - 2:30 (I don't recall the =
exact time). It was well seen, flying at close distance for at least 5 mi=
nutes (possibly 10) by myself, Paul Sweet, Dave Johnson and probably most=
observers present (it responded to chumming). It then "disappeared" as i=
t settled on the water some distance away from the chumming activity. Muc=
h to my elation, Carolyn managed to digiscope the bird, but I did not rea=
lize this until she posted the images in the photo quiz several days late=
r.
Observers who saw the bird in the afternoon commented on (relative to HER=
G) the deep wings, heavy chest, washed-out "venetian blind" pattern to th=
e (upper) outer primaries, dramatic (!) contrast between the underwing co=
verts and under-flight-feathers, and the odd, yet subtle contrast between=
the rump and tail (seen only weakly in the digital images, I'm afraid). =
None of these characteristics were displayed in any of the THGUs present =
(at least 3-4 1st winter birds if I recall correctly) or any other 1st wi=
nter THGU I have seen in my ~20 years of gull-watching in North America. =
Subsequent review of the digital images by Paul Sweet, Steve Harley and m=
yself (those who saw the bird well) indicate the thicker-than-typical, bu=
t not bulbous-tipped (!) bill (for HERG) and the general HERG patterning =
- by this I mean palish head, blotchy patterning of the neck and upper br=
east, and not atypical mantle, upperwing covert and scapular patterns. Th=
e tertials are not THGU-like - which are stripped/vermiculated/barred - h=
owever one describes it - into the interior of the feathers. These tertia=
ls are solid with distinctive barred edges, rather like HERG, but excessi=
vely pale, like the bird in general.
Please keep in mind, the images have been cropped in an attempt to focus =
the observer on certain (key) details. Perhaps this may not have been ide=
al, but I don't think it complicates things unnecessarily.
To focus on THGU, and why I think this bird is not a THGU:
THGUs are always very uniform, not only in color, but also in patterning =
(to be fair, they vary considerably in color, some being quite pale, othe=
rs being quite dark). This bird is rather uniform in color, but not at al=
l uniform in patterning (subtle contrasts between the head and neck, wash=
ed-out "venetian-blind" pattern in the - upper - outer primaries) strongl=
y suggesting HERG parentage. THGU would have coloration that gradually da=
rkens from head to wingtip (note that ICGU has minimal or no darkening th=
roughout the same range of body parts) and very little or no pattern chan=
ges between feather groups viewed in the sitting bird (head to neck, neck=
to mantle, mantle to wing coverts, etc) the occasional exception being l=
imited to "wing coverts to terials" and (rarely if ever) "terials to prim=
aries".
What sets this bird apart from HERG (in my opinion) is the very pale colo=
ration, physical attributes (deep wings, bulky chest) and the bill shape =
(I find head shape to be too variable in HERG to be a useful clue).
#2 question being asked: Why is this not a HERG X GLGU hybrid?
Another good question! Here are my opinions why:
All of the images of HERG X GLGU I have seen (I have never seen a live bi=
rd of this combination) show much more dark-light contrast, especially in=
the (upper) outer primaries - the "venetian blind" effect. The dark colo=
rs in the closed wing are essentially as dark as typical HERG, while the =
light colors in the open wing are as pale as typical GLGU. Martin Reid's =
Gull website has a very nice depiction of such a bird seen in Texas a few=
years ago. Furthermore, the bill pattern is decidedly wrong for HERG X G=
LGU, which typically show the GLGU bi-colored pattern in 1st winter. Euro=
pean images (i.e. Norway's Gull website and others) show similar contrast=
ing dark and light patterning (but subtle differences since the HERG in t=
hat area is a different species/subspecies - beyond the scope of this e-m=
ail).
I don't believe that this bird is a back-crossed HERG X GLGU with HERG or=
GLGU. The pale coloration is too pale to be a HERG back-cross I would ex=
pect much more dramatic/obvious structural clues if the bird was a GLGU b=
ack-cross.
Well those are my thoughts. I am still investigating the HERG X GWGU pros=
pect. Anyone with images of this combination, please send them my way. Un=
fortunately, the Large Gull tape doesn't spend a lot of time discussing t=
his hybrid combination.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan SimmsGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http:/=
/explorer.msn.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull
From: Laurent Raty <l_raty(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 3:44am
Hi Jonathan (and all),
>I don't believe that this bird is a back-crossed HERG X GLGU with HERG or
>GLGU. The pale coloration is too pale to be a HERG back-cross I would
>expect much more dramatic/obvious structural clues if the bird was a GLGU
>back-cross.
Just a short (though general) comment on the back-cross problem:
A F1 hybrid always inherit half of its genes from each of its parents. Hence
(putting mtDNA and hetero-chromosomes asides), it is always exactly a
"fifty-fifty" individual. However, this rule cannot be transposed to F2
hybrids (back-crosses).
Consider two species A and B, and a F2 bird of the type (A x (AxB)). This
bird inherited half of its genes from its pure parent (it is definitely 50%
A). The remaining half is the half of the genes of the hybrid parent, *but*
there's no a-priori reason to assume this will be composed in equal
proportions of genes that this parent inherited from its A and B parents,
respectively.
The "genetic composition" of a F2 hybrid is not strictly determined.
F2's are *on average* 75% A and 25% B but, on a particular individual, the
only thing you can say is that it is "somewhere" between 50%-50% (i.e., it
received all the B-genes from its hybrid parent) and 100%-0% (i.e., it
received all the A-genes from its hybrid parent). Both these extremes are
clearly very unlikely to happen, yet it remains that the actual
"composition" of such a bird cannot be assumed to be known.
As a consequence, F2 hybrids are likely to be more variable than F1's. The
very same combinations could potentially produce birds looking very much
like the pure parent, very much like the hybrid parent or, more likely
perhaps, show some traits very similar to one, other traits very similar to
the other. Therefore, even in cases where F1's are known to be quite
consistently mid-way (in tone, for instance) between both parent species, I
would not assume that a F2 should necessarily be mid-way between a F1 and
the species with which it was back-crossed.
I know it doesn't help (sorry) but this is something, I feel, that is often
not very well taken into account when commenting on this type of hybrids.
All the best,
Laurent
Laurent Raty
l_raty(AT)hotmail.com
Brussels, Belgium
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull
From: Allen Chartier <amazilia1(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 5:53am
Laurent & Others,
Forgive my wading in on this, as I am definitely an amateur when it come to
genetics. I am not criticizing what Laurent wrote on this at all, but
rather would like to use his excellent comments to build on if I may.
Laurent wrote:
> A F1 hybrid always inherit half of its genes from each of its parents.
Hence
> (putting mtDNA and hetero-chromosomes asides), it is always exactly a
> "fifty-fifty" individual. However, this rule cannot be transposed to F2
> hybrids (back-crosses).
From what I learned, this is indeed the way the GENES look, but not the way
the BIRDS look. From what I remember the appearance of a large percentage
(90%+?) of F1 offspring will appear exactly like one parent or the other
(this from the Punnet Square for the Drosophila experiment we did in my high
school genetics class way back in 1975), depending on which genes are
dominant and how they interact. It is only in the F2 generation (lets not
talk backcrosses yet!) that larger numbers of individuals showing
"intermediate" characters should appear. Bird genes don't mix like paints;
when you mix blue and yellow you don't always get green, you mostly get a
bunch of blues and a bunch of yellows, with a small proportion of greens,
and maybe even a brown! Am I off base here or what?
> Consider two species A and B, and a F2 bird of the type (A x (AxB)). This
> bird inherited half of its genes from its pure parent (it is definitely
50%
> A). The remaining half is the half of the genes of the hybrid parent,
*but*
> there's no a-priori reason to assume this will be composed in equal
> proportions of genes that this parent inherited from its A and B parents,
> respectively.
Yes, this is what I remember from high school, but it only addresses what
the genes look like (genotype) and not the actual appearance of the bird
(phenotype). Backcrosses should indeed begin to revert in appearance after
some number of generations (how many?) more like one or the other parent.
How any particular gene is expressed in plumage/structural features seems to
be completely unstudied in gulls (and many other birds too), and how hybrid
combinations of these genes (and which are dominant and which are recessive)
seems to be 100% speculation, completely unsupported by data. If someone
could point to published genetic studies of gulls and prove me wrong on
this, I would appreciate it (though my limited knowledge will prevent me
from understanding a lot of it :-).
> The "genetic composition" of a F2 hybrid is not strictly determined.
> F2's are *on average* 75% A and 25% B but, on a particular individual, the
> only thing you can say is that it is "somewhere" between 50%-50% (i.e., it
> received all the B-genes from its hybrid parent) and 100%-0% (i.e., it
> received all the A-genes from its hybrid parent). Both these extremes are
> clearly very unlikely to happen, yet it remains that the actual
> "composition" of such a bird cannot be assumed to be known.
Again, this is what the genes look like, and does not address how the genes
express themselves in plumage/structure.
> As a consequence, F2 hybrids are likely to be more variable than F1's. The
> very same combinations could potentially produce birds looking very much
> like the pure parent, very much like the hybrid parent or, more likely
> perhaps, show some traits very similar to one, other traits very similar
to
> the other.
As noted above, it makes sense (to me) that this is where "intermediate"
appearing birds should begin showing up in greater numbers.
> Therefore, even in cases where F1's are known to be quite
> consistently mid-way (in tone, for instance) between both parent species,
I
> would not assume that a F2 should necessarily be mid-way between a F1 and
> the species with which it was back-crossed.
As questioned above, are F1s actually KNOWN to be consistently mid-way (in
any character) between both parent species? If this knowledge is based on
our observations only, and not on actual genetic studies, it seems to me
this is still pure guesswork and is not really known at all.
Like Laurent, I know my comments are not much help either, but this issue of
genotype vs. phenotype seems to be overlooked when hybrids are (frequently)
discussed on this list.
Take care.
Allen Chartier
amazilia1(AT)comcast.net
1442 West River Park Drive
Inkster, MI 48141
Website: http://www.amazilia.net
Michigan HummerNet: http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Further discussions on Illinois Mystery Gull
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 9:11am
Like Allen I feel the need to start off with a disclaimer
to the effect that I am not qualified to give an informed
opinion regarding the genetics behind the morphologies
of hybrid birds but I find this discussion fascinating and
informative and want to make a few clarifying points.
First I agree with Allen's insightful comments, and that short
of long-term studies tracking the plumage changes of hybrids
with known parentage or more genetic work done on the genus
Larus including apparent hybrids the provenance and heritage
of apparent hybrids will be conjectural as will the identification
of these birds as hybrids once they are away from their parents
>As questioned above, are F1s actually KNOWN to be consistently
>mid-way (in any character) between both parent species? If this
>knowledge is based on our observations only, and not on actual
>genetic studies, it seems to me this is still pure guesswork and is not
>really known at all.
I have always assumed that the birds I identify as hybrids
(mainly HEGU x GLGU and HEGU x LBBG here in the NE)
are F1 hybrids for the following reasons. The genetics as
Laurent Raty laid it out (I would never have been able to explain
it as clearly as that), and the frequency of seeing similar looking
intermediate birds combined with the biology of large Larids
having delayed sexual maturation and the smaller probability
of any individual surviving to reproduce.
These reasons make the assumption that the most frequently
observed hybrid forms as illustrated in the Sibley Guide are F1
hybrids and that these birds are expressing their 50/50 genetic
makeup fairly evenly the most parsimonious assumption. It is not
known to me to be true based on data but it is based on the weight
of circumstantial evidence and is guesswork based on the
observed frequency of plumage patterns. This assumption is the
result of applying Occam's razor and believing that the simplest
explanation is most likely correct. Again it is an assumption but it
seems to be the best one going and indeed is the hypothesis
against which other explanations could be tested?
I would be interested to hear why the above assumptions
are faulty and to be pointed in the direction of research addressing
any of the genotype/phenotype issues brought up Allen. Also I
realize that there has been good molecular work done on
Larids but that this work is not widely disseminated to the popular
Birding crowd and that much of it is inaccessible to the majority
of birders (both because of its technical nature and because it is
published in technical journals that are not widely read.)
Best to all
Matt Sharp
Collection Manager
VIREO/ANS
1900 Benjamin Franklin Pkwy.
Philadelphia PA 19103
www.acnatsci.org/vireo
(tel.) 215-299-1069
(fax) 215-299-1182
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: genes and mystery gull.
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)ATTBI.COM>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 9:10am
Birders:
I agree in general with Allen's thoughts. What genotypes look like
(what Laurent described) in hybridization is relatively straight forward
and there predictable. However, what phenotypes look like under
hybridization is not so straight forward. Characters that are coded by
multiple genes are much more likely to look intermediate in hybrids than
those which are coded by a single gene or a simpler gene complex. Think of
Golden-winged and Blue-winged warbler hybrids versus gull hybrids. Or think
of Golden, Chocolate and Black Labrador Retrievers, the phenotypes are
pretty discrete, they don't mix up and look intermediate. We cannot assume
that features in gulls will all be intermediate in F1 hybrids, some will
be, others will not be.
When thinking of F2, and backcrosses, remember that hybrids can
mate with pure parental forms but in situations where there is a hybrid
zone, they are more likely to mate with other hybrids. In this situation
the there is a much greater variety of phenotypes and genotypes that you
can end up with. F1 type hybrids are expected in situations where
hybridization between the parental species is rare or at least infrequent
(Nelson's Gull is an example). In situations where you have a hybrid swarm
(Glaucous-winged x Herring; Glaucous-winged x Western; Thayer's x Iceland
etc.) you do not expect to see many F1 hybrids, but a variety of hybrid
combinations. I think that we tend to think of F1 type hybrids
automatically when we think of gulls, but these are likely rare in most
cases. This makes it even more difficult to identify a lot of the birds
that are presumed hybrids in my opinion.
I am no geneticist either.
regards
Al
Alvaro Jaramillo
Biologist
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
P.O. Box 247
Alviso, CA 95002
(408)-946-6548
http://www.sfbbo.org/
chucao(AT)attbi.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 12:21pm
Dear All,
Now that we've entered truly speculative ground - my favorite ground :-) -
on the subject of genotype vs phenotype in hybrids, I'll chip in with some
anecdotal information, and some speculation thereon that seems reasonable
(to me, at least).
First I feel that the comments of Laurent, Allen, Matt, and Al have been
commendably ego-less and issue-focused - thank you; I'll attempt to follow
your good example.
Now the subject matter: The discussion has progressed to the point where we
accept/understand the genotypical result of F1, but not the phenotypical
result. I'd like to add the "evidence" from the dabbling ducks that
underlines Alvaro's succinct warning that gene expression is a complex
event. There have been at least two wild presumed F1 hybrids of anas
(Pintail X Common Teal were suspected both times) in the UK and Japan where
the male progeny has sported a facial pattern disconcertingly close to
Baikal Teal. This outcome seemed unexplainable to me at the time (but
maybe not to many others) until I read the summary of the work by Johnson
and Sorenson (Auk 116:792-805, 1999) prepared by Jon King in BIRDING WORLD,
where they discovered that Baikal Teal was in a clade of its own which had
split off from the common dabbling duck ancestor much earlier than the
other clades. My speculation (supported by a small amount of circumstantial
evidence) is that the facial pattern of Baikal Teal is much closer to the
ancestral form than any other dabbler, and that in certain hybrid
combinations the outcome of some dominant/recessive gene combination leads
to this ancestral facial pattern becoming expressed - which thus looks a
lot like Baikal because it's face pattern remains close to that of the
common ancestor.
Moving this into gulls, and noting the work by Peter de Knijff et al
(Genetic differentiation and phylogeography of gulls in the Larus
cachinnans - fuscus group; Molecular Ecology 10, 2447 - 2462) which
indicates that cachinnans may be the Larid equivalent of Baikal Teal (i.e.
earliest split-off, and thus maybe closest to ancestral form), it may be
that F1hybrids of certain donor taxa combinations will produce a phenology
that is unlike either parent taxon but instead more like the ancestral gull
- i.e. maybe a bit cachinnans-like - ?
So the bottom line may be that until we get a good handle of the
evolutionary schematic for Larus, we should not assume that F1s will
contain phenotypes restricted solely to the parent forms.
As if gulls weren't hard enough already.....
Cheers,
Martin
Martin Reid
Fort Worth, Texas
upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Allen Chartier <amazilia1(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 5:55pm
Gull geneticists,
Since I'm already waaaay out on a limb where I don't belong, I'll comment a
little further...
Martin Reid wrote:
>>The discussion has progressed to the point where we
accept/understand the genotypical result of F1, but not the phenotypical
result. I'd like to add the "evidence" from the dabbling ducks that
underlines Alvaro's succinct warning that gene expression is a complex
event. There have been at least two wild presumed F1 hybrids of anas
(Pintail X Common Teal were suspected both times) in the UK and Japan where
the male progeny has sported a facial pattern disconcertingly close to
Baikal Teal. This outcome seemed unexplainable to me at the time (but
maybe not to many others) until I read the summary of the work by Johnson
and Sorenson (Auk 116:792-805, 1999) prepared by Jon King in BIRDING WORLD,
where they discovered that Baikal Teal was in a clade of its own which had
split off from the common dabbling duck ancestor much earlier than the
other clades. My speculation (supported by a small amount of circumstantial
evidence) is that the facial pattern of Baikal Teal is much closer to the
ancestral form than any other dabbler, and that in certain hybrid
combinations the outcome of some dominant/recessive gene combination leads
to this ancestral facial pattern becoming expressed - which thus looks a
lot like Baikal because it's face pattern remains close to that of the
common ancestor.<<
Thanks for the references. While I haven't looked it up yet in the Auk, I
have one further comment. When these cladograms are constructed showing the
relationships of species within a genus or group of genera, this is an
important first step to unravelling how certain types might interact in
plumage and structural characters. I could be wrong, but relationships
based on cladistics to not involve genetic analysis. So, it is important to
realize that cladistic information alone does not necessarily move us too
much closer to understanding how specific genes will be expressed when
hybridized. Organisms need to be understood extraordinarily well for this,
and I submit that not a single species of bird is as well understood as the
Fruit Fly, Drosophila melanogaster, where controlled genotypes and
phenotypes are cultured for experiments as was done in my high school class.
Sadly, we might not ever be able to know gull genes this well, as species
limits might be much more "plastic" than those in Drosophila!
Martin's further commentary:
>>Moving this into gulls, and noting the work by Peter de Knijff et al
(Genetic differentiation and phylogeography of gulls in the Larus
cachinnans - fuscus group; Molecular Ecology 10, 2447 - 2462) which
indicates that cachinnans may be the Larid equivalent of Baikal Teal (i.e.
earliest split-off, and thus maybe closest to ancestral form), it may be
that F1hybrids of certain donor taxa combinations will produce a phenology
that is unlike either parent taxon but instead more like the ancestral gull
- i.e. maybe a bit cachinnans-like - ?
I'm not likely to be able to look this one up, but as noted above,
phylogeography is an important first step, whether done genetically or
cladistically, but only provides us information on who is likely more
closely related to who, and doesn't begin to offer specific "rules" of
physical expression of genetic traits.
Much more study is obviously needed!
And finally, regarding Alvaro's statement, which I could not have said
better myself, this thought process is what I hoped to incite by my original
comments:
>>When thinking of F2, and backcrosses, remember that hybrids can
mate with pure parental forms but in situations where there is a hybrid
zone, they are more likely to mate with other hybrids. In this situation
the there is a much greater variety of phenotypes and genotypes that you
can end up with. F1 type hybrids are expected in situations where
hybridization between the parental species is rare or at least infrequent
(Nelson's Gull is an example). In situations where you have a hybrid swarm
(Glaucous-winged x Herring; Glaucous-winged x Western; Thayer's x Iceland
etc.) you do not expect to see many F1 hybrids, but a variety of hybrid
combinations. I think that we tend to think of F1 type hybrids
automatically when we think of gulls, but these are likely rare in most
cases. This makes it even more difficult to identify a lot of the birds
that are presumed hybrids in my opinion.<<
This has been a fun discussion!
Allen Chartier
amazilia1(AT)comcast.net
1442 West River Park Drive
Inkster, MI 48141
Website: http://www.amazilia.net
Michigan HummerNet: http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Allen Chartier <amazilia1(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 6:06pm
Gullophiles,
OK. Now that at least three genetically-challenged gull watchers are
drowning in the deep end of the gene pool, would someone like to rescue us
with some solid science :-). Laurent?
Allen Chartier
amazilia1(AT)comcast.net
1442 West River Park Drive
Inkster, MI 48141
Website: http://www.amazilia.net
Michigan HummerNet: http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <october(AT)IDA.NET>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 7:02pm
I am certainly not a geneticist or gull expert but I learn
a lot by reading these posts and thank everyone for their
thoughtful contributions to this and other threads. Alvaro
Jaramillo brought up the following analogy.
| Or think of Golden, Chocolate and Black Labrador
Retrievers, the phenotypes are
| pretty discrete, they don't mix up and look intermediate.
We cannot assume
| that features in gulls will all be intermediate in F1
hybrids, some will
| be, others will not be.
I'll use the Labrador Retriever example (which I actually
know something about) to point out that traits may be
present in F1 offspring that are present in neither parent.
There are three gene pairs that control which color a Lab
will be. All are homozygous for the dominant allele (gene)
that makes them black. The other two alleles only affect
the phenotypic color of the dog if they are homozygous
recessive. One causes the black pigment to wash out and be
dark brown, or chocolate, the other causes the black to
become golden, or yellow. If a yellow dog that does not
carry the recessive gene for chocolate is bred to a
chocolate dog that does not carry the recessive gene for
yellow, all resulting offspring will be black. Food for
thought.
Cliff
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Chris Elphick <elphick(AT)UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 6:18am
> I could be wrong, but relationships
>based on cladistics to not involve genetic analysis. So, it is important to
>realize that cladistic information alone does not necessarily move us too
>much closer to understanding how specific genes will be expressed when
>hybridized.
Hi All,
I haven't been following this thread very closely, but Allen's first
statement here is not quite right. Cladistics refers to a particular way
of analysing data that are used to reconstruct phylogenies. In other words
"cladistics" is a method of analysis and not a type of information. In
principle a cladistic approach can be applied to any type of data including
genetic data. In fact it is probably true to say that most (certainly
many) modern phylogenetic analyses are both cladistic in nature AND use
genetic data (though many also use other types of data too - behavioural,
morphological, etc.).
Most evolutionary biologists (at least most of those that I know) view a
cladistic approach to be a better way to derive accurate phylogenies (i.e.,
to understand evolutionary relationships), than more traditional phenetic
approaches (which use some measure of overall similarity to group taxa).
This does not mean that a cladistic analysis will improve our understand of
how genes are expressed, but they do (if you believe the majority I refer
to) give us a better understanding of the relationships among taxa. So, I
suspect that Allen's second point is probably very true. As far as I'm
aware (and I'm not a geneticist either) we really don't know too much about
gene expression in hybrids and how it relates to phylogeny - even the
Drosophila work is probably of limited value here because most (though
certainly not all) of that has been done within a single species. I would
expect (ok, guess) that it is very complex and that there is a lot of
variation among clades, such that simple generalities are hard to make.
One other point is that the earliest species to split off from the tree is
not necessarily the most similar to the ancestral form. There will have
been an equivalent amount of time for evolution (and thus change) to have
occurred in both that lineage and the lineage that has lead to all the
other forms of birds. Thus, there will have been lots of scope for Baikal
Teal etc. to differentiate from their ancestral forms.
Hope this doesn't just muddy things further.
chris
************************************
Chris Elphick
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
University of Connecticut
75 North Eagleville Road, U-43
Storrs
CT 06269
elphick(AT)uconnvm.uconn.edu
(860) 486-4547 (Tel)
(860) 486-6364 (Fax)
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/faculty/Elphick/
************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <october(AT)IDA.NET>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 10:41am
I don't think the questions RE whether dogs and wolves are
actually separate species, etc. are relevant. I simply
wanted to point out that it's possible to have offspring
with phenotype that differs from that of either parent.
Maybe using the Lab example is confusing because it is not a
hybrid combination, but I felt it was useful to demonstrate
how genes can interact to produce a different phenotypic
expression in the offspring than that shown by either
parent. I'm assuming that the same is possible for some
genetic traits in hybrid combinations of birds. Is there
enough knowledge to rule out this possibility?
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stern" <rbstern(AT)ns.sympatico.ca>
To: "Cliff and Lisa Weisse" <october(AT)IDA.NET>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [BIRDWG01] genes and mystery gull.
| Hi,
|
| I'm not a geneticist or gull expert either, but I also
learn a lot from the
| BIRDWG01 posts, and I'm also a dog lover. I thought all
dogs were the same
| species, with different races (canis familiaris, with
phenotypic expressions
| ranging from Great danes to Chihuahuas) - that is why they
basically behave
| similarly and interbreed fully. Am I correct, and if so
how many genes
| differ between races, and at what point does that number
become large enough
| to call it a separate species? Indeed, are there enough
separate genes to
| really differentiate them from canis lupus?
|
| Thanks,
|
|
| ####################
|
| Richard Stern
| Kentville
| Nova Scotia
| Canada
|
| rbstern(AT)ns.sympatico.ca
|
| ####################
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Cliff and Lisa Weisse" <october(AT)IDA.NET>
| To: <BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu>
| Sent: March 20, 2002 10:02 PM
| Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] genes and mystery gull.
|
|
| > I am certainly not a geneticist or gull expert but I
learn
| > a lot by reading these posts and thank everyone for
their
| > thoughtful contributions to this and other threads.
Alvaro
| > Jaramillo brought up the following analogy.
| >
| > | Or think of Golden, Chocolate and Black Labrador
| > Retrievers, the phenotypes are
| > | pretty discrete, they don't mix up and look
intermediate.
| > We cannot assume
| > | that features in gulls will all be intermediate in F1
| > hybrids, some will
| > | be, others will not be.
| >
| > I'll use the Labrador Retriever example (which I
actually
| > know something about) to point out that traits may be
| > present in F1 offspring that are present in neither
parent.
| > There are three gene pairs that control which color a
Lab
| > will be. All are homozygous for the dominant allele
(gene)
| > that makes them black. The other two alleles only
affect
| > the phenotypic color of the dog if they are homozygous
| > recessive. One causes the black pigment to wash out and
be
| > dark brown, or chocolate, the other causes the black to
| > become golden, or yellow. If a yellow dog that does not
| > carry the recessive gene for chocolate is bred to a
| > chocolate dog that does not carry the recessive gene for
| > yellow, all resulting offspring will be black. Food for
| > thought.
| >
| > Cliff
| >
|
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Sandpoint, Idaho dark-mantled gull photos (fwd)
From: ian paulsen <ipaulsen(AT)KRL.ORG>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 11:22am
HI ALL:
Maybe someone can help this guy out??
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:04:24 -0800
From: Stephen L. Lindsay <slindsay(AT)dmi.net>
To: Inland-NW-Birders <inland-nw-birders(AT)uidaho.edu>,
Tweeters <tweeters(AT)u.washington.edu>, OBOL <obol(AT)lists.orst.edu>
Cc: "Hardy, Lisa" <basalt(AT)earthlink.net>,
"Sturts, Shirley" <s.sturts(AT)verizon.net>, RKorpi(AT)clark.edu
Subject: Sandpoint, Idaho dark-mantled gull photos
I have placed 6 photographs that I took on March 17 of the dark-mantled gull
being seen at City Beach, Sandpoint, Bonner Co., N Idaho at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/inland-nw-birders/1st .
This gull was first reported by Lisa Hardy last week. These photos are not
great, but they do show enough detail of certain important areas (nape & eye
smudging, leg color, wing tip pattern of folded and extended wings, upper &
underwing color, tail band). They do not show the orbital ring which is
orange.
There has been conjecture as to the identification of this gull: Western
vs. Glaucous-winged X Western vs. Slaty-backed. Below I have included
the comments of Ray Korpi concerning dark-mantled hybrids. We would
appreciate a discussion of this bird's identification.
Stephen Lindsay
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
slindsay(AT)dmi.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Korpi, Ray" <RKorpi(AT)clark.edu>
To: <slindsay(AT)dmi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Dark-mantled Gull
> Stephen,
> The one thing that I've learned from local gull experts about Western X
> Glaucous-winged hybrids is that there are dark birds. I have seen, on
> occasion, very dark individuals that were for all intents and purposes
like
> Western Gulls except that the underside of the black wing tips was grey
> rather than black. Skip Russell, who has done much gull work in Portland
> (and worked on Dunn's gull tape), states that pure Westerns are very rare
in
> Portland, and in much of his experience, birds reported as Westerns are
> darker hybrids. So, yes, there are dark hybrids, and they do stick out
like
> your bird there. Someone should check the underside of the wingtips if
> possible
> RK
>
> Ray Korpi, PhD
> Director, Hawkins Computer Lab
> Clark College
> Vancouver WA
>
>
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Fw: Sandpoint, Idaho dark-mantled gull photos
(fwd)
From: ian paulsen <ipaulsen(AT)KRL.ORG>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 11:41am
HI:
THE CORRECT ADDRESS!!!!
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
ipaulsen(AT)krl.org
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:34:07 -0800
From: Stephen L. Lindsay <slindsay(AT)dmi.net>
To: Inland-NW-Birders <inland-nw-birders(AT)uidaho.edu>,
Tweeters <tweeters(AT)u.washington.edu>, OBOL <obol(AT)lists.orst.edu>
Cc: "Hardy, Lisa" <basalt(AT)earthlink.net>,
"Sturts, Shirley" <s.sturts(AT)verizon.net>, RKorpi(AT)clark.edu
Subject: Fw: Sandpoint, Idaho dark-mantled gull photos
My previous post included an invalid address - the correct is:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/inland-nw-birders/lst
Stephen Lindsay
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
slindsay(AT)dmi.net
> I have placed 6 photographs that I took on March 17 of the dark-mantled
gull
> being seen at City Beach, Sandpoint, Bonner Co., N Idaho at:
>
> http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/inland-nw-birders/1st .
>
> This gull was first reported by Lisa Hardy last week. These photos are
not
> great, but they do show enough detail of certain important areas (nape &
eye
> smudging, leg color, wing tip pattern of folded and extended wings, upper
&
> underwing color, tail band). They do not show the orbital ring which is
> orange.
>
> There has been conjecture as to the identification of this gull: Western
> vs. Glaucous-winged X Western vs. Slaty-backed. Below I have included
> the comments of Ray Korpi concerning dark-mantled hybrids. We would
> appreciate a discussion of this bird's identification.
>
> Stephen Lindsay
> Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
> slindsay(AT)dmi.net
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Eur X Amer Wigeon
From: Steven Mlodinow <SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Mar 2002 5:51pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
Out on the Samish Flats, the largest single flock of wigeon that I found had
104 Eurasians (and about 2000 Americans, a much higher ratio of Eur:Amer than
is typical in w. Washington).
Of the 104, only 6 were females, despite excellent lighting and reasonable
distances. In addition there were 5 hybrid male wigeon.
1) the ratio of 20:1 pure Eur:hybrid EurXAm Wigeon is typical for my
experience in w. Washington.
2) at some point, I remember a comment about male ducks being more prone to
wander than females (and no, this is not a gender politics stealthbomb). Has
anyone out there heard of any such evidence?
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Mystery Gull (fwd)
From: Harry Lehto <hlehto(AT)OJ287.ASTRO.UTU.FI>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 6:12am
> View the link below to see images of the 1st winter Mystery Gull
>
> http://photos.yahoo.com/c7echoes
>
> - leucistic "American" Herring Gull;
> - a very oddly patterned Thayer's Gull (redundant ?!?);
> - "American" Herring X ???? - Glaucous was originally proposed,
> - "Vega" Herring X Slaty-backed (pure conjecture, but no other
Dear Larofiles/hybridophiles,
Jonathan's pictures of the mystery gull are interesting. Seems to be no
question about it. I would have loved to see the tail from above. Let me
get my opinion here by an example. If I ran accross a gull that looked
like this on my gullwatching expeditions. I would feel quite lost. First I
would call my brother Henry to turn up immediately, and then I would start
burrrrning film (not literally though ;-)). This is because it does not
fit the normal pattern of hybrid Glaucous x Herring Gulls, nor does it fit
the pale end of the agentatus herring gulls ("Pale argentatus Herring
Gulls") we see here in SW Finland.
It is difficult to specify the detailed field marks to rule out each one
of these. For a pale Herring gull, the single field mark in the plumage
that I don't like is the paleness of the dark areas in the feathers and
also the fine (thin) nature of the patterns eg. on the wing coverts of
this bird. (Some of the wing coverts look as if they were from a 3rd
calendar year bird!). These points also apply for a leucistic or a
bleached Herring Gull.
For a hybrid Herring x Glaucous, the general patterns of dark and light do
not seem to fit the hybrids we see here. I also find the darkness of the
bill and its relative slenderness somewhat extreme for our hybrids.
The pictures were taken in March, a few days ago. Photos F and
C seem to show a missing P7 or am I missinterpretating the image? A gap
on the same location in the wing is visible on the right wing in photo H.
Is this bird moulting in March? (=> would mean completely messed up moult)
I have limited experience from Western US gulls from the 80's, and I would
suggest looking at some combination on you side of the pool. I find this
cachinnans like head quite puzzling.
========
A short comment about F2s
Before we start thinking and emphasizing too much F2 and F3 hybrids, we
should bear also in mind that in general F1:s have a reduced fertility
and possibly a reduced likelihood for pairing.
Regards
Harry from Finland
hlehto(AT)astro.utu.fi
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Mystery Gull (fwd)
From: Laurent Raty <l_raty(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 8:34am
Hello Harry,
> A short comment about F2s
>
> Before we start thinking and emphasizing too much F2 and F3 hybrids, we
> should bear also in mind that in general F1:s have a reduced fertility
> and possibly a reduced likelihood for pairing.
De Knijf et al. (de Knijff, Denkers, van Swelm & Kuiper (2001): Genetic
affinities within the Herring Gull Larus argentatus assemblage revealed by
AFLP genotyping. J Mol Evol 52: 85-93.) found that nearly 80% of the genetic
variability among gulls from the argentatus-fuscus-cachinnans complex
occurred at a within-taxa level.
(Further, it's not completely clear to me if the total genetic variance that
was involved in their calculations did, or did not include results from the
outgroup they used in their analyses (Common Gull). From what is written in
the paper, it would seem that it did, which would still reduce the part of
the genetic variability among Herring-type gulls that occurs at the
between-taxa level.)
Some of their results also pointed to the existence of a significant gene
flow between taxa, which would clearly imply hybrid fertility.
I won't try to refute the idea that *in general* F1 hybrids have a reduced
fertility. However, bearing in mind this obviously extremely reduced genetic
differentiation among large white-headed gulls, to which extent was it
actually shown to be the case, *in particular*, for these birds?
All the best,
Laurent
PS - see also http://www.irania.dk/photos/showphoto.asp?photoid=76
(Adult Glaucous x Herring, said to be breeding with pure Glaucous, Nuuk,
Greenland.)
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eur X Amer Wigeon
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 10:08am
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
My impression is that this isn't so true for eiders. Female King Eiders at
least seem to show up as vagrants pretty often. This may be reflective of
the fact that in many parts of the world any eider is a good bird.
I think it's difficult to judge the situation with Wigeon or teal because
the females are very similar in most cases. I do agree that obvious 'red
morph' female Eurasian Wigeons are much rarer than males on the west coast
and that this cannot be just they're being missed. But some female Eurasian
(gray morphs?) are not so distinctive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Mlodinow [mailto:SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:52 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Eur X Amer Wigeon
Greetings All
Out on the Samish Flats, the largest single flock of wigeon that I found had
104 Eurasians (and about 2000 Americans, a much higher ratio of Eur:Amer
than is typical in w. Washington).
Of the 104, only 6 were females, despite excellent lighting and reasonable
distances. In addition there were 5 hybrid male wigeon.
1) the ratio of 20:1 pure Eur:hybrid EurXAm Wigeon is typical for my
experience in w. Washington.
2) at some point, I remember a comment about male ducks being more prone to
wander than females (and no, this is not a gender politics stealthbomb). Has
anyone out there heard of any such evidence?
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)MACUNLIMITED.NET>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 11:36am
Chris Elphick wrote:
> Most evolutionary biologists (at least most of those that I know) view a
> cladistic approach to be a better way to derive accurate phylogenies (i.e.,
> to understand evolutionary relationships), than more traditional phenetic
> approaches (which use some measure of overall similarity to group taxa).
Except that, is not a clade a single complete branch of a (phylogenetic)
tree? However, there are a number of examples today of large gulls which
look as though they had a hybrid origin, in which case cladistics is an
inappropriate tool. A tree-like system of classification and labelling is
inappropriate to describe what went on.
Dick
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Eur X Amer Wigeon
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)ENDEAVOR.MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 11:59am
I agree with Nick Lethaby, that identification difficulties make it very
difficult to estimate the numbers of female Eurasian Wigeon that occur
in southern Canada and the United States. Green-winged Teal are harder
still and their skittishness makes them less easy to study than wigeon.
I am curious about the color morphs that Nick refers to. My impression
is that there is a continuous gradient of reddish to grayish rather than
discernible morphs? Is this true or do birds tend to go one way or the
other? More relevant to this discussion, how frequent are the redder
individuals in the Far-East (Kamchatka, Japan etc) or in NW Europe
(Iceland, UK, Norway)? Are they common enough that we should anticipate
obvious 'red morph' Eurasian females among the American Wigeon flocks,
based on the numbers of male Eurasians that are being seen?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
http://www.oceanwanderers.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eurasian Wigeon numbers
From: Jon King <king(AT)PRBO.ORG>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 12:15pm
Ian, Steve, et al.,
Coming from a British perspective, I have always found this subject to
be especially interesting. On my most recent trip to WA and BC, one of
my counts was of 56 Eurasian Wigeons (40 males, 16 females) and six
hybrid males among 590 American Wigeons at Deltaport, BC, on 30 Nov
2001. Although I was impressed more by the relative frequency of
Eurasian Wigeon (about 8.5 percent) rather than the absolute count, when
I mentioned it to Tom Plath and Rick Toochin, both suggested that recent
counts in excess of 200 Eurasian Wigeons had been made at individual
sites in the Deltaport-Tsawassen-Point Roberts areas.
>From a historical perspective, the count of 21 on the Victoria CBC in
Dec 1984 (Campbell et al. 1990, The Birds of British Columbia, vol.1)
was then the all-time North American high count for Eurasian Wigeon!
References such as BWP and Wildfowl mention nothing about differential
dispersal of male and female Eurasian Wigeon (other than males moving
from breeding to moulting areas earlier than females, prior to autumn
migration). Migration texts I checked implied that in wildfowl the sexes
disperse similar distances. Of course dispersion distance is often
related to body size, resulting in females moving on average slightly
further than males in most sexually size dimorphic species. I suspect
the exact situation regarding wigeon migration may not be known.
Unfortunately, the true numbers of Eurasian Wigeon and hybrids are
obscured by most observers' understandable reluctance to identify
females. Even very practised observers often find it a daunting task in
North America when confronted with large mixed flocks, but in my
experience females are indeed present, at a frequency of at least one to
every 2-4 males (depending on site, date, conditions, etc.).
Cheers, Jon.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Glaucous X herring gull hybrids
From: Jon King <king(AT)PRBO.ORG>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 12:15pm
ID Frontiers,
Although I have a little training in genetics, I'll stick with what I
see in the field. I should note that I have not analysed the Illinois
bird in detail, and that these comments may not have any direct
relevance to the ID of that particular bird.
One only has to study Western X Glaucous-winged hybrids for a few years
to realise that, while certain combinations tend to be slightly more
frequent than others, every and any combination of plumage and structure
of the two parental types is possible in hybrids. In Newfoundland last
winter, I found that while there are some weak correlations between
certain characters, the same variety was also true in both adult and
first-year Thayer's X Iceland hybrids (a.k.a. "Kumlien's Gull").
I am in the fortunate position here in northern California of seeing
decent numbers of many gull hybrid combinations, including Glaucous X
American Herring gulls. Adults of the latter are especially interesting
(and as yet largely undescribed) and show considerable variation in
structure and plumage, with primary patterns as diverse as those seen in
adult Thayer's X Iceland hybrids. There seems to be no reason why
first-years wouldn't show a similar diversity as adults, and indeed my
observations suggest that they do. I should also note that we have also
found great phenotypic diversity in apparent Glaucous X Vega gull
hybrids in East Asia (JRK and G.J.Carey, unpubl. obs.).
Hence, the classic first-year Glaucous X Herring that is widely seen and
photographed is just one example of what these birds can look like.
While such classic birds could be the most frequent phenotype, clearly
less obvious hybrids exist, and are presumably overlooked; it is no
coincidence that the 'classic' hybrids are those with the striking
Glaucous-type bill, and often Glaucous-type structure, which tend to
draw attention. Perhaps some of the trickiest hybrid plumages might be
passed over as pale Harring Gulls.
In summary, I would suggest that Glaucous X Herring hybrids are much
more diverse in appearance than is generally appreciated, and we should
move away from the assumption that such first-year hybrids invariably
have a Glaucous-like feel to the bill and/or structure.
Cheers, Jon.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Chris Elphick <elphick(AT)UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 12:39pm
You're right that that could be an issue. In my comments, I tried to avoid
getting into the most recent statistical approaches to studying phylogeny
(maximum likelihood, bayesian stats, etc.) because it stretches my
knowledge of the topic and the math gets both conceptually and
computationally more complex. I think, though, that some of the newer
analytical methods (which I believe still have cladistic rules as their
basis) can handle introgression, which is pretty common in other groups of
organism (e.g., plants).
Right now I don't know of any bird taxa for which there is strong evidence
of an origin through introgression. There has been some suggestion that
Pomarine Jaeger has a hybrid origin, but there are other hypotheses that
explain the data and I think the most recent research pointed to
alternative explanations. Also there may have been some speculation about
Thayer's Gull, though I don't know of any strong support for that (though
that maybe just be because I don't follow that literature closely enough).
Even in cases where there were hybrid origins, I don't think that phenetic
approaches would help when it comes to understanding the evolutionary
origins. The idea of a branching tree model of speciation is common to
most thinking about the origins of birds, and is certainly not restricted
to those who use cladistics. But, I expect a true phylogeneticist might be
able to shed more light on this than I can.
chris
At 06:35 PM 3/22/02 +0000, you wrote:
>Chris Elphick wrote:
>> Most evolutionary biologists (at least most of those that I know) view a
>> cladistic approach to be a better way to derive accurate phylogenies (i.e.,
>> to understand evolutionary relationships), than more traditional phenetic
>> approaches (which use some measure of overall similarity to group taxa).
>
>Except that, is not a clade a single complete branch of a (phylogenetic)
>tree? However, there are a number of examples today of large gulls which
>look as though they had a hybrid origin, in which case cladistics is an
>inappropriate tool. A tree-like system of classification and labelling is
>inappropriate to describe what went on.
>Dick
>
>
>
************************************
Chris Elphick
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
University of Connecticut
75 North Eagleville Road, U-43
Storrs
CT 06269
elphick(AT)uconnvm.uconn.edu
(860) 486-4547 (Tel)
(860) 486-6364 (Fax)
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/faculty/Elphick/
************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: genes and mystery gull.
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)MACUNLIMITED.NET>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 5:35pm
Chris,
I thought the evidence for Pom skua being of hybrid origin was overwhelming,
not just DNA, but also its parasites and behaviour - is there a reference
for any paper that refutes this?
I would have thought that there is strong evidence for taxa arising by
introgression with kumlieni, barabensis, and possibly taimyrensis, unless
one wants to argue that they are not proper taxa.
Dick
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eur X Amer Wigeon
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 2002 7:53pm
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I agree it's variability rather than morphs. Some Eurasian Wigeons are
obviously redder, but I see a lot of birds that are superficially similar to
Americans when I go to Asia. However, it can't be impossible because they
seem to find quite a few non-adult male American Wigeon in the UK.
-----Original Message-----
From: Angus Wilson [mailto:wilsoa02(AT)ENDEAVOR.MED.NYU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:59 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Eur X Amer Wigeon
I agree with Nick Lethaby, that identification difficulties make it very
difficult to estimate the numbers of female Eurasian Wigeon that occur
in southern Canada and the United States. Green-winged Teal are harder
still and their skittishness makes them less easy to study than wigeon.
I am curious about the color morphs that Nick refers to. My impression
is that there is a continuous gradient of reddish to grayish rather than
discernible morphs? Is this true or do birds tend to go one way or the
other? More relevant to this discussion, how frequent are the redder
individuals in the Far-East (Kamchatka, Japan etc) or in NW Europe
(Iceland, UK, Norway)? Are they common enough that we should anticipate
obvious 'red morph' Eurasian females among the American Wigeon flocks,
based on the numbers of male Eurasians that are being seen?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
http://www.oceanwanderers.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eur X Amer Wigeon
From: Jeff Gilligan <jeffgill(AT)TELEPORT.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 2002 8:26pm
> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
This is in response to Angus Wison's question below about obvious red-morph
Eurasian Wigeon females among the American Wigeons in the United States. I
hadn't followed the thread until his post. My response is that many of the
male Eurasian Wigeons in Oregon are accompanied by obvious red-morph
Eurasian Wigeon females.
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Angus Wilson [mailto:wilsoa02(AT)ENDEAVOR.MED.NYU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:59 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Eur X Amer Wigeon
I agree with Nick Lethaby, that identification difficulties make it very
difficult to estimate the numbers of female Eurasian Wigeon that occur
in southern Canada and the United States. Green-winged Teal are harder
still and their skittishness makes them less easy to study than wigeon.
I am curious about the color morphs that Nick refers to. My impression
is that there is a continuous gradient of reddish to grayish rather than
discernible morphs? Is this true or do birds tend to go one way or the
other? More relevant to this discussion, how frequent are the redder
individuals in the Far-East (Kamchatka, Japan etc) or in NW Europe
(Iceland, UK, Norway)? Are they common enough that we should anticipate
obvious 'red morph' Eurasian females among the American Wigeon flocks,
based on the numbers of male Eurasians that are being seen?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
http://www.oceanwanderers.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Need help IDing a small bird - Redpoll????
From: Jamie Wapisay <jwapisay(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 2002 10:08pm
I have pictures of this bird on my homepage at http://jamiespence.myknet.org
I think it may be a redpoll but it looks a little different. If anyone can
help me out it would be greatly appreciated.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland
