 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for December 7-13, 2003
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Re: vegae vs smith x G-w | Paul Lehman | Sun, 7 Dec 2003 | 7:52am |
| Vega Gull in California??? | Alvaro Jaramillo | Sun, 7 Dec 2003 | 10:30pm |
| Re: Vega Gull in California??? | Dick Newell | Mon, 8 Dec 2003 | 5:37pm |
| Vega Gulls... | julian hough | Mon, 8 Dec 2003 | 7:08pm |
| Re: Vega Gull in California??? | Paul Lehman | Mon, 8 Dec 2003 | 7:41pm |
| Re: Vega Gull in California??? | Martin Reid | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 | 6:38am |
| Re: Vega Gull in California??? | Kevin McGowan | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 | 1:10pm |
| Re: Vega Gull in California??? | David C. Bailey | Thu, 11 Dec 2003 | 2:35pm |
| Pluvialis plover in New Zealand | Ross Silcock | Fri, 12 Dec 2003 | 9:03pm |
| Photos of uncommon and poorly known tubenoses | Angus Wilson | Fri, 12 Dec 2003 | 9:21pm |
| Acknowledge photographer | Ross Silcock | Sat, 13 Dec 2003 | 6:42am |
| NZ Pluvialis - and one from Delaware | Martin Reid | Sat, 13 Dec 2003 | 8:29am |
| Re: NZ Pluvialis - and one from Delaware | Gary Potter | Sat, 13 Dec 2003 | 10:56am |
| Re: NZ Pluvialis - and one from Delaware | Peter Pyle | Sat, 13 Dec 2003 | 11:53am |
| golden plovers in NZ and DE | julian hough | Sat, 13 Dec 2003 | 3:05pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: vegae vs smith x G-w
From: Paul Lehman <lehman.paul(AT)VERIZON.NET>
Date: 7 Dec 2003 7:52am
ID Frontiers:
I would agree with Martin: I have never knowingly seen a Vega (and I've
seen
MANY at Gambell during my long annual visits there in late summer and
autumn)
that didn't have blackish primaries (upper surface). But on the
UNDERwing, Vegas
have MORE extensive dark (dark grayish to blackish-gray) on the flight
feathers
than do smithsonianus. As for possible Vega hybrids with G-w or
Glaucous, I
would assume they could occur somewhat regularly. I certainly see all
sorts of
odd, hybrid-like birds up there in the fall that could easily include
those
hybrid combinations. But I can't actually prove it as I don't see the
actual
pairings, nests, etc. The breeding range of Glacous-winged has been
spreading
north in the Bering Sea (nests north now to St. Matthew Island, and
given the
larger and larger numbers of all ages [but juveniles the most common] in
recent
years at St. Lawrence Island in late summer and fall, I wouldn't be
surprised if
they are or will soon be nesting there), afforing it more opportunities
to
hybridize with Vegas. And we KNOW that G-w's and smithsonianus Herrings
hybridize freely farther south in the Anchorage/Cook Inlet area, where
just
about ALL the large gulls that breed there are such hybrids. The only
factor
perhaps that might limit such hybridization rates between Vegas and the
other
species is that Vega may well be more of a cliff-area nester, whereas
the other
species may prefer broader flatlands and wetland edges (??).
--Paul Lehman
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Vega Gull in California???
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 7 Dec 2003 10:30pm
Birders
I apologize for posting another gull identification puzzle, I know some
of you out there are waiting for something other than gulls to read about.
However, it is winter and the odd gulls are out in force, and the birders
lacking broad experience with northern gull taxa (that is me) are out there
in force as well.
Let me set it up a bit. Here in coastal central California it is shaping up
to be a superb year for gulls. For some reason the northern birds are down
in much larger numbers than the last couple of years. Flocks that would
usually be Western and California with a sprinkling of Glaucous-wings and
hybrids are now full of Glaucous-wings, many Herrings (smithsonianus of
course) and Thayer's Gulls... and even more hybrids. Due to a variety of
circumstances I am able to go and check the local gull flock (1000-4000
birds usually) every three days or so and digiscope the heck out of them. I
have been concentrating on Herring Gulls (I just call them Herring Gulls,
but note that I am talking about smithsonianus here), Thayer's and
Glaucous-wings and have looked at thousands of them thus far this season.
Every once in a while an oddball shows up, and pretty well all of these fit
well into some hybrid category. In addition it is clear that smithsonianus
first years are incredibly variable, both in plumage colour saturation and
moult extent, such that there are a variety of plumage types out there. One
of these types is quite pale, whitish on the head, with broad white bars on
the greater coverts but usually restricted to the inner set of coverts, a
nicely bicolored bill, lots of moult on the upperparts etc. etc. These
birds are rare but they are out there. A couple of days ago I saw a bird
that initially looked like one of these paler smithsonianus but very
quickly it became clear that this was in a different category altogether.
It also does not fit well to any hybrid combination (assumed, not known
hybrids) that I am familiar with here. Initially there was something about
this bird that reminded me of a young Lesser Black-backed Gull, but keep in
mind that it has probably been over 10 years ago since I have seen a
juvenile/first winter Lesser Black-backed Gull. The aspects that reminded
me of LBBG was the neat and crisp patterning of the bird, but it did not
take long to realize that this was not a Lesser Black-backed. Confused and
excited about this bird I just took notes and photos and then went home to
look up what I could. In particular I had the notion that this could be a
Vega Gull by this time. Looking at photos on the Internet from Korea and
Japan it certainly fit some of the palest Vega, but it also fit many
features of some of the darker mongolicus. Studying the photos of the
darker Vega immatures it became clear to me that we could be seeing these
things here, but just overlooking them as well marked smithsonianus. Vega
and smithsonianus are both quite variable and seem to overlap widely in
plumage features. Of course the tail pattern is key, as very, very few
smithsonianus have a pale tail with dark tail band, and the ones that
do...well who knows maybe they are actually vegae!
The photos of the bird I would like some comments on are the top set of:
http://chucao.home.comcast.net/weirdgulls.html
- Bird is juvenile with some first basic back and scapulars.
- structurally bulky, large billed, thick-necked, very similar to many
smithsonianus. Not a particularly long-winged bird.
- Pale inner primaries, eliminates various taxa including Heuglin's and
Yellow-legged (right??).
- Tail band present, but very wide, not a crisp narrow tail band. This fits
with at least some variations of Vega, but may be too wide for mongolicus??
- Remaining juvenile scapulars show a distinctive pattern, with much white
banding, an 'oak leaf' type pattern. I have not seen this on paler
smithsonianus, which tend to show pale fringes or scallops rather than
these wide bands.
- First basic scapulars are pale grey with thin, crisp anchor pattern and
white tip. Again this is rare in smithsonianus. Most first basic birds show
a brownish grey feather with darker base. Those that have an anchor shape
have a broad and messy looking anchor, not these fine and crisp patterns.
Some photos of mongolicus showed a very similar first basic feather pattern
to the mystery bird.
-Tertials nicely checkered, at leas the top ones. Pattern is good for
vegae-mongolicus- and some smithsonianus, but poor for heuglins and
Lesser-black-backed assemblage.
- Head and neck white, some smithsonianus already show this but most have a
whitish head contrasting with a dark body. The birds that show more
extensive white on neck and into underparts are very advanced in moult by
now, and have distinctly bicolored bills. I guess they are coming from more
southern breeding localities?
- Underparts pale, but not white. This is good for vegae, mongolicus might
be expected to be paler below now? Good also for paler smithsonianus,
although this bird is a whole level paler than the palest group of
smithsonianus.
- very high contrast between whitish rump and dark tail. This is something
I have not noted in smithsonianus before.
Having seen a couple of Vega adults in Alaska a few years ago and no
experience with other ages of this taxon or other Asian taxa I would really
appreciate some input on this bird. I would also appreciate it if North
American observers who see things like this in their patch, and call them
pale Herring Gulls, tell me that they see them. If this is something within
the realm of what we call smithsonianus then it is worth learning that. If
this is really beyond what is possible for smithsonianus, based on your
home patch set of gulls that would be interesting to learn as well.
singed,
confused gull watcher
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)comcast.net
Montara, California
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
http://www.fieldguides.com/home.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Vega Gull in California???
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)MACUNLIMITED.NET>
Date: 8 Dec 2003 5:37pm
Alvaro's "Vega" Gull shows the value of good photo-libraries in assessing a
bird like this. Compared to Ujiharas pix and one or 2 of my own, it looks
virtually feather-perfect to me as a Vega Gull.
As a philosophical point, just how feather-perfect does a bird need to be,
compared to known birds, for it to be acceptable to a rarities committee?
Would the committee accept it or would they always throw in the caveat
"showing many (all) of the detailed plumage characters of ..." or should
they reject it as being unidentifiable?!
If Ujihara's gulls were skins in a museum and if Alvaro went out and shot
the bird and compared it on a bench - would that be more acceptable than
comparing photographs? (assuming you don't start plucking feathers and
sending them to the DNA lab).
Dick Newell, Cambridge, UK
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Vega Gulls...
From: julian hough <jrhough1(AT)SNET.NET>
Date: 8 Dec 2003 7:08pm
----DELETED HTML-ENCODED SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Vega Gull in California???
From: Paul Lehman <lehman.paul(AT)VERIZON.NET>
Date: 8 Dec 2003 7:41pm
IDFrontiers:
Guess there's crummy weather here in the East so I don't have anything
else to
do but respond about gulls, but I would like to cast a somewhat
dissenting vote
on Alvaro's gull in California being a juvenile Vega. At least it
doesn't match
what I am used to seeing earlier in the fall in the northern Bering Sea.
(I see
up to 60+/day there.) Granted, Vega Gulls can be decidedly variable in a
host
of characters at varying ages. AND, I have not looked at the collection
of
photos of Vega Gulls from Asia that Alvaro and others mention, and maybe
I
should do so before I stick my feet in "it".... But, I see many
juvenile/first-winter Vegas during multiple falls spent at St. Lawrence
Island,
Alaska, from the end of August until the time I leave in early October,
and
virtually all those birds show even more of a contrast between the
rump/uppertail coverts (whitish with variable amount of dark barring,
but
usually with only a very little, so the white REALLY stands out) and the
very
dark tail band (brownish-blackish, darker than the average
smithsonianus). And
also distinctive on the standing juvenile Vega are their really, really
dark-centered scapular feathers (again a blackish-brown) giving a much
more
contrasty, coarser look (more like some Lesser Black-backeds); one's
eyes are
really drawn to the scapular region on these birds, versus most juvenile
smithsonianus, which look more uniform over the body so one is not so
drawn to
one particular part of the body. I have seen this contrastingly bolder
scapular
look on some fresh smithsonianus, but it is the norm in young Vegas. The
photos
of Alvaro's bird in California look more like smithsonianus to me in
that
regard.
I can't say unequivocally that Alvaro's bird is not a Vega, but if it
is, it is
at the extreme smithsonianus end and not what a "typical" juvenile Vega
looks
like--at least on the basis of what I think they look like in the
northern
Bering Sea! (Smithsonianus is very rare but likely annual in very, very
small
numbers in the offshore Bering Sea.)
--Paul Lehman
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Vega Gull in California???
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 10 Dec 2003 6:38am
Dear Paul and all with nothing else to do but fuss over dumb seagulls,
I've spent far too long studying this taxon (vegae) from afar, and I've
looked through scores of images of 1CY-type birds from the core of their
wintering range: Japan. To me, Alvaro's bird looks to be a classic vegae,
based on what I can see in the five pics he's provided.
The timing difference between Paul's experience with vegae (Aug - early
Oct) and this bird (early Dec) is vital in one regard: Paul is used to
seeing them in full juvenile plumage (as he states), but Al's bird has
molted all of the mantle and upper scapular feathers, and these 2nd-
generation feathers are very different from the juv feathers, being far
less dark-centered and contrasty. The rearmost scaps and subscaps are
still juvenile feathers, and look to be an exact match for vegae (and some
smiths, of course!)
I feel that the sparseness of the dark barring on the uppertail
coverts/rump on Al's bird is quite different from smith HERG - in fact it
is towards the pale end of the range for vegae, compared to the pics from
Japan. The dark tail band is the darkest part of the bird - darker than
the primaries, to my eye, in the partially-spread tail pic. That pic also
shows a picture-perfect vegae tail pattern, with the dark marks on the
outermost Rs appearing to be very limited and not quite reaching the
outermost edge of the feather ( but better views would be nice.)
The recent DNA studies by Dubois on the large gull assembly confirmed the
notion that the "Nearctic" taxa are more-closely related to each other than
they are to any Old World Taxa. This fits with a phenotypic assessment in
one particular area: the belly and undertail covert markings of 1CY
birds. First-winter smith HERG, THGU, CAGU, WEGU, YFGU, GWGU, even MEGU,
all share the "New Word underparts": smooth brown belly merging on the vent
into close-packed fine barring with the pale bars less-visible than the
dark bars. They also share the "New World Tail": completely or almost-so
dark, with any barring limited to the basal third (sometimes half) of the
outer Rs, and that barring being close-spaced. In this analyis, RBGU is
the only Nearctic gull that does not fit the pattern (I wonder why?), and
SBGU fits it so well that I would call it a New World Gull derivative on
the periphery of the Nearctic region.
Anyway, my point is that vegae have the Old World trait of a banded tail,
streaked belly, and LIGHTLY-BARRED UNDERTAIL COVERTS. I feel that this
last feature is the best clue, given the vast array of hybrids and
introgressed individuals out there; virtually all the genetic material for
such mixed-gene birds involves Nearctic taxa, and produces birds with a
bewildering array of plumages patterns BUT with a remarkably consistent
belly/undertail pattern that is typical of the New World forms.
Although Al's pics don't show the underparts very well, the little I can
see looks perfect for vegae: streaked, not smooth belly markings, with
sparse, widely-spaced bars on the undertail coverts. Add this to all the
other pro-vegae features, and I feel that this is the best candidate I've
ever seen away from AK - better than my bird here:
http://www.martinreid.com/gullsp28.html
It would be helpful to hear from those who bird in the core range of
vegae. I wonder if the birds seen in AK - at the extreme periphery of
vegae's range - might be slightly different from the bulk of the population
seen wintering in Japan, and if this might account for some of the
perceptions of those used to seeing them only in an Alaskan context? We
all know the folly of assuming that a vagrant comes from the nearest
population of the presumed taxon.
Lastly, I feel the need for caution when comparing proposed vagrants to
"this smith" or "that GWGU". Unless "that" type and "this" type are found
in sufficient numbers, we cannot know if that "type" is really a smith or
GWGU, or is a hybrid or even the very vagrant taxa we are using it to
negate! Given that there are lots of hybrids on the West Coast, and that
various eastern Palearctic gull taxa are known to penetrate into the heart
of the New World, there is a serious risk of the Chicken and Egg Syndrome!
Cheers,
Martin
At 12/8/2003 09:41 PM -0500, you wrote:
>IDFrontiers:
>
>Guess there's crummy weather here in the East so I don't have anything
>else to
>do but respond about gulls, but I would like to cast a somewhat
>dissenting vote
>on Alvaro's gull in California being a juvenile Vega. At least it
>doesn't match
>what I am used to seeing earlier in the fall in the northern Bering Sea.
>(I see
>up to 60+/day there.) Granted, Vega Gulls can be decidedly variable in a
>host
>of characters at varying ages. AND, I have not looked at the collection
>of
>photos of Vega Gulls from Asia that Alvaro and others mention, and maybe
>I
>should do so before I stick my feet in "it".... But, I see many
>juvenile/first-winter Vegas during multiple falls spent at St. Lawrence
>Island,
>Alaska, from the end of August until the time I leave in early October,
>and
>virtually all those birds show even more of a contrast between the
>rump/uppertail coverts (whitish with variable amount of dark barring,
>but
>usually with only a very little, so the white REALLY stands out) and the
>very
>dark tail band (brownish-blackish, darker than the average
>smithsonianus). And
>also distinctive on the standing juvenile Vega are their really, really
>dark-centered scapular feathers (again a blackish-brown) giving a much
>more
>contrasty, coarser look (more like some Lesser Black-backeds); one's
>eyes are
>really drawn to the scapular region on these birds, versus most juvenile
>smithsonianus, which look more uniform over the body so one is not so
>drawn to
>one particular part of the body. I have seen this contrastingly bolder
>scapular
>look on some fresh smithsonianus, but it is the norm in young Vegas. The
>photos
>of Alvaro's bird in California look more like smithsonianus to me in
>that
>regard.
>
>I can't say unequivocally that Alvaro's bird is not a Vega, but if it
>is, it is
>at the extreme smithsonianus end and not what a "typical" juvenile Vega
>looks
>like--at least on the basis of what I think they look like in the
>northern
>Bering Sea! (Smithsonianus is very rare but likely annual in very, very
>small
>numbers in the offshore Bering Sea.)
>
>--Paul Lehman
Martin Reid
Fort Worth, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Vega Gull in California???
From: Kevin McGowan <kjm2(AT)CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 10 Dec 2003 1:10pm
At 12:38 AM 12/9/2003 +0000, Dick Newell wrote:
>...
>
>If Ujihara's gulls were skins in a museum and if Alvaro went out and shot
>the bird and compared it on a bench - would that be more acceptable than
>comparing photographs? (assuming you don't start plucking feathers and
>sending them to the DNA lab).
Absolutely, that would be better. Then anyone, anytime could examine the
specimens from all different angles, measure anything they wanted (without
the worry of parallax errors), look at the individual specific feathers
(not guess which ones are which), compare the colors in the same lighting
conditions, examine the exact progression of molt (head, body, and flight
feathers), and look at a bunch of other things that you didn't even know
you needed to look at in the beginning. And that does not include looking
at DNA for genetic analyses, stable isotopes for points of origin (and
diet), nor looking at the condition of the gonads, finding any internal
abnormalities, looking at heavy metal content for ecological reasons, and a
thousand things that we'll be able to do in the future that we can't right
now. A specimen is not the be-all and end-all to answer our questions, but
it really helps. Ideally photos would have been taken first or before it
was prepared so that natural shapes and contours would be captured.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we need to go out and collect
all these birds, and I'm not denigrating taking photographs. But a series
of photographs, even good ones, will never be as good as a series of
specimens for answering biological questions. It just depends on how
serious you are about getting the answers.
IMHO
Kevin
*****************************************************
Kevin J. McGowan
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
159 Sapsucker Woods Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607/254-2432
fax 607/254-2111
kjm2(AT)cornell.edu
http://birds.cornell.edu/crows/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Vega Gull in California???
From: "David C. Bailey" <baileydc(AT)PDX.EDU>
Date: 11 Dec 2003 2:35pm
Ok, my curiousity has gotten the best of me. I posted a few
notes privately, but have not gotten any response back yet, so I
am now posting to the group. My question is:
Can Slaty-backed Gull be eliminated from the list of potential
contenders for the identity of this individual? My experience is
far too lacking on this species to say much more. This was my
first thought upon seeing Alvaro's images on the web though. My
perusal of Grant seems to gave me the initial answer of "no."
Check out the primaries on the pictures (among other
characteristics).
Forgive me if I am being totally stoopid on this.
David
David C. Bailey
baileydc(AT)pdx.edu
Portland, Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Reid" <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Vega Gull in California???
> Dear Paul and all with nothing else to do but fuss over dumb
seagulls,
> I've spent far too long studying this taxon (vegae) from afar,
and I've
> looked through scores of images of 1CY-type birds from the core
of their
> wintering range: Japan. To me, Alvaro's bird looks to be a
classic vegae,
> based on what I can see in the five pics he's provided.
> The timing difference between Paul's experience with vegae
(Aug - early
> Oct) and this bird (early Dec) is vital in one regard: Paul is
used to
> seeing them in full juvenile plumage (as he states), but Al's
bird has
> molted all of the mantle and upper scapular feathers, and these
2nd-
> generation feathers are very different from the juv feathers,
being far
> less dark-centered and contrasty. The rearmost scaps and
subscaps are
> still juvenile feathers, and look to be an exact match for
vegae (and some
> smiths, of course!)
> I feel that the sparseness of the dark barring on the uppertail
> coverts/rump on Al's bird is quite different from smith HERG -
in fact it
> is towards the pale end of the range for vegae, compared to the
pics from
> Japan. The dark tail band is the darkest part of the bird -
darker than
> the primaries, to my eye, in the partially-spread tail pic.
That pic also
> shows a picture-perfect vegae tail pattern, with the dark marks
on the
> outermost Rs appearing to be very limited and not quite
reaching the
> outermost edge of the feather ( but better views would be
nice.)
> The recent DNA studies by Dubois on the large gull assembly
confirmed the
> notion that the "Nearctic" taxa are more-closely related to
each other than
> they are to any Old World Taxa. This fits with a phenotypic
assessment in
> one particular area: the belly and undertail covert markings of
1CY
> birds. First-winter smith HERG, THGU, CAGU, WEGU, YFGU, GWGU,
even MEGU,
> all share the "New Word underparts": smooth brown belly merging
on the vent
> into close-packed fine barring with the pale bars less-visible
than the
> dark bars. They also share the "New World Tail": completely or
almost-so
> dark, with any barring limited to the basal third (sometimes
half) of the
> outer Rs, and that barring being close-spaced. In this
analyis, RBGU is
> the only Nearctic gull that does not fit the pattern (I wonder
why?), and
> SBGU fits it so well that I would call it a New World Gull
derivative on
> the periphery of the Nearctic region.
> Anyway, my point is that vegae have the Old World trait of a
banded tail,
> streaked belly, and LIGHTLY-BARRED UNDERTAIL COVERTS. I feel
that this
> last feature is the best clue, given the vast array of hybrids
and
> introgressed individuals out there; virtually all the genetic
material for
> such mixed-gene birds involves Nearctic taxa, and produces
birds with a
> bewildering array of plumages patterns BUT with a remarkably
consistent
> belly/undertail pattern that is typical of the New World forms.
> Although Al's pics don't show the underparts very well, the
little I can
> see looks perfect for vegae: streaked, not smooth belly
markings, with
> sparse, widely-spaced bars on the undertail coverts. Add this
to all the
> other pro-vegae features, and I feel that this is the best
candidate I've
> ever seen away from AK - better than my bird here:
> http://www.martinreid.com/gullsp28.html
> It would be helpful to hear from those who bird in the core
range of
> vegae. I wonder if the birds seen in AK - at the extreme
periphery of
> vegae's range - might be slightly different from the bulk of
the population
> seen wintering in Japan, and if this might account for some of
the
> perceptions of those used to seeing them only in an Alaskan
context? We
> all know the folly of assuming that a vagrant comes from the
nearest
> population of the presumed taxon.
> Lastly, I feel the need for caution when comparing proposed
vagrants to
> "this smith" or "that GWGU". Unless "that" type and "this"
type are found
> in sufficient numbers, we cannot know if that "type" is really
a smith or
> GWGU, or is a hybrid or even the very vagrant taxa we are using
it to
> negate! Given that there are lots of hybrids on the West
Coast, and that
> various eastern Palearctic gull taxa are known to penetrate
into the heart
> of the New World, there is a serious risk of the Chicken and
Egg Syndrome!
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> At 12/8/2003 09:41 PM -0500, you wrote:
> >IDFrontiers:
> >
> >Guess there's crummy weather here in the East so I don't have
anything
> >else to
> >do but respond about gulls, but I would like to cast a
somewhat
> >dissenting vote
> >on Alvaro's gull in California being a juvenile Vega. At least
it
> >doesn't match
> >what I am used to seeing earlier in the fall in the northern
Bering Sea.
> >(I see
> >up to 60+/day there.) Granted, Vega Gulls can be decidedly
variable in a
> >host
> >of characters at varying ages. AND, I have not looked at the
collection
> >of
> >photos of Vega Gulls from Asia that Alvaro and others mention,
and maybe
> >I
> >should do so before I stick my feet in "it".... But, I see
many
> >juvenile/first-winter Vegas during multiple falls spent at St.
Lawrence
> >Island,
> >Alaska, from the end of August until the time I leave in early
October,
> >and
> >virtually all those birds show even more of a contrast between
the
> >rump/uppertail coverts (whitish with variable amount of dark
barring,
> >but
> >usually with only a very little, so the white REALLY stands
out) and the
> >very
> >dark tail band (brownish-blackish, darker than the average
> >smithsonianus). And
> >also distinctive on the standing juvenile Vega are their
really, really
> >dark-centered scapular feathers (again a blackish-brown)
giving a much
> >more
> >contrasty, coarser look (more like some Lesser Black-backeds);
one's
> >eyes are
> >really drawn to the scapular region on these birds, versus
most juvenile
> >smithsonianus, which look more uniform over the body so one is
not so
> >drawn to
> >one particular part of the body. I have seen this
contrastingly bolder
> >scapular
> >look on some fresh smithsonianus, but it is the norm in young
Vegas. The
> >photos
> >of Alvaro's bird in California look more like smithsonianus to
me in
> >that
> >regard.
> >
> >I can't say unequivocally that Alvaro's bird is not a Vega,
but if it
> >is, it is
> >at the extreme smithsonianus end and not what a "typical"
juvenile Vega
> >looks
> >like--at least on the basis of what I think they look like in
the
> >northern
> >Bering Sea! (Smithsonianus is very rare but likely annual in
very, very
> >small
> >numbers in the offshore Bering Sea.)
> >
> >--Paul Lehman
>
> Martin Reid
> Fort Worth, Texas
> mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
> http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Pluvialis plover in New Zealand
From: Ross Silcock <silcock(AT)rosssilcock.com>
Date: 12 Dec 2003 9:03pm
Hi all:
I have posted to my website (URL below) 2 photos taken in late Nov in the
Bay of Plenty in New Zealand. Debate has ensued as to identity. Pacific GP
is the usual migrant to NZ, and as yet American GP is unrecorded. I would
appreciate comments on the identity of this bird (on the right).
Thanks!
Ross
Ross Silcock
P.O. Box 57
Tabor, Iowa, USA 51653
silcock(AT)rosssilcock.com
New Zealand Land and Pelagic Tours
www.rosssilcock.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Photos of uncommon and poorly known tubenoses
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 12 Dec 2003 9:21pm
Seabird fans might be interested in some of the new additions to 'Ocean
Wanderers', which feature some less well-known species from the Southern
Hemisphere and equatorial Pacific.
First off, Hadoram Shirihai has generously provided a short web article
summarizing his recent cruise in the eastern Tropical Pacific. His notes are
accompanied by stunning photos of poorly known species such as Juan Fernandez,
Galapagos and Defilippe's Petrel as well as Hornby's and Markham's Storm-
Petrel. Hadoram also offers a photo of a possible Henderson Petrel and would
appreciate comments on its identification.
Also featured is the remarkable rediscovery last January of New Zealand Storm-
Petrel _Oceanites maorianus_ by Brent Stephenson Sav Saville and party(Wrybill
Birding Tours) off Whitianga on the North Island of New Zealand. This poorly
known taxa has not been seen (or collected) since the 19th century and only
three specimens are known.
Remarkably, Bob Flood and Bryan Thomas, visiting birders from the UK, observed
and photographed a flock of New Zealand Storm-Petrels in the same area a few
weeks ago. They saw 10 birds together, with up to 20 birds visiting their chum
slick over a period of 2 hours. An article on this exciting new development,
written by Bob Flood, has just been published in Birding World (December 10th
issue). Whether this is a species in its own right or a rather odd subspecies
of Wilson's Storm-Petrel can now be addressed in full. Current expert opinion
favors the former. With the discovery of multiple birds in less than a year I
think we can anticipate a systematic and perhaps government-sponsored search
for the breeding sites as well as regular sightings by birding groups.
Enjoy the photos!
http://www.oceanwanderers.com/
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Acknowledge photographer
From: Ross Silcock <silcock(AT)rosssilcock.com>
Date: 13 Dec 2003 6:42am
Hi all:
My apologies: the photographer for the "mystery" Pluvialis plover pics on my
website (URL below) was Tim Barnard.
Ross
Ross Silcock
P.O. Box 57
Tabor, Iowa, USA 51653
silcock(AT)rosssilcock.com
New Zealand Land and Pelagic Tours
www.rosssilcock.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: NZ Pluvialis - and one from Delaware
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 13 Dec 2003 8:29am
Dear All,
Ross's post on the NZ Pluvialis is timely for me, as I'd just found a site
on the WWW with pics of what is stated to be Delaware's first fulva, from
October 2003 near Bombay Hook:
http://www.udel.edu/dosbirds/photogallery/birdpix/feat4.jpg
a juvenile, and thus it makes for an interesting comparison with the
juvenile NZ bird:
http://www.rosssilcock.com/PluvNZ1.jpg
http://www.rosssilcock.com/PluvNZ2.jpg
- largely because of the similarity of the rear-end structure and general
"color-scheme."
Yet I feel that the DE bird is a bright dominca and the NZ bird is a dull,
long-winged fulva.
The DE individual has the rather short, dainty bill, large head, dark crown
with small gold streaks, small white/golden marks to the edgings of the
upperpart feathers, and especially very small pale"teeth" on the short
tertials that I associate with dominica. In fact the only thing about this
bird that suggests fulva is the extent of golden-yellow in the upperparts,
and this might be exaggerated by the way in which the images were prepared;
note that the photos have a strong reddish tinge except for the bottom-left
one - a copy of the bottom right image that has been prepared with less red
in it - and in this image the upperparts look far better for a bright dominica.
The NZ individual, by contrast, has a long bill, small head, paler crown
due to the large golden spots (not thin streaks,) large white/golden (with
more of an orange hue) marks on the upperpart feathers, and especially
quite large pale "teeth" on the tertials - all in line with juvenile fulva
- allbeit a rather pale and "whitish" one.
The one feature that I find troubling on the NZ bird is the apparent short
tertial length compared to the tail. I've long moved beyond the flawed
mantra that fulva have short wings (most do, but a significant portion have
wings as long-looking as many dominicas) - but the relative length of the
tertials has been a very reliable indicator on every image of fulva I've
studied (and I have a collection of 124 photos of fulvas.) The pics of
the NZ bird are not ideal for properly assessing this (are there any more
pics available, Ross?) but the tertials look too short for fulva compared
to the tail. I'm not sure what to make of this, but I'm loathe to allow
this bird to invalidate an otherwise excellent feature for fulva without
better pics of it. Thus I feel it is a fulva with oddly short-LOOKING
tertials. Interestingly, the adult bird next to it also seems to have
too-short tertials (you need to lighten the image quite a lot to see it,)
so maybe there is some photographic 'thing" going on? Note that an adult
fulva might be replacing some of its tertials in early December, explaining
the shortness on this bird, but the juvenile should have finished growing
its tertials before Dec, and this juv's tertials appear
properly-proportioned for fully-grown feathers...?
Cheers,
Martin
Martin Reid
Fort Worth, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NZ Pluvialis - and one from Delaware
From: Gary Potter <GWPOTT(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 13 Dec 2003 10:56am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
The angle at which the photo of the New Zealand Pluvialis was taken is not a
profile and makes it more difficult to judge the relative length of tertials
and primaries, so I agree that positive identification would require better
pictures. --Gary
Gary W. Potter
Sanger, Fresno Co., CA
GWPOTT(AT)aol.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NZ Pluvialis - and one from Delaware
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>
Date: 13 Dec 2003 11:53am
Hi all - I've just returned from three weeks on Oahu where I saw many fulva
golden-plovers daily. Neither the Delaware bird nor the New Zealand bird
resemble any of the fulva plovers in Hawaii. Both have a lot of gray
scalloping to the head and underparts not matched by fulva, which have
weaker brownish fringing giving a different appearance. Images of the
Delaware bird also show grayer wing coverts (those not replaced during the
preformative molt) and incredibly bright supercilium and forehead, not
matched by any fulva. This could be photo artifact but I can't see this as
explaining all of these anomalies (for fulva if not both species). Both
birds seem to show a narrower and perhaps longer bill than displayed by
fulva. I don't know if this latter feature is of significance or is bourne
out by measurements. In the past I've tried hard to find wing morphology
differences between these two taxa and gave up. This is not to say that
there are no average differences.
Peter Pyle
At 09:32 AM 12/13/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear All,
>Ross's post on the NZ Pluvialis is timely for me, as I'd just found a site
>on the WWW with pics of what is stated to be Delaware's first fulva, from
>October 2003 near Bombay Hook:
>http://www.udel.edu/dosbirds/photogallery/birdpix/feat4.jpg
>a juvenile, and thus it makes for an interesting comparison with the
>juvenile NZ bird:
>http://www.rosssilcock.com/PluvNZ1.jpg
>http://www.rosssilcock.com/PluvNZ2.jpg
> - largely because of the similarity of the rear-end structure and general
>"color-scheme."
>Yet I feel that the DE bird is a bright dominca and the NZ bird is a dull,
>long-winged fulva.
>The DE individual has the rather short, dainty bill, large head, dark crown
>with small gold streaks, small white/golden marks to the edgings of the
>upperpart feathers, and especially very small pale"teeth" on the short
>tertials that I associate with dominica. In fact the only thing about this
>bird that suggests fulva is the extent of golden-yellow in the upperparts,
>and this might be exaggerated by the way in which the images were prepared;
>note that the photos have a strong reddish tinge except for the bottom-left
>one - a copy of the bottom right image that has been prepared with less red
>in it - and in this image the upperparts look far better for a bright
>dominica.
>The NZ individual, by contrast, has a long bill, small head, paler crown
>due to the large golden spots (not thin streaks,) large white/golden (with
>more of an orange hue) marks on the upperpart feathers, and especially
>quite large pale "teeth" on the tertials - all in line with juvenile fulva
>- allbeit a rather pale and "whitish" one.
>The one feature that I find troubling on the NZ bird is the apparent short
>tertial length compared to the tail. I've long moved beyond the flawed
>mantra that fulva have short wings (most do, but a significant portion have
>wings as long-looking as many dominicas) - but the relative length of the
>tertials has been a very reliable indicator on every image of fulva I've
>studied (and I have a collection of 124 photos of fulvas.) The pics of
>the NZ bird are not ideal for properly assessing this (are there any more
>pics available, Ross?) but the tertials look too short for fulva compared
>to the tail. I'm not sure what to make of this, but I'm loathe to allow
>this bird to invalidate an otherwise excellent feature for fulva without
>better pics of it. Thus I feel it is a fulva with oddly short-LOOKING
>tertials. Interestingly, the adult bird next to it also seems to have
>too-short tertials (you need to lighten the image quite a lot to see it,)
>so maybe there is some photographic 'thing" going on? Note that an adult
>fulva might be replacing some of its tertials in early December, explaining
>the shortness on this bird, but the juvenile should have finished growing
>its tertials before Dec, and this juv's tertials appear
>properly-proportioned for fully-grown feathers...?
>Cheers,
>Martin
>
>
>Martin Reid
>Fort Worth, Texas
>mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
>http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: golden plovers in NZ and DE
From: julian hough <jrhough1(AT)SNET.NET>
Date: 13 Dec 2003 3:05pm
Just looked at the pix of the NZ and Delaware plovers and agree with
Martin Reid that the Delaware bird is an American Golden Plover, since I
don't see much to
indicate fulva at all;I assume that the brightness of yellow on the
mantle was the main reason for it being fulva. The latter in itself is
not an indicator for id. as either species..
Just looked at the NZ bird and I too, think it's a dull fulva. The
shape
color and size of the yellow on the mantle feathers favors fulva.
The bird looks long-billed, and although the larger amount of primary
projection is not ideal, I think it is probably within the range of some
fulvas.
Julian Hough,
CT, USA
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland