 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for November 14-20, 2004
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Re: rare birds of CA book | Luke Cole | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 12:26am |
| Age of male King Eider? | Jean Iron | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 7:56am |
| CBRC Book | SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 9:27am |
| Re: Age of male King Eider? | Peter Pyle | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 3:25pm |
| Re: Age of male King Eider? | Paul A. Guris | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 4:11pm |
| RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas | Martin Reid | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 4:50pm |
| Re: Age of male King Eider? | Bruce Mactavish | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 5:19pm |
| Re: Age of male King Eider? | Julian Hough | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 6:20pm |
| Re: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas | Julian Hough | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 | 6:38pm |
| Re: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas - update | Martin Reid | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 6:45am |
| experts wanted on Ardeola identification | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pierr | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 8:52am |
| Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Joseph Morlan | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 9:57am |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Dave DeReamus | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 11:13am |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | David Sibley | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 11:44am |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | John Idzikowski | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 12:05pm |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Jason Forbes | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 12:06pm |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | John Idzikowski | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 12:18pm |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Joseph Morlan | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 12:42pm |
| Re: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas - update | Les Chibana | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 12:45pm |
| Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose | Jean Iron | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 2:57pm |
| Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Ian Mclaren | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 5:22pm |
| MA Goose | SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 8:53pm |
| King Eider and Canada Goose | Peter Pyle | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 10:42pm |
| Re: MA Goose | J. Harry Krueger | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 | 10:48pm |
| (New Information) Age of male King Eider? | Jean Iron | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 | 9:24am |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | David Sibley | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 | 2:41pm |
| Ageing male King Eiders | Kevin McLaughlin | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 | 3:50pm |
| Trondheim Gull back again | Frode Falkenberg | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 | 6:14pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull back again | Rafael Lizarralde | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 | 7:14pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull back again | John Idzikowski | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 | 9:14pm |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FE?= | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 1:06am |
| Trondheim Gull | Jonathan Simms | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 8:38am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Phillip Pickering | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 10:21am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Dick Newell | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 10:54am |
| herring-winged gull | Phillip Pickering | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 11:04am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Norman D.van Swelm | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 11:56am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Lethaby, Nick | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 12:00pm |
| Re: Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose | SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 12:25pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 12:45pm |
| more about ID of Nov 6 TX Skua | Martin Reid | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 1:05pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Martin Reid | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 3:40pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Norman D.van Swelm | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 4:54pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Norman D.van Swelm | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 5:35pm |
| Reply: Variation in "Richardson's"
Cackling Goose | sales(AT)BIRDINGWORLD.C | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 5:53pm |
| "minima" Cackling Goose common name [was:
Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose] | Phil Davis | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 11:47pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | MIECHEL TABAK | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 | 11:53pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | David Vander Pluym | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 | 1:57am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Dick Newell | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 | 8:27am |
| Re: more about ID of Nov 6 TX Skua | Dick Newell | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 | 8:40am |
| Re: | Colin McNamee | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 | 8:46am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Norman D.van Swelm | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 | 4:30pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Jonathan Simms | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 11:35am |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Lethaby, Nick | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 12:22pm |
| Re: Trondheim Gull | Jeff Davis | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 1:06pm |
| Separation of sibling species | Angus Wilson | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 1:42pm |
| Re: Separation of sibling species | Ian Paulsen | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 2:50pm |
| Trondheim Gull | Joel Weintraub | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 4:03pm |
| Re: Separation of sibling species | Joel Weintraub | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 4:12pm |
| Re: Separation of sibling species | Lethaby, Nick | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 4:24pm |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Angus Wilson | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 4:55pm |
| Re: Separation of sibling species | Rafael Lizarralde | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 4:57pm |
| Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts | Mike Patterson | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 | 5:13pm |
| Italy: second Greater Sandplover (Charadrius
leschenaultii) | Menotti Passarella | Sat, 20 Nov 2004 | 2:04am |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: rare birds of CA book
From: Luke Cole <luke(AT)igc.org>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 12:26am
>I understand that the CA bird records committee is working on a rare birds of
CA book. Does anyone know when it is due out?
Rare Birds of California, a publication of the California Bird Records Committee
edited by Michael A. Patten, Robert A. Hamilton and Richard A. Erickson, is
currently undergoing its final editorial review. Barring the unforeseen, we
anticipate a 2005 publication date. It will be a significant contribution to
the literature, and a must-have volume for the library of any student of
California's avifauna. The Book, as we call it, encompasses the CBRC's
decisions from its inception, listing all the records the Committee has
reviewed. It deals with the 239 species that have at one time or other been on
California's review list, as well as 82 hypothetical, supplemental, nonnative or
extirpated species. It is also chock full of photographs of these various
species. We are very much looking forward to its completion and publication.
Luke
Luke Cole
San Francisco
Chair, California Bird Records Committee
Luke Cole
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
450 Geary Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-346-4179 + fax 415-346-8723
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Age of male King Eider?
From: Jean Iron <jeaniron(AT)SYMPATICO.CA>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 7:56am
A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the west end
of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year (1CY)
bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year (2CY)
bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
Jean Iron
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/
9 Lichen Place
Toronto ON M3A 1X3
416-445-9297
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: CBRC Book
From: SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 14 Nov 2004 9:27am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
Ok, this is off-topic, but just a quick note.
I've seen portions of the upcoming rare birds of CA book, and it will be
AWESOME. The painstaking detail, insightful comments, a fine addition to
anyone's
bird book collection. The same, by the way, could be said of the birds of the
Salton Sea book recently published, authors McCaskie and Patten (or vice
versa).
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Age of male King Eider?
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 3:25pm
Hi Ron and all -
This individual shows plumage and bill shape typical of a second-year (2CY)
male King Eider. Hatching-year (1CY) males are still brown, primarily
female-like at this time of year, with a few white feathers coming in on
the breast and some other details of the wing coverts separating them from
HY females. By next summer they show increased amounts of white and black
plumage but no pale blue in the crown. Following the complete molt in fall
(into what I call basic plumage [Waterbirds, in press] but most call
alternate plumage), males vary in the extent to which full definitive-basic
plumage is acquired, some showing less color than the Ontario bird and
others resembling full adults. Besides plumage, they can be aged by having
mottled black and white wing patches and by the shape of the bill (lack of
full knob). Some third-years (3CYs) at this time of year are possibly aged
by wing and bill criteria, but details need to be worked out. There might
be overlap between advanced SYs and slow-developing TYs.
Peter Pyle
At 09:56 AM 11/14/04 -0500, Jean Iron wrote:
>A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the west end
>of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year (1CY)
>bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year (2CY)
>bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
>
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
>
>Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
>Jean Iron
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/
>9 Lichen Place
>Toronto ON M3A 1X3
>416-445-9297
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Age of male King Eider?
From: "Paul A. Guris" <list-servers(AT)paulagics.com>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 4:11pm
When I was a teenager, I picked up an ill King Eider off the beach in N.J. It
had very female-like plumage with no black or white patches, but it had a very
orangey bill. It was not as intense as an adult male, but still very brightly
colored. Do you know if this is this typical of a 1CY male?
-PAG
Paul A. Guris
See Life Paulagics
P.O. Box 161
Green Lane, PA 18054
www.paulagics.com
215-234-6805
info(AT)paulagics.com
Quoting Peter Pyle <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>:
> Hi Ron and all -
>
> This individual shows plumage and bill shape typical of a second-year (2CY)
> male King Eider. Hatching-year (1CY) males are still brown, primarily
> female-like at this time of year, with a few white feathers coming in on
> the breast and some other details of the wing coverts separating them from
> HY females. By next summer they show increased amounts of white and black
> plumage but no pale blue in the crown. Following the complete molt in fall
> (into what I call basic plumage [Waterbirds, in press] but most call
> alternate plumage), males vary in the extent to which full definitive-basic
> plumage is acquired, some showing less color than the Ontario bird and
> others resembling full adults. Besides plumage, they can be aged by having
> mottled black and white wing patches and by the shape of the bill (lack of
> full knob). Some third-years (3CYs) at this time of year are possibly aged
> by wing and bill criteria, but details need to be worked out. There might
> be overlap between advanced SYs and slow-developing TYs.
>
> Peter Pyle
>
> At 09:56 AM 11/14/04 -0500, Jean Iron wrote:
> >A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the west end
> >of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year (1CY)
> >bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year (2CY)
> >bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
> >
> >http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
> >
> >Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
> >Jean Iron
> >http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/
> >9 Lichen Place
> >Toronto ON M3A 1X3
> >416-445-9297
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 4:50pm
Dear all,
Here are pics of the first two SP Skuas for TExas ( and the Gulf of Mexico,
I believe):
http://www.martinreid.com/skuax.html
The primary molt clearly makes them different birds (other differences in
the secondaries and tail could be explained by the five- week progression
of molt between the two dates,) yet the body plumage is very similar -
looking to have more pale marks than I'd have expected for a Juv/first
Basic. Molt timing may vary more in the Atlantic than in the Pacific, so
can it be used reliably to age these birds? What age are they, and why??
Many thanks,
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Age of male King Eider?
From: Bruce Mactavish <bruce.mactavish1(AT)NF.SYMPATICO.CA>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 5:19pm
Male King Eiders in their first winter of life (Dec-April) have orange
bills. The intensity of the orange is variable early in the winter
becoming showy pumpkin-orange as the breast turn white and head darkens
in the latter half of winter and early spring. Don't know when the bill
of the 1st year males begins to turn orange, but in early December at
least some are showing orange bills, yet female-like brown heads and
bodies. By Christmas count time searching for the pumpkin-orange bill
among large flocks of Common Eiders is the easiest way to find non-adult
male King Eiders in Newfoundland.
Bruce Mactavish
St. John's, Newfoundland
Canada
bruce.mactavish1(AT)nf.sympatico.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul A. Guris
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 7:47 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Age of male King Eider?
When I was a teenager, I picked up an ill King Eider off the beach in
N.J. It
had very female-like plumage with no black or white patches, but it had
a very
orangey bill. It was not as intense as an adult male, but still very
brightly
colored. Do you know if this is this typical of a 1CY male?
-PAG
Paul A. Guris
See Life Paulagics
P.O. Box 161
Green Lane, PA 18054
www.paulagics.com
215-234-6805
info(AT)paulagics.com
Quoting Peter Pyle <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>:
> Hi Ron and all -
>
> This individual shows plumage and bill shape typical of a second-year
(2CY)
> male King Eider. Hatching-year (1CY) males are still brown, primarily
> female-like at this time of year, with a few white feathers coming in
on
> the breast and some other details of the wing coverts separating them
from
> HY females. By next summer they show increased amounts of white and
black
> plumage but no pale blue in the crown. Following the complete molt in
fall
> (into what I call basic plumage [Waterbirds, in press] but most call
> alternate plumage), males vary in the extent to which full
definitive-basic
> plumage is acquired, some showing less color than the Ontario bird and
> others resembling full adults. Besides plumage, they can be aged by
having
> mottled black and white wing patches and by the shape of the bill
(lack of
> full knob). Some third-years (3CYs) at this time of year are possibly
aged
> by wing and bill criteria, but details need to be worked out. There
might
> be overlap between advanced SYs and slow-developing TYs.
>
> Peter Pyle
>
> At 09:56 AM 11/14/04 -0500, Jean Iron wrote:
> >A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the
west end
> >of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year
(1CY)
> >bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year
(2CY)
> >bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
> >
> >http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
> >
> >Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
> >Jean Iron
> >http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/
> >9 Lichen Place
> >Toronto ON M3A 1X3
> >416-445-9297
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Age of male King Eider?
From: Julian Hough <jrhough1(AT)SNET.NET>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 6:20pm
Dear All,
With respect to the King Eider photograph and Pete's comment's I would like
to add a note about ageing 2nd/3rd year King Eider's, in particular those
individuals which resemble full adults. A note in an old British Birds (Vol
87 Jan 1994 pg 36-40) by Pete Ellis and Jane Dawson, contains some excellent
information about ageing and sexing male King Eiders. I'll paraphrase the
info (hopefully correctly..) contained in their letter and apply it to the
photo on Jean's site.
Basically it appears that they moult at different rates; first-winter males
moulting first, followed by non-breeding males, then breeding males. In
summer, there will be males in various stages of moult.
In winter, it seems that males can moult either very little, or quite a bit,
some birds attaining a grey crown, whitish cheeks and thigh patches. The
bill is orange red and may show some semblance of a bill shield beginning to
appear.
Apparently second-winter males differ from third-winter (adult) and older
males by having the crown greyish (not powder-blue), whitish cheeks (not
greenish) and whitish (not pinkish breast) as well as a smaller bill shield.
They differ from exceptionally advanced first-winter males in having black
bellies and partially white median coverts.
Dawson goes on to point out that her captive bred second-winter King Eiders
in February resemble older adults differing only in a slightly smaller bill
shield and a narrow black stripe up the centre of the nape.
From Jean's picture, based on the time of year and plumage I would guess
that it is a bird moulting out of it's first-summer eclipse plumage
approaching it's second winter. I doubt whether a younger bird would have
such developed sails and plumage at this time of year.
Regards,
Julian Hough,
CT, USA
jrhough1(AT)snet.net
www.naturescapeimages.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Pyle" <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Age of male King Eider?
> Hi Ron and all -
>
> This individual shows plumage and bill shape typical of a second-year
> (2CY)
> male King Eider. Hatching-year (1CY) males are still brown, primarily
> female-like at this time of year, with a few white feathers coming in on
> the breast and some other details of the wing coverts separating them from
> HY females. By next summer they show increased amounts of white and black
> plumage but no pale blue in the crown. Following the complete molt in fall
> (into what I call basic plumage [Waterbirds, in press] but most call
> alternate plumage), males vary in the extent to which full
> definitive-basic
> plumage is acquired, some showing less color than the Ontario bird and
> others resembling full adults. Besides plumage, they can be aged by having
> mottled black and white wing patches and by the shape of the bill (lack of
> full knob). Some third-years (3CYs) at this time of year are possibly aged
> by wing and bill criteria, but details need to be worked out. There might
> be overlap between advanced SYs and slow-developing TYs.
>
> Peter Pyle
>
> At 09:56 AM 11/14/04 -0500, Jean Iron wrote:
>>A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the west end
>>of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year (1CY)
>>bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year (2CY)
>>bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
>>
>>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
>>
>>Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
>>Jean Iron
>>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/
>>9 Lichen Place
>>Toronto ON M3A 1X3
>>416-445-9297
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas
From: Julian Hough <jrhough1(AT)SNET.NET>
Date: 14 Nov 2004 6:38pm
Martin,
Glancing at the photos on your site, the last three images look more like a
Pomarine than a South Polar Skua... Just from the photos the jizz looks all
wrong????
Julian Hough,
CT, USA
jrhough1(AT)snet.net
www.naturescapeimages.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Reid" <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas
> Dear all,
> Here are pics of the first two SP Skuas for TExas ( and the Gulf of
> Mexico,
> I believe):
> http://www.martinreid.com/skuax.html
> The primary molt clearly makes them different birds (other differences in
> the secondaries and tail could be explained by the five- week progression
> of molt between the two dates,) yet the body plumage is very similar -
> looking to have more pale marks than I'd have expected for a Juv/first
> Basic. Molt timing may vary more in the Atlantic than in the Pacific, so
> can it be used reliably to age these birds? What age are they, and why??
> Many thanks,
> Martin
>
> Martin Reid
> San Antonio, Texas
> mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
> http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas - update
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 6:45am
Dear all,
I was kind of expecting some votes for Pom on this bird - especially based
upon the flying-away images. I've added some zooms, and one new pic, plus
some text that I feel explains why this is a SP Skua; note that the URL has
changed:
http://www.martinreid.com/skuay.html
As always I'd appreciate feedback from those with relevant experience -
especially if I'm wrong!
I wonder if the amount of white in the base of the primaries is
gender-dimorphic? If so, then probably females would have less than males,
and this bird - based on structure - would seem to be a female.
Note that all observers (including Mike Overton, who has seen a lot of
jaegers/skuas) commented on the different flight style of this bird (we'd
seen 16 Poms by this time), being very Herring Gull-like, and almost lumbering.
Here are some pics at Dick Newell's fabulous site that show SPSKs with less
white in the upper primaries:
http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?title_id=364&show_thumbnails=False
http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?title_id=359&search=0&show_thumbnails=False
http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?title_id=350&search=0&show_thumbnails=False
Cheers,
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: experts wanted on Ardeola identification
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pierre-Andr=E9_CROCHET?= <pierre-andre.crochet(AT)CEFE.CNRS.FR>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 8:52am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Dear all,=0D
A request on the behalf of Fr=E9d=E9ric Jiguet. He recently photographed in=
Egypt a strange Ardeola which looks suspiciously different from A. ralloid=
es. He would like to get in touch with birders/ ornithologists with a reaso=
nable experience of Squacco, Indian Pond and Gray Herons who would be ready=
to comment on the pictures (which are not tremendously good unfortunately)=
.=0D
Contact him directly at fjiguet(AT)mnhn.fr=0D
Thanks in advance,=0D
Pierre=0D
=0D
PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL // ATTENTION NOUVELLE ADRESSE EMAIL=0D
Pierre-Andr=E9 Crochet=0D
CNRS-UMR 5175 Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive=0D
1919, route de Mende=0D
34293 Montpellier cedex 5=0D
France=0D
tel: + 33 6 07 32 60 75=0D
+ 33 4 67 61 32 98=0D
fax: + 33 4 67 41 21 38=0D
pierre-andre.crochet(AT)cefe.cnrs.fr=0D
--=20
passerelle antivirus du campus CNRS de Montpellier
--
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 9:57am
Glen Tepke has posted a nice series of a controversial Canada/Cackling
Goose at:
http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/lesser_canada_goose_0411
The web site notes that David Sibley had studied the bird and suggested it
was probably a "Lesser" Canada Goose (B. c. parvipes) prompting a number of
local birders to remove Cackling Goose from their life lists.
When I originally saw the photos, my reaction was that I would not have
called it parvipes. The very stubby bill and dark breast look to me more
like the larger form of Cackling Goose (C. h. taverneri).
There is considerable variation in these geese and the limits of that
variation remain unclear. Bruce Deuel has a paper in press in "Western
Birds" (Vol 35 #3) which deals specifically with the taverneri/parvipes
identification problem. I wrote to Bruce about the Massachusetts bird.
His reply:
"I think it's a good candidate to be taverneri. I don't know why that
wasn't considered.....And the more I look at it, it could even be an
Aleutian with no neck-ring. In any case, I feel those folks who removed
Cackling Goose from their lists were too hasty."
I certainly agree that the bird doesn't look much like my idea of the
"Richardson's" form of Cackling Goose (B. h. hutchinsii), but was wondering
if others had misgivings about the bird being parvipes. I also was
wondering if the local birders had considered the possibility of taverneri
or leucopareia.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan(AT)ccsf.org
Fall Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Dave DeReamus <becard(AT)FAST.NET>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 11:13am
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Morlan" <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
> Glen Tepke has posted a nice series of a controversial Canada/Cackling
> Goose at:
> http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/lesser_canada_goose_0411
>
> Bruce Deuel has a paper in press in "Western
> Birds" (Vol 35 #3) which deals specifically with the taverneri/parvipes
> identification problem. I wrote to Bruce about the Massachusetts bird.
> His reply:
> "I think it's a good candidate to be taverneri. I don't know why that
> wasn't considered.....And the more I look at it, it could even be an
> Aleutian with no neck-ring."
> I certainly agree that the bird doesn't look much like my idea of the
> "Richardson's" form of Cackling Goose (B. h. hutchinsii), but was
wondering
> if others had misgivings about the bird being parvipes. I also was
> wondering if the local birders had considered the possibility of taverneri
> or leucopareia.
---------------------------------------
Hi all,
There IS a hint of a neck ring in a few of the photos, particularly the
top-right photo.
I certainly don't have any experience with the western forms, but this bird
doesn't look like a "Richardson's" (more rounded head, sloped forehead, and
lacking the overall silvery cast).
Just my one-and-a-half cents.
Good Birding,
Dave DeReamus
Compiler of the 'Eastern PA Birdline'
Easton, PA
becard(AT)fast.net
Eastern PA Birding Website: http://www.users.fast.net/~becard/index.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: David Sibley <david_sibley(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 11:44am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Joe et al,
I'm happy to see a broader discussion of this Massachusetts goose. Here is a
copy of the message I sent to the Massachusetts listserv on November 11th.
-------------------------------------------------
What a fascinating bird! Congratulations to Jason Forbes for picking it out.
I was intrigued when I first saw the photos of the Waltham goose - it just
seemed too long-necked to be hutchinsii. This impression was confirmed in
email by Paul Hertzel in Iowa who has been studying the geese there, and
yesterday morning I saw the bird in life for about 45 minutes at point blank
range and in good light.
In life, the bird looks pretty much the way it does in photos that Marj and
Jason have posted, except that the colors are richer and the warm cinnamon
tone is obvious on the breast and shows up faintly on the rest of the
plumage. I noticed lots of interesting small differences compared to the
surrounding geese. Of course, the small bill is striking and the shape of
the feathered border at the base of the bill is slightly different, and once
you're onto the bird the smaller body is also apparent. The eye seemed
relatively large, i.e. the eye is about the same size as on the larger geese
while the rest of the head is smaller. The head shape is distinctly
different with a steep forehead and flatter top. The overall color is
slightly darker and "warmer", the feathering on the top of the leg is
distinctly darker, the tertials are narrower and straighter than most of the
Canadas (not so square-tipped and drooping), this may be age-related but the
bird has no juvenile feathers and is therefore at least second winter. It
shows a few speckles of white at the bottom of the black neck "sock" in
front, a hint of a white collar that contrasts with the cinnamon-tinged
chest. When grazing with its bill in the grass the profile of the underside
shows a flat chest and gently curved neck, while the larger geese have a
deep "bow" on the chest as the neck curves down then up then sharply down
again to put the bill to the grass.
I did hear it call several times - a clear rising "h-ronk" just slightly
higher-pitched than the regular Canadas. I believe this call makes it a
male, which means it will be on the large side for its subspecies, but I
couldn't say anything about which subspecies based on the call.
Along with those differences, I noticed that the overall size is just
slightly smaller than the large geese, and this was most obvious as they all
flew away. I would expect a hutchinsii to be less than half the body bulk of
the large geese, while this bird looks to be about two-thirds. The neck is
just slightly shorter relative to the larger geese, not the very
short-necked appearance that most or all hutchinsii show. The pattern of
color on the scapulars and wing coverts is very similar to the large birds,
not the more silvery sheen with dark subterminal band and prominent pale tip
that is characteristic of at least some hutchinsii.
The bottom line: I'm not comfortable calling this a Cackling Goose. For
comparison check out a series of photos by John Idzikowski of specimens
collected in Wisconsin and posted at
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/geese/richter.htm. I think the Waltham
bird is a perfect match for the Lesser Canada Goose third from left in the
first photo. We do need to be cautious about accepting the identification of
museum specimens, since the collectors and museum curators didn't
necessarily know more than we do now about identifying these subspecies, but
this is what we have, and I think it raises serious questions about the
Waltham bird being a Cackling Goose. If I had to put a name on it I would
definitely go for Canada Goose of the parvipes Lesser subspecies. So it's a
fascinating bird, and far out of its normal range whether it's a hutchinsii
Cackling Goose or a parvipes Canada Goose (or something else like taverneri
Cackling Goose). At the very least it shows how much we don't know and how
challenging this new species will be to sort out.
One final observation: the bird in question was consorting with a group of
about 20-30 large Canada Geese within the larger flock, and those birds
seemed to be the subspecies interior or canadensis from the north, slightly
smaller and smaller-billed than the usual "office park" subspecies maxima
that made up the other main group there yesterday.
David Sibley
-----------------------------------------------------
As you can see, although I cast a tentative vote for parvipes, I did suggest
taverneri as a possibility, but it seemed pretty far-fetched and I didn't
know if it really looked like a taverner's. My main point was that I was not
prepared to call it a Cackling. My most substantive point against it being a
Cackling Goose was that the body size and neck length seemed too large. I'm
not absolutely convinced that it is outside the range of variation for male
hutchinsii, but if it is outside the range of hutchinsii, is it within the
range of taverneri? Many other questions follow.
In thinking about it more over the last few days I am still confused by this
bird, but I have little wisdom to offer and I'll defer to people like Bruce
Deuel who see far more of these geese than I do.
anxiously waiting to be educated,
David Sibley
Concord, MA
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:05pm
The old specimens shown in the website mentioned by David Sibley were
identified to form based on published measurements as well as modern
identification criteria.
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: David Sibley
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
The bottom line: I'm not comfortable calling this a Cackling Goose.
For comparison check out a series of photos by John Idzikowski of
specimens collected in Wisconsin and posted at
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/geese/richter.htm. I think the
Waltham bird is a perfect match for the Lesser Canada Goose third from
left in the first photo. We do need to be cautious about accepting the
identification of museum specimens, since the collectors and museum
curators didn't necessarily know more than we do now about identifying
these subspecies, but this is what we have, and I think it raises
serious questions about the Waltham bird being a Cackling Goose. If I
had to put a name on it I would definitely go for Canada Goose of the
parvipes Lesser subspecies. So it's a fascinating bird, and far out of
its normal range whether it's a hutchinsii Cackling Goose or a
parvipes Canada Goose (or something else like taverneri Cackling
Goose). At the very least it shows how much we don't know and how
challenging this new species will be to sort out.
_______________
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Jason Forbes <jason(AT)BREWSTERSLINNET.COM>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:06pm
Hi all,
I'm not at all familiar with any of these races being discussed, but
since I found the bird, I'll try to add a little.
I've got a set of photos up at:
http://www.brewsterslinnet.com/birding/goose/
A third set of photos can be found here:
http://www.mrines.com/Birds/RichardsonsGoose/
Looking forward to getting some more insight on this bird.
Jason
Joseph Morlan wrote:
> Glen Tepke has posted a nice series of a controversial Canada/Cackling
> Goose at:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/lesser_canada_goose_0411
>
--
Jason Forbes
Waltham, MA
jason(AT)brewsterslinnet.com
www.brewsterslinnet.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:18pm
In the Midwest we have been struggling a bit with the question that
many other states have and that is simply what forms of Canada and
Cackling Goose move through or are present during the year in our
state. In Wisconsin as in many midwestern and eastern states
Richardson's has always been noted as it is easy to tell from interior
and we should not expect any other Cackling forms. But we cannot be
sure of the occurrence of parvipes here as small interiors could
appear very similar. Here are 2 discussions on parvipes-
http://www.badboybirding.com/LCGO_01252004.htm
http://home.no.net/agu/kanadagaas_o_oestensjovannet_060202.htm
We have to realize that many of these birds cannot be identified to
race nor subsequently "committeed" as these forms are defined by
geographical centers in the arctic and a full range of sexual and
clinal variation outside of the range of how we define typical birds
in migration has never been documented as Joe infers. What do
intergrades such as parvipes x Rich. or other edge of range pairing
"hybrids" look like? Do we know if interior and Richardson's
intergrade? I believe that they occur as close breeders on Baffin Is.
And what about homegrown runts that spent their first three months of
life in a poor environment at the edge of the species range, see-
Larsson, J., and P. Forslund. 1991, Environmentally induced
morphological variation in the Barnacle Goose, Branta leucopsis:
Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 4 619-636.
We have a bird from Wisconsin that falls beneath the published
measurements for Richardson's and suggests minima; is it really
responsible to call it such with no other regional records of minima
from known origin banded birds?
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/geese/richter.htm
Also for general ref here's David Sibley's site-
http://www.sibleyguides.com/canada_cackling.htm
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Morlan" <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
> Glen Tepke has posted a nice series of a controversial
Canada/Cackling
> Goose at:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/lesser_canada_goose_0411
>
> The web site notes that David Sibley had studied the bird and
suggested it
> was probably a "Lesser" Canada Goose (B. c. parvipes) prompting a
number of
> local birders to remove Cackling Goose from their life lists.
>
> When I originally saw the photos, my reaction was that I would not
have
> called it parvipes. The very stubby bill and dark breast look to me
more
> like the larger form of Cackling Goose (C. h. taverneri).
>
> There is considerable variation in these geese and the limits of
that
> variation remain unclear. Bruce Deuel has a paper in press in
"Western
> Birds" (Vol 35 #3) which deals specifically with the
taverneri/parvipes
> identification problem. I wrote to Bruce about the Massachusetts
bird.
> His reply:
>
> "I think it's a good candidate to be taverneri. I don't know why
that
> wasn't considered.....And the more I look at it, it could even be an
> Aleutian with no neck-ring. In any case, I feel those folks who
removed
> Cackling Goose from their lists were too hasty."
>
> I certainly agree that the bird doesn't look much like my idea of
the
> "Richardson's" form of Cackling Goose (B. h. hutchinsii), but was
wondering
> if others had misgivings about the bird being parvipes. I also was
> wondering if the local birders had considered the possibility of
taverneri
> or leucopareia.
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan(AT)ccsf.org
> Fall Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
> California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:42pm
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:18:49 -0600, John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
wrote:
> Here are 2 discussions on parvipes-
>
>http://www.badboybirding.com/LCGO_01252004.htm
That site also has a page on taverneri with comparison to parvipes-
http://www.badboybirding.com/TCGO_01252004.htm
and another set of presumed taverneri images-
http://www.badboybirding.com/CAGO_11262003.htm
One problem is that taverneri was not described as distinct from parvipes
until 1951. Thus older museum specimens may not have been vetted for that
distinction. Palmer (1976) synonomized the two, further mitigating any
effort to check parvipes specimens for possible taverneri.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan(AT)ccsf.org
Fall Birding Classes start Sep 14 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RFH: aging these South Polar Skuas - update
From: Les Chibana <les(AT)BIRDNUTZ.COM>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 12:45pm
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the molt sequence of the
flight feathers on skuas?
From the images of the two birds in question, the primaries are
replaced inner to outer (proximal to distal). Are the secondaries
replaced concurrently and in the same direction, inner to outer? I
think I can see this on the last image in the third link that Martin
Reid supplied to Dick Newell's website. Also, is this the case with the
Nov. 6th bird from Martin's website? On this bird, it appears to me
that 1/2 to 2/3rds of the inner secondaries are new. Or, am I not
seeing this correctly?
If this is the case, what then of the difference in primary/secondary
molt timing between the Oct. 1st bird and the Nov. 6th bird? On the
first bird, the primary molt is more advanced than the second bird and
its secondary molt may not have yet started. On the Nov. 6th bird, the
primary molt is less advanced but the secondary molt is more advanced.
Is the molt of the primaries not linked to the molt of the secondaries?
I'm thinking here that there might be an energy budgeting issue
involved in the molt timing between these two feather groups. Is this
molt timing typical of skuas (inclusive of jaegers)?
Does this aid in providing some indication of age or species?
Les Chibana, Palo Alto CA
On Nov 15, 2004, at 5:53 AM, Martin Reid wrote:
> Dear all,
> I was kind of expecting some votes for Pom on this bird - especially
> based
> upon the flying-away images. I've added some zooms, and one new pic,
> plus
> some text that I feel explains why this is a SP Skua; note that the
> URL has
> changed:
> http://www.martinreid.com/skuay.html
> As always I'd appreciate feedback from those with relevant experience -
> especially if I'm wrong!
> I wonder if the amount of white in the base of the primaries is
> gender-dimorphic? If so, then probably females would have less than
> males,
> and this bird - based on structure - would seem to be a female.
> Note that all observers (including Mike Overton, who has seen a lot of
> jaegers/skuas) commented on the different flight style of this bird
> (we'd
> seen 16 Poms by this time), being very Herring Gull-like, and almost
> lumbering.
>
> Here are some pics at Dick Newell's fabulous site that show SPSKs with
> less
> white in the upper primaries:
> http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?title_id=364&show_thumbnails=False
> http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?
> title_id=359&search=0&show_thumbnails=False
> http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?
> title_id=350&search=0&show_thumbnails=False
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> Martin Reid
> San Antonio, Texas
> mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
> http://www.martinreid.com
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose
From: Jean Iron <jeaniron(AT)SYMPATICO.CA>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 2:57pm
There is more variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Geese than is generally
realized. Here is an e-mail sent to us from Michel Gosselin of the Canadian
Museum of Nature. The website is in French so here is Michel's translation
below. Click on photos to see them larger.
"Pierre Bannon has posted
(<http://www.pbase.com/pbannon/hutchins>http://www.pbase.com/pbannon/hutchins
) photos of Cackling Geese he has taken here at the museum. These birds all
come from Southampton Island in northern Hudson Bay and the adjacent coast
(therefore near the type locality of B. h. hutchinsii). They were selected
to show the variability in breast colour in a single population, but also
give a hint of the variability in bill size and chin colouration. It would
be feasible to select additional specimens to show in a more striking way
the variability in bill shape, overall size, or mantle colouration. The two
fresh specimens were killed in Ungava (far northern Quebec). According to
the measurements I made on the picture, the bill size of larger one is
perfect for a male hutchiinsii, therefore the smaller one is probably an
immature female."
Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
Toronto and Minden ON
Email: jeaniron(AT)sympatico.ca
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Ian Mclaren <iamclar(AT)DAL.CA>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 5:22pm
All:
Collectively we have short memories. In early October, Jean Iron posted
some photos of undoubted hutchinsii near Toronto - a group, and as such
hardly attributable to a more rare expectation of either parvipes Canada
or some other Cackling race. Now Jean and Ron Pittiway alert us to the
variability of specimens in the Nat. Mus. Canada - these from Southhampton
Island, where there is not a parvipes in sight (despite early confusion
about a "parvipes-hutchinsii complex on west coast Hudson Bay and north).
The fact is, there should no longer be much dispute (as Dave Sibley
reminded us even earlier) about duskiness of breast, neck rings, or even
black gular stripes, in asigning subspecies of either species. Both
parvipes and hutchinsii can vary widely, but are probably never as
dark-breasted as "typical" mininma, leucopareia, or even taverneri. As
others have noted, this may be age-related.
Bill size is useful, but not decisive. My calculations from data in the
major monograph (Birds N. Am.) by Mowbray et al. indicate that culmen
lengths of hutchinsii and parvipes overlap considerably. Ross Silcock's
suggestion (28 Oct. on BIRDWG01) about posterior bill shape needs
following up, but I think from looking at a few photos that it goes along
with shortness of bill, and may overlap.
Neck length and width when stretched may be useful (less so in museum
specimens, which may be stretched and under-stuffed). Jean Iron's photos
show that, even when stretched to the utmost, the necks of her hutchinsii
remain short and thick, whereas certifiable parivipes (and taverneri) from
"core" winter range in California are longer and thinner when stretched.
For this, recall
http://www.badboybirding.com/LCGO_01252004.htm
So, I think that David Sibley's decision re the Mass bird is correct - see
especially the fully alert, neck-stretched poses in the lower row of
photos). It should also be noted that I've been unable to find any
reference to recent parvipes specimens from East Coast areas, although AOU
(1952) lists one from N. Carolina. Parvipes, for which there are no
confirmed breeding records east of about 110 o W, is probably much less
likely on the East Coast than hutchinsii, which nests on Baffin I. and,
apparently (although not generally realized) in extreme NW Quebec. But,
withal, we're going to have to let some go.
Cheers, Ian
Ian A. McLaren
Professor Emeritus
Biology Department
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS B3H 4J1
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: MA Goose
From: SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 15 Nov 2004 8:53pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings
Having the good fortune of living where we get almost all of the Canada Goose
races, I must agree that this MA bird looks little like my idea of a
parvipes.
In the photos, this bird looks quite a bit smaller than the surrounding
Canada Geese. The observer, in his notes, states that it was a little bit
smaller.
If the bird is was as small as it appears in the photos, I'd bet a fair bit of
money that it is a taverneri or minima. It is atypical for minima in not
looking quite "cute" enough (small bill, delicate head) and it lacks the
purplish
hues that most (but far from all) minima have. I'd vote for taverneri. The
rather small size and dark breast seem well outside the range of parvipes and
good for taverneri as I understand them.
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: King Eider and Canada Goose
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 10:42pm
Thanks for all of the feedback on King Eider molts and plumages, including
several private responses and queries.
It is true that female-like birds with yellowish to orange bills are
first-year males; most begin to turn in December and all have at least some
yellowish by February, at which time this becomes a reliable criterion for
both sexes. There is some variation in bill-color change, with the earliest
males apparently acquiring bright orange bills by December. These may have
begun the color change in November or earlier.
Regarding the separation of second-year from third-year males, I found
about 10 specimens in this category (USNM, CAS, and MVZ), and could not
verify that third-years were identifiable. Among the bill-shield,
wing-patch, and crown-color criteria there was much variation, different
individuals showing different degrees of development for each. Two or three
birds seemed to be second-winter by bill and wing patch, but had definitive
bright head plumage and lacked the black stripe on the nape. As with most
species that do not reach a definitive stage until 2-3 years or older
(including gulls), overlap between advanced birds and slow-developing birds
becomes a problem for specific age determination in the older subadult
stages, and working it out will require study of marked, known-age birds in
the field.
Thanks all, as well, for the many informative discussions on Canada vs.
Cackling Geese. The question has been raised a couple of times as to how
first-year birds compare to adults in breast color. After examining
specimens I concluded that fresh plumage color was essentially the same
between the two age groups. The preformative (first-cycle) body molt is
protracted and often incomplete, however, such that first-year birds have a
mixture of feather generations on the breast. The mottled appearance of
first-years here, vs. the evenly scaled appearance in adults (definitive
feathers are also wider than juvenal feathers), is one of the better ways
to age them in the field. The retained juvenal feathers are older and more
faded; thus, during the first fall and winter, the breast usually appears
slightly paler on these than on adults of the same subspecies, even though
the feathers start out roughly the same color. This should be factored in
when trying to determine subspecies of known-age birds. Hope this helps.
Peter Pyle
At 08:20 PM 11/14/04 -0500, Julian Hough wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>With respect to the King Eider photograph and Pete's comment's I would
>like to add a note about ageing 2nd/3rd year King Eider's, in particular
>those individuals which resemble full adults. A note in an old British
>Birds (Vol 87 Jan 1994 pg 36-40) by Pete Ellis and Jane Dawson, contains
>some excellent information about ageing and sexing male King Eiders.
>I'll paraphrase the info (hopefully correctly..) contained in their
>letter and apply it to the photo on Jean's site.
>Basically it appears that they moult at different rates; first-winter
>males moulting first, followed by non-breeding males, then breeding males.
>In summer, there will be males in various stages of moult.
>In winter, it seems that males can moult either very little, or quite a
>bit, some birds attaining a grey crown, whitish cheeks and thigh patches.
>The bill is orange red and may show some semblance of a bill shield
>beginning to appear.
>
>Apparently second-winter males differ from third-winter (adult) and older
>males by having the crown greyish (not powder-blue), whitish cheeks (not
>greenish) and whitish (not pinkish breast) as well as a smaller bill
>shield. They differ from exceptionally advanced first-winter males in
>having black bellies and partially white median coverts.
>
>Dawson goes on to point out that her captive bred second-winter King
>Eiders in February resemble older adults differing only in a slightly
>smaller bill shield and a narrow black stripe up the centre of the nape.
>
> From Jean's picture, based on the time of year and plumage I would guess
> that it is a bird moulting out of it's first-summer eclipse plumage
> approaching it's second winter. I doubt whether a younger bird would have
> such developed sails and plumage at this time of year.
>
>Regards,
>
>Julian Hough,
>CT, USA
>jrhough1(AT)snet.net
>
>www.naturescapeimages.net
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Pyle" <ppyle(AT)BIRDPOP.ORG>
>To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
>Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 5:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Age of male King Eider?
>
>
>>Hi Ron and all -
>>
>>This individual shows plumage and bill shape typical of a second-year (2CY)
>>male King Eider. Hatching-year (1CY) males are still brown, primarily
>>female-like at this time of year, with a few white feathers coming in on
>>the breast and some other details of the wing coverts separating them from
>>HY females. By next summer they show increased amounts of white and black
>>plumage but no pale blue in the crown. Following the complete molt in fall
>>(into what I call basic plumage [Waterbirds, in press] but most call
>>alternate plumage), males vary in the extent to which full definitive-basic
>>plumage is acquired, some showing less color than the Ontario bird and
>>others resembling full adults. Besides plumage, they can be aged by having
>>mottled black and white wing patches and by the shape of the bill (lack of
>>full knob). Some third-years (3CYs) at this time of year are possibly aged
>>by wing and bill criteria, but details need to be worked out. There might
>>be overlap between advanced SYs and slow-developing TYs.
>>
>>Peter Pyle
>>
>>At 09:56 AM 11/14/04 -0500, Jean Iron wrote:
>>>A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the west end
>>>of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year (1CY)
>>>bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year (2CY)
>>>bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
>>>
>>>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
>>>
>>>Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
>>>Jean Iron
>>>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/
>>>9 Lichen Place
>>>Toronto ON M3A 1X3
>>>416-445-9297
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: MA Goose
From: "J. Harry Krueger" <hkrueger(AT)cableone.net>
Date: 15 Nov 2004 10:48pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I have studied Canada Goose on both the east and west coast, as well as the
interior (and have been fascinated with the wide variations seen, long
before identifying Branta hutchinsii became an issue). I agree with Steven
Mlodinow that looking at the pictures, I would rule out B. h. minia, but
also B. h. hutchinsii. This bird is not typical for the former by plumage
(nor B. h. leucopareia) and the latter by size. Although given, as we are
sometimes "painfully" finding to be true, there can be atypical variations
in any race we look at, there are some typical traits, in races as we now
know them, that we have to look for first and carefully apply, before we
start looking for atypical traits or worst yet, abject abnormalities.
As we all know, pictures can be both immanently helpful and therefore even
diagnostic, or conversely, disastrously misleading. What impresses me is
the fact that both the original observer and David Sibley judged the live
bird to be just a bit smaller than the surrounding Canada Geese (Sibley, 2/3
the size). There may be overlap in size between B. b. parvipes and B. h.
taverneri, if not always in actuality, at least in perception. Therefore,
if I now take size out of the equation (after having ascertained the size to
be approximately that of a "Lesser"), I have to rely primarily on plumage as
my identifying anchor (also, at least for sake of this argument, we leave
known range out of the mix). Looking at what we know to be typical plumage,
I'm therefore cautiously led to the conclusion that this bird most closely
matches a larger appearing B. h. taverneri. Also, least we bypass the
possibility, we should also cautiously remember that there are known
intergrades between B. b. parvipes and B. h. taverneri.
In summary, if I look at typical traits, as ascertained and described by
observers in the live bird, I would say that with our present level of
understanding, this bird is most probably B. h. taverneri, or a parvipes x
taverneri intergrade. But with all that said, I stand to learn along with
the rest of us, as we continue to tackle the fascinating identification
puzzle of Cackling Goose and Canada Goose.
Harry Krueger
Boise, ID
_____
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:53 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] MA Goose
Greetings
Having the good fortune of living where we get almost all of the Canada
Goose races, I must agree that this MA bird looks little like my idea of a
parvipes.
In the photos, this bird looks quite a bit smaller than the surrounding
Canada Geese. The observer, in his notes, states that it was a little bit
smaller. If the bird is was as small as it appears in the photos, I'd bet a
fair bit of money that it is a taverneri or minima. It is atypical for
minima in not looking quite "cute" enough (small bill, delicate head) and it
lacks the purplish hues that most (but far from all) minima have. I'd vote
for taverneri. The rather small size and dark breast seem well outside the
range of parvipes and good for taverneri as I understand them.
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: (New Information) Age of male King Eider?
From: Jean Iron <jeaniron(AT)SYMPATICO.CA>
Date: 16 Nov 2004 9:24am
Here is new information in "quotes" below from Declan Troy of Alaska about
the age of the male King Eider near Hamilton on Lake Ontario. We've
included the link to the photo again at the bottom.
"I'm sequestered away this week at Spectacled/Steller's Eider recovery
team meetings so I showed the King Eider image to several of the assembled
eiderologists. There was universal agreement that the bird was not a 1Y
but otherwise opinions were not as conclusive as some of the other
opinions I saw posted in response to your original inquiry. The
consensus was you can't be sure how old this bird is. Indeed, King
Eiders can continue molt well into December so this could be a work in
progress. There were votes for both probably 2Y and ASY (which seemed
the best supported although contrary the identification frontiers
leanings)."
Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
Minden and Toronto ON
>Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:56:50 -0500
>To: BIRDWG01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
>From: Jean Iron <jeaniron(AT)sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Age of male King Eider?
>
>A young male King Eider was photographed by Brandon Holden at the west end
>of Lake Ontario on 11 November 2004. Is it a first calendar year (1CY)
>bird in advanced first prealternate molt or a second calendar year (2CY)
>bird in delayed second prealternate molt?
>
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/jeaniron/KingEider.htm
>
>Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: David Sibley <david_sibley(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 16 Nov 2004 2:41pm
I just wanted to offer one general comment which I think is relevant to this
discussion.
When I look at a flock of Canada Geese I tend to search for the most obvious
examples of something different. I might pass over birds that are
intermediate in size until I pick out the smallest and say "ahh, that must
be a hutchinsii; let me study that one more carefully". I'll walk away happy
that I've seen a 'classic' hutchinsii, and then base my impression of the
subspecies almost entirely on that experience.
In fact what I think of as the 'classic' hutchinsii might be the small
extreme.
In other words, even as we go out to learn more about these geese our
studies of what Lesser, Taverner's, Richardson's, etc look like are
inevitably prejudiced by what we *expect* them to look like. And by setting
aside, as unknown, birds that we judge to be a little too big or small,
light or dark, we develop an unrealistically narrow impression of the
variation in each subspecies.
So far we have several votes for the MA bird being a good match for
taverneri (which means the WI specimen is also a good match for taverneri),
but with all due respect I don't think anyone has explained why we should
rule out hutchinsii or parvipes, only that it looks wrong.
We know that these three subspecies overlap in measurements, and we know
they overlap at least to some extent in color. We need to know the full
range of variation in each subspecies and to avoid the trap of just
amplifying the most distinctive individuals.
David Sibley
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Ageing male King Eiders
From: Kevin McLaughlin <kmclaughlin(AT)UNIONGAS.COM>
Date: 16 Nov 2004 3:50pm
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----
To all.
I was most fascinated by Brandon Holden's photo of a male King Eider on Lake
Ontario's south shore near Hamilton. As I said in my email to Brandon, this
bird was in the earliest stage of 2nd pre alternate molt that I have ever
seen and indeed does not look quite like any of the presumed 2nd CY birds
that have been present locally over the past decade or so in late fall and
early winter. All of these birds have looked similar in being adult like in
plumage, except lacking the intensity of colour, the "hooded" appearance
about the eyes and having a rather narrow yellow-orange base to the bill,
framed by black.
In response to the question posed by Ron and Jean on the age, I fully agree
with everyone who felt the bird was late in its second calendar year i.e. in
second pre alternate molt. Michel's analysis neatly detailed this. All males
that I have considered, in my experience, to be 1st CY have been
characterized by having a female type plumage with a paler chest and
possessing a small yellow or orange area at the base of the bill. To respond
to Bruce's point on when the orange or yellow appears on the bill of a 1st
CY male, I offer that I have seen a yellow bill base as early as the end of
October. From seeing birds around Hamilton and Toronto over the years as
well as at Point Pelee in May, my sense is that this 1st pre alternate molt
is quite protracted, with brown males in the fall giving way to decidedly
contrasty individuals in spring, which have white flank patches and chests,
very slaty body and head plumages, with pronounced pale eye rings and small
yellow-orange bills. The presence of Brandon's bird would suggest a
comparable situation in second pre alternates as well.
A couple of interesting birds to show variability in the species: A male
was present off Stoney Creek, near Hamilton, a few years ago. In December,
this bird conformed to the features noted above for a late 2nd CY bird,
including a narrow yellow-orange bill base. By February, what was presumed
to be the same bird in the same general area, had a noticeably larger orange
bill base, and also possessed some dark markings in the white coverts of the
upper wing. This would seem to indicate that second alternates can develop a
bill structure which at least approaches that of an adult i.e. third
alternate or older, by late winter.
A male photographed west of Toronto several years ago in March had
this same plumage type along with a flat orange bill base. My presumption
here is that both birds were second alternates, differing in the extent of
bill development early in their 3rd CYs.
I suppose that what I am getting at by this, and perhaps what others have
been wanting, is for someone who has access to large numbers of male King
Eiders in late fall and early winter, to assess features which can determine
age. I am particularly interested in when full adult bill structure and
plumage is attained in birds which are deemed to be in third alternate
plumage or older. This could go a long way in our understanding of ageing
criteria in males of this species.
Kevin McLaughlin
Hamilton, Ontario
CANADA.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Trondheim Gull back again
From: Frode Falkenberg <falken(AT)SISYFOS.ZOO.UIB.NO>
Date: 16 Nov 2004 6:14pm
Remember the Trondheim mystery gull from February? The proposed first
California Gull in the WP? Well, it's back! Half a year older... It has
retained several distinct features, such as the bill coloring and dark eye.
Opinions are still devided concerning its ID, despite several features
being aberrant for California Gull. Hopefully some good flightshots might
show new features on the (sub)adult open wing.
Meanwhile, have a look at four pictures from today, 16 Nov:
http://cyberbirding.uib.no/gull/
Frode Falkenberg
Department of Biology, UiB
Allégaten 41, 5007 Bergen, Norway
http://cyberbirding.uib.no/
Cell/SMS: +4793440647
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull back again
From: Rafael Lizarralde <wartiger(AT)TWCNY.RR.COM>
Date: 16 Nov 2004 7:14pm
I guess I'm not really qualified enough to really be a good source, but
based on all the images of California Gulls I dug up on the internet, I
would say that is NOT a California gull. I say this because of the bill,
eyes, and legs. On most of the pictures, California gulls have yellow legs.
They have a lighter, almost orange-pink eye ring. The shape of the black dot
on the bill is very different, the one in Norway having a two-bladed
shuriken shape, while the other ones having a pretty formless dot. Also, the
red on the bill of the Trondheim gull is much darker, and on both sides of
the bottom of the black dot, as opposed to the lighter red and only on the
side of the black dot near the end of the bill on the pictures of other
California gulls. I hope this helps (if not complicates...).
~Rafael Lizarralde
> Remember the Trondheim mystery gull from February? The proposed first
> California Gull in the WP? Well, it's back! Half a year older... It has
> retained several distinct features, such as the bill coloring and dark eye.
> Opinions are still devided concerning its ID, despite several features
> being aberrant for California Gull. Hopefully some good flightshots might
> show new features on the (sub)adult open wing.
>
> Meanwhile, have a look at four pictures from today, 16 Nov:
>
> http://cyberbirding.uib.no/gull/
>
> Frode Falkenberg
>
>
> Department of Biology, UiB
> Allégaten 41, 5007 Bergen, Norway
> http://cyberbirding.uib.no/
> Cell/SMS: +4793440647
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull back again
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 16 Nov 2004 9:14pm
Last winter I pasted together a jpeg of CAGU heads during the discussion of
this bird-
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/cagu.jpg
-and a comparison jpeg of CAGUs and the Trondheim bird; I've added the
November shots to the paste-
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/cagu3.jpg
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frode Falkenberg" <falken(AT)SISYFOS.ZOO.UIB.NO>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Trondheim Gull back again
> Remember the Trondheim mystery gull from February? The proposed first
> California Gull in the WP? Well, it's back! Half a year older... It has
> retained several distinct features, such as the bill coloring and dark
eye.
> Opinions are still devided concerning its ID, despite several features
> being aberrant for California Gull. Hopefully some good flightshots might
> show new features on the (sub)adult open wing.
>
> Meanwhile, have a look at four pictures from today, 16 Nov:
>
> http://cyberbirding.uib.no/gull/
>
> Frode Falkenberg
>
>
> Department of Biology, UiB
> Allégaten 41, 5007 Bergen, Norway
> http://cyberbirding.uib.no/
> Cell/SMS: +4793440647
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FE?= Hertzel <phertzel(AT)RCONNECT.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 1:06am
>We know that these three subspecies overlap in measurements, and we know
>they overlap at least to some extent in color. We need to know the full
>range of variation in each subspecies and to avoid the trap of just
>amplifying the most distinctive individuals. - David Sibley
Regarding the Massachusettes goose, I think it's natural to want to assign
the bird to some nearby population before going the extra few thousand
miles to find its origin in the Pacific northwest. So, the effort by David
Sibley to first separate the bird from Richardson's seems to me to be a
sensible approach, especially since the extent of variation in each
subspecies is still under study.
Regarding this separation, the first photos I saw of this bird had been
taken against a brown dirt background. I think this muted the richness of
the same coloration evident in the breast in the more recent photos, and on
a couple of the early photos it looked downright gray-- something to
remember when looking at photos of others. Anyway, besides genuine
smallness in size, the B. h. hutchinsii structural feature most important,
in my opinion, was mentioned by Ian McLaren: "even when stretched to the
utmost, the necks of hutchinsii remain short and thick". I think this must
be a very reliable character, for the birds with the shortest, thickest
necks are always the smallest, and have all the other, classic B. h.
hutchinsii characters too. As the proportion of neck length to average
width increases, the other characters begin to blur too, and I begin to
lose confidence in my certainty of the identification of a bird. I think
we will find that Richardson's has a black sock length ( measured down the
throat. ) that is about equal to the average width, never more than twice,
whereas the ratio in parvipes is twice the average neck width or more.
The Massachusettes bird has a very parvipes-like neck, and the size of the
bird described matches parvipes better than Richardson's. So, when put
together with the non-silvery gray tones on the breast, it sounds like
nobody is objecting to ruling out B. h. hutchinsii, which was the main
thrust of David's opinion. The thought that this bird might be taverneri
is daring for the midwest, radical for the east coast. It's a separation
we just don't have any experience with. We look forward to Bruce Deuel's
paper.
Paul Hertzel
Mason City, IA
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Trondheim Gull
From: Jonathan Simms <jaeger77(AT)T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 8:38am
I read the postings with much interest. Some of you may remember that I felt
it quite possible that this was a California Gull. The benefit of the bird
returning almost a year later is .... indescribable.
Recall that the arrival of the bird last year coincided with a very powerful
weather system which hit Maritime Canada and then moved to the British Isles
and (presumably) Norway. It is very interesting to note that a similar
weather pattern has occurred just recently with a huge fiasco brewing around
a major storm in Nova Scotia and the fallout resulting from a lengthy power
outage. Colder temparatures have also hit northwestern Europe of late.
Coincidence? Perhaps.
My comments on the recent pictures:
The leg colour is not out of range for an adult California Gull in my
experience. Ideally they should be a yucky washed-out yellow-green in winter
(brighter yellow in summer) but yellowish-pink is acceptable, especially in
and around younger adult-hood and older immaturity for California Gulls.
Perhaps this is diet-related. Note Photo 126 (page 127) of Olsen & Larsson.
I would like to see some commentary with respect to the other Gull species
present, and the arrival of the Mystery Gull relative to the arrival of
other Gull species in the area (i.e. Caspian and Yellow-legged if indeed
they are present) and/or changes in numbers of species present. I see from
the website that Caspian Gull(s) arrived in early to mid September, for
instance.
Observations on the colour of the gape would be very helpful, as would the
size relative to the other Gull species present.
The markings on the bill, the eye colour and the orbital ring colour are
very much supportive of a California Gull in my opinion. Note also Image 123
(page 126) of Olsen & Larsson.
I see no reason yet to rule out California Gull as the ID. I look forward to
seeing new flight shots of the bird (presumably with a fully adult wing) as
a means of possibly pinning an ID to this gull. The origin of the bird is
what remains puzzling and somewhat troubling to me. Since my arrival in
Europe 2 years ago there have been all variety of strange and bewildering
birds seen in Europe and I cannot help but think that many of them are
escapes from European zoos (i.e. the Franklin's Gull which has been seen all
over Europe). I do not know if anyone keeps California Gulls in Europe.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Simms
Moenchengladbach, Germany
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 10:21am
I also thought this could be a Cal based on the Feb pictures,
but the fact that there is anything about it that is atypical
should not inspire confidence for such an extralimital candidate.
The saturation of pink in the legs appears to have increased
at least slightly from Feb, which would be atypical for a Cal
at this level of maturity. Also as was pointed out, the black on
the bill tip has not faded in a pattern typical of Cal, with the bill
now showing a relatively large amount of exposed anterior red
that was not visible in Feb.
Also the primary/tail ratio may be way off (first pointed out by
Martin Reid last Feb). I've recently been noting that even the
migratory monster Cals (presumed albertaensis) on the central
Oregon coast have a consistently longer primary extention.
I don't believe anyone has posted what it is exactly about the
wing proportions in flight that excludes Cal. I'd be interested
in learning that.
Cheers,
Phil Pickering
Lincoln City, Oregon
philliplc(AT)harborside.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)ZEN.CO.UK>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 10:54am
On 17/11/04 5:21 pm, "Phillip Pickering" <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM> wrote:
> I don't believe anyone has posted what it is exactly about the
> wing proportions in flight that excludes Cal. I'd be interested
> in learning that.
>
One of the main things that turned me away from California Gull last time
round was the ratio of "hand"-length to "arm"-length. It's a bit like
comparing the wing-shapes of an Albatross with a Frigatebird. Caspian Gulls
have noticeably long parallel arms. California Gulls have long hands. At the
time, I dug out flight pictures of both and measurements from the photos
supported this impression. The Trondheim gull has long parallel arms.
This bird has an unusual amount of head-streaking for a Caspian Gull - so
Frode's suggestion of argyxcach hybrid jives with me.
Dick Newell
Cambridge, UK
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: herring-winged gull
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 11:04am
For those interested in this problem here's a study of a
presumed 2CY Herring x Glaucous-winged pseudo-Thayer's
(size of mid-large Herring, shape/jizz more intermediate between
Herring/G-w than Thayer's-like, outer primary web contrast
comparatively weak and somewhat smeared).
Central Oregon coast 11/16:
http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/04nov001.jpg
http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/04nov002.jpg
http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/04nov003.jpg
http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/04nov004.jpg
Cheers,
Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 11:56am
One summer older and still unfit to qualify as a Caspian Gull in any way nor
Herring Gull for that matter but still quite acceptable as Califirnia Gull
so why not admit defeat Dick?
I can send some pics of adult Caspian and Marsh (omissus) Gull taken
beginning this month for comparison if someone would be so kind to host
them.
Norman
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 12:00pm
I don't see how anyone can accept this as California Gull given the face
the legs are still so pinkish.
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Norman D.van Swelm
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:57 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Trondheim Gull
One summer older and still unfit to qualify as a Caspian Gull in any way
nor
Herring Gull for that matter but still quite acceptable as Califirnia
Gull
so why not admit defeat Dick?
I can send some pics of adult Caspian and Marsh (omissus) Gull taken
beginning this month for comparison if someone would be so kind to host
them.
Norman
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose
From: SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 17 Nov 2004 12:25pm
Greetings All
With Cackling Goose having two meanings (thank you AOU) some of these
conversations get a wee bit confusing. Perhaps we should refer to "Cackling
Goose (species)" and "minima" to distinguish between the two.
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 17 Nov 2004 12:45pm
Hi all:
As I see California Gulls for about 12 months a year here in Colorado (and
studied a number of adults as recently as three days ago), I have to say that I
have trouble with the Trondheim gull being referable to that taxon. The bill
shape does not strike me as correct for California, but I'd sure like to see
some pix of the open wings to be sure.
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: more about ID of Nov 6 TX Skua
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 1:05pm
Dear all,
I am glad that Dick and Les have chimed in with substantive comments on
this bird. It is frustrating to get posts that say something along the
lines of "well, why isn't it a xxxxx?" - with no detail providing their
thinking for that suggestion! - No doubt I've been guilty of that precise
thing a few times.... :-(
I've added some photos of Poms from the same pelagic trip that seem a bit
odd to me, in that they have very adult-like underwings but rather
poorly-demarcated head patterns:
http://www.martinreid.com/jaeger3.html - any comments on their ages would
be appreiated.
In preparing these images I realized that my own pics refuted one of my
pro-Skua features for the Nov 6th bird: the bill shape!
However, I feel that Dick's points can be addressed in a satisfactory way
for this bird to be a SPSK:
There is no remnant barring on the undertail coverts or lower flanks;
instead there is some light/dark blotching that is typical of some SPSKs
(see URLs below and on my web page).
A number of SPSK pics show a slight capped effect, so even if this was
present on the Nov 6th bird (which none of the observers noted,) this is
not a problem for SPSK.
The white basal patches in the primaries are certainly on the small side,
but I feel that this is easily-explained by the position of the wing and
the nature of these white patches - in fact, P6 on the upperside does show
a white basal patch - can a Pom have this?
There remains the body plumage which, when combined with the underwing
coverts, is only found on SPSK, to my knowledge - can anyone provide an
example of this plumage in Pom?
The tail vs wing length is doubly-dependant on the secondaries being
fully-grown - i.e. if they are NOT fully grown, this will decrease the
apparent wing depth AND increase the apparent tail length, as it is
measured in this case from the rear edge of the wing.
I've added a new crop of the TX bird that shows the upper primaries a bit
better, plus I've added some examples of most of the above points, from my
library of bird books:
http://www.martinreid.com/skuay.html (remember that the very first image on
this page is of the October SPSK.)
Here are some online sampes that add to the debate:
http://www.warbler.phytoconsult.nl/AO/sp_skua.htm - the underwing white
patches are not very large on these birds, and at least one looks slightly
"capped"
http://www.focusonnature.com/SouthPolarSkua-Lewes.htm - this bird looks
more "capped" than the TX bird
http://www.heinphoto.com/birds/DSC_4810.htm - note the similarity to the
molting primaries of the TX bird - but also note the difference in depth of
the fully-grown secondaries compared to the presumed still-growing
secondaries of the TX bird
http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/wings_Laridae.html - note how - on the
upperside of the SPSK wing - the basal white in the primaries is almost
completely absent from the outer web of each primary, such that, if the
wing were held in a much more closed position, the outer webs would obscure
the white inner webs of each neighboring outer feather, creating an effect
more like a jaeger. This is what is showing on two pics of the TX bird
that show the upper primaries - except that P5 is missing so P6 does not
have an inner neighbor - hence it DOES show the telltale skua white patch
on the inner web.
http://www.wrybill-tours.com/Assets/images/tripreportimages/CRW_4688L.jpg -
note the limited white primary-base patching showing on this bird, even
though the wing is more open than in the pics of the TX bird.
So in summary, I feel that the photos do definitely show this bird to be a
SPSK, but acknowledge that some aspects of this bird's structure,
molt-stage, and position in the photos makes it very easy to consider a
Jaeger. My thanks to Dick Newell for making me work harder on this bird,
and learn more in the process.
Of course, that's just my opinion, so I'd REALLY value some feedback on
this bird (and my analysis) from those experienced Pelagiphiles out there -
thank you.
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 3:40pm
Dear all,
I remain where I was last February - confident that this is not a
California Gull, for all the reasons given previously. The four new Pics
don't change anything - in fact that make a much worse case with regard to
the bare-parts color:
the legs look pretty much the same as on the presumed argentatus in the
pics, and nothing like I'd expect from even an albertaensis CAGU. The bill
now has red DISTAL from the black spot on the (lower) mandible, as well as
basal to it - this is all wrong for CAGU, I feel. The tail remains rather
too long compared to the P-tips.
It may not be a clean Caspian Gull, but it certainly is nothing like a
clean CAGU.
Looking forward to seeing new flight shots - especially if they look like a
CAGU!!!
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 4:54pm
Allow me to add another argument. To my knowledge no large European gull has
black immature feathers such as f.i. the primary coverts shown in the
February flight shots of the Trondheim gull. Thanks to Pat Lonergan and
Killian Mullarney we now know that the American Herring Gull L.smithonianus
does so too. So perhaps this is extra prove the Trondheim gull is of
American stock!
Norman
Martin Reid wrote:> I remain where I was last February - confident that this
is not a
> California Gull, for all the reasons given previously. The four new Pics
> don't change anything - in fact that make a much worse case with regard to
> the bare-parts color:
> the legs look pretty much the same as on the presumed argentatus in the
> pics, and nothing like I'd expect from even an albertaensis CAGU. The
> bill
> now has red DISTAL from the black spot on the (lower) mandible, as well as
> basal to it - this is all wrong for CAGU, I feel. The tail remains rather
> too long compared to the P-tips.
> It may not be a clean Caspian Gull, but it certainly is nothing like a
> clean CAGU.
> Looking forward to seeing new flight shots - especially if they look like
> a
> CAGU!!!
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 5:35pm
Martin Reid wrote:> I remain where I was last February - confident that this
is not a
> California Gull, for all the reasons given previously. The four new Pics
> don't change anything - in fact that make a much worse case with regard to
> the bare-parts color:
> the legs look pretty much the same as on the presumed argentatus in the
> pics, and nothing like I'd expect from even an albertaensis CAGU. <
Have a look too at page 126 in Olsen's Gulls where it says: 'Note leg
colour, which in adults are extremely variable.' And see pic.126 taken in
Sep.1998, Vancouver, Canada showing adults with similar leg colour as the
Trondheim gull!
Norman
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Reply: Variation in "Richardson's"
Cackling Goose
From: sales(AT)BIRDINGWORLD.CO.UK
Date: 17 Nov 2004 5:53pm
Hi all
Better still, only ever refer at trinomial taxon level in single terms:
minima, hutchinsii, parvipes etc
Never talk in lumps, forget 'Cackling' from now on:
the AOU have rendered it meaningless.
Silly old AOU.
Likewise, other 'English' names (although the three 'Aleutian Geese' still
need clarification as they have no latin yet)
cheers
Richard
___________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: <SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM>
To: <>
Sent: 17 November 2004 19:25
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose
> Greetings All
>
> With Cackling Goose having two meanings (thank you AOU) some of these
conversations get a wee bit confusing. Perhaps we should refer to "Cackling
Goose (species)" and "minima" to distinguish between the two.
>
> Cheers
> Steven Mlodinow
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: "minima" Cackling Goose common name [was:
Variation in "Richardson's" Cackling Goose]
From: Phil Davis <pdavis(AT)IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 11:47pm
Steve, et al.
I realize we are venturing away from identification here and probably
should not continue this much further on this listserver ... however ...
A viable common name should be given to the "minima" taxa to help clear up
some of the naming ambiguity, so that common names can be used when
referring to all of the Cackling Geese (B. h.) subspecies without having to
rely on the scientific trinomial for "minima."
Ridgway first used the common name "Little Cackling Goose" in describing
the minima/leucoperia complex circa 1884 ... See the following ...
Allen, J.A. 1885. Ridgway on New Species and Subspecies of American Birds,
and on the Nomenclature of other Species. Auk 2(3):290-293. (see the bottom
on page 292)
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v002n03/p0290-p0293.pdf
Therefore, perhaps "Little Cackling Goose", (or "Lesser Cackling Goose", or
"Least Cackling Goose") might be appropriate? Then there is always
"Ridgway's Cackling Goose'.
When you look back over Alaskan ornithological history and others who
described or worked with these geese, several other candidates come to mind ...
1. Edward W. Nelson. I have some issues with some of Nelson's work in
various areas, however, and would not support naming the species after him.
2. Alfred M. Bailey. Bailey would be a candidate, "Bailey's Cackling
Goose". Here's some more on Bailey ... (see page 203)
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v027n05/p0197-p0207.pdf
3. Frederick C. Lincoln. Lincoln wrote a detailed paper on the migration of
this goose taxa. Lincoln's 1926 paper [The Condor 28(4): 153-157] on the
migration of "minima" Cackling Geese can be found here ...
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v028n04/p0165-p0170.pdf
So, how about "Lincoln's Cackling Goose" ... ???
Phil
At 14:25 11/17/2004 -0500, Steven Mlodinow wrote:
>With Cackling Goose having two meanings (thank you AOU) some of these
>conversations get a wee bit confusing. Perhaps we should refer to
>"Cackling Goose (species)" and "minima" to distinguish between the two.
==================================
Phil Davis Davidsonville, Maryland USA
mailto:PDavis(AT)ix.netcom.com
==================================
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: MIECHEL TABAK <mtabak(AT)SHAW.CA>
Date: 17 Nov 2004 11:53pm
I live in Vancouver B.C. and look at leg colours on California Gulls for
kicks. Still haven't seen a California Gull with pink legs yet; after years
of looking.. I'm sure there is one out there somewhere, but I'm sure it's
not in Norway. Mike Tabak
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: David Vander Pluym <scre(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 1:57am
I never felt happy with this bird being a Cali Gull last year and still do
not. Others have already brought up bill and leg color (legs seem closer
to the Herring? type Gull in the background than too Cal Gull), which I
agree does not fit Cal Gull. The photo in the gulls book referenced by
Norman, to me does not match the bird in question, as the photos to me
still show greenish tones. The size and proportions don't look right to
me for California Gull. I wonder what was the size of the bird as Cal
Gull is fairly small, being smaller than a Lesser Black-backed Gull. I'm
also curious as to what led the observers too the Caspian x Herring Gull
conclusion and would like to hear more on that combo and how it applies to
this bird. Also how is barabensis and mongolicus and hyrbids of such or
with other species???? ruled out? Photos I have seen of these birds seems
to show a great deal of variation within them? Interesting bird.
David Vander Pluym
Santa Cruz California
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)ZEN.CO.UK>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 8:27am
re: http://cyberbirding.uib.no/gull/index.php
On 17/11/04 11:54 pm, "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)WXS.NL> wrote:
> Allow me to add another argument. To my knowledge no large European gull has
> black immature feathers such as f.i. the primary coverts shown in the
> February flight shots of the Trondheim gull.
I think this is factually wrong, it is normal for sub-adult cachinnans (and
michahellis) to show black primary coverts. It can even occur in adult
birds. I hope we are not splitting hairs between black and what may be very
dark brown.
Someone else asked why some people think it is a hybrid argentatus x
cachinnans. Being a gull, cachinnans is as variable as other large gulls,
and this bird may be within that variation, but, the courseness and extent
of the head-streaking is more than the fine head-streaking that cachinnans
has in autumn. Also, the legs are usually whiter, greyer or more
straw-coloured than in the Trondheim gull. Argentatus and cachinnans are
known to hybridise regularly in Poland and Germany. I suppose an argument
could be erected that it is just a very strange Herring Gull - there are
some very strange Herring Gulls knocking about in Finland, for example:
http://www.magikbirds.com/image.asp?title_id=797
I think these hypotheses are more probable than California Gull.
It would be most informative to see the wing-tip pattern - especially P10.
Dick Newell
Cambridge, UK
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: more about ID of Nov 6 TX Skua
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)ZEN.CO.UK>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 8:40am
re: http://www.martinreid.com/skuay.html
On 17/11/04 10:05 pm, "Angus Wilson" <wilsoa02(AT)med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Did Dick post his comments on ID-F?
No I didn't - but I should have. Let me reiterate my thoughts to Martin and
also add some in response to Les Chibana and Martin.
A quote by Klaus Malling Olsen:
"The idea to produce a guide to the skuas stems from a 'Great Skua' which
.... was subsequently reidentified as a 'Pomarine' .... But [eventually
proved] to be an unusually large and fat juvenile Arctic Skua ...'
On the question of moult timing. South Polar can certainly start primary
moult any time between April and August, with 1st year birds being the later
ones. This bird with a score of ~15/50 on 6th November is very late,
according to all of the data that I have collected, being later than any
other bird (over 100 birds, including Steve Howell's data). This does not
necessarily eliminate South Polar, because late moulting birds may have
moved to parts of the ocean where they are not observed. However, in Senegal
and California in October/early November, the large majority of birds have
completed their wing-moult. I don't have any data on secondary moult.
I am always wary about aging birds on the shape of their feathers, but the
primaries on this bird do look distinctly rounded, especially P10, and if so
would mean that this is not a first year bird, which would conflict with the
moult timing evidence for juvenile South Polar, but could fit a 3CY or older
'stercorarius' skua
This bird is difficult, because most things about it are subjective. At
first sight, some aspects of it look like South Polar, but for the most part
it doesn't - it's too slim all round. So the debate is between a small male
South Polar or a large female older dark/intermediate phase Pom, or even
Arctic = Parasitic to you (yes, some female Arctics can be quite big and
bulky). Note that in skuas, as in raptors, it is the females that are
larger.
I cannot find a picture of a flying Catharacta that holds its tail like
this. They always seem to hold the tail somewhat spread, where it is
obviously wedge-shaped with sharp corners and with an protrusion in the
middle. This bird has a slim tail, with rounded corners and no protrusion
(so its missing or moulting central tail feathers). The length of the tail,
measured from the rear edge of the secondaries, is longer than the width of
the wing. In South Polar it is distinctly shorter. I don't buy the argument
that the secondaries are still growing - they wouldn't be in such a neat
line if they were. Of course the weakness with my argument here is that
measurements from photographs may be dodgy because of differential
foreshortening.
The white at the base of the primaries seems to be less than anything that I
have witnessed in a South Polar (Martin nearly rebuts this successfully for
the upper-side). Every picture of a flying South Polar that I can find has
obvious white at the primary bases, showing beyond the coverts, both above
and below. This bird has only white shafts (nothing on the webs) above and
none below, apart from a white shaft on P10 and some diffuse paleness near
the coverts (Martin's example here
http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/SPSKwing11528a.jpg shows much more obvious
white). Even with under-exposed overhead shots this should be obvious. In
the birds of mine that Martin picked out (thank you for your kind remarks
Martin), the underside particularly shows a hell of a primary flash.
On the pro-South Polar side, I like the look of the head and body colour
and texture - but is that the remnants of barring on the under tail-coverts?
- I acknowledge that this is not good enough to be conclusive.
Using Photoshop on the image skuaxnov6d2 to "adjust levels" seems to
indicate that the bird is capped (needs doing on a less compressed picture)
- a cap should be a nono for a South Polar - however, I agree with Martin -
that at some angles, some South Polars can show an indistinct cap - I have
pictures myself showing this.
On balance, I remain to be convinced that this is a South Polar, with a
sufficient level of proof.
Dick Newell
Cambridge, UK
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re:
From: Colin McNamee <Colin.McNamee(AT)ANPOST.IE>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 8:46am
Can someone on the list send me the "unsubscribe" instructions. I have
made a number of unsuccesful attempts to do so. Please reply directly
rather than to the list.
Many thanks
Colin
***********************************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments, is confidential and is intended for the
addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure,
distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Please note that any information expressed in this message or its
attachments is not given or endorsed by An Post unless otherwise indicated by an
authorised representative independently of this message. An Post does not
accept responsibility for the contents of this message and although it has been
scanned for viruses An Post will not accept responsibility for any damage caused
as a result of a virus being passed on.
***********************************************************************************
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
Date: 18 Nov 2004 4:30pm
> On 17/11/04 11:54 pm, "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)WXS.NL> wrote:
>
>> Allow me to add another argument. To my knowledge no large European gull
>> has
>> black immature feathers such as f.i. the primary coverts shown in the
>> February flight shots of the Trondheim gull.
Dick Newell wrote> I think this is factually wrong, it is normal for
sub-adult cachinnans (and
> michahellis) to show black primary coverts. It can even occur in adult
> birds. I hope we are not splitting hairs between black and what may be
> very
> dark brown.<
Not for the sake of splitting hairs but the interesting thing is that
Lonergan cs. showed that pure black patterning occurs in smithonianus
whereas in European gulls these are all shades of brown but never black.
Even the palest of 1st winter smithonianus shown recently in the pictures of
Jean Iron has dark shins which you would at best find in Larus fuscus but
never in argentatus, michahellis or cachinnans.
Dick wrote:> Someone else asked why some people think it is a hybrid
argentatus x
> cachinnans. Being a gull, cachinnans is as variable as other large gulls,<
Indeed and that applies to California Gull as well. I wonder why you still
argue in favor of a hybrid while none of it's supposed parents can be
recognised in this individual. On the other hand it has so much in common
with California Gull that for the second winter running it pops up in the
discussion surrounding it and indeed is the only credible candidate! Even
it's leg colour is OK (I have compared p.126 in both prints of Malling
Olson's Gulls and I remain confident that both show at least one individual
with a similar leg colour as the Trondheim gull!).
Dick wrote:> It would be most informative to see the wing-tip pattern -
especially P10.<
In what way?
All the best, Norman
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: Jonathan Simms <jaeger77(AT)T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 11:35am
Dear all,
To those who have expressed concern over the leg colour and/or the bill
markings of the Trondheim bird, please see pages 126 and 127 (colour plates
of California Gull) in Olsen and Larsson. Whether or not people see
"Tronheim-like" features on California Gulls within their natural range ...
these colour plates clearly show these features in such birds.
Additionally, from my experience seeing adult California Gulls in the Great
Lakes region of North America, I have to say that approx. 50% of them have
not had strongly yellow legs (I recall one bird that had dull greenish legs
and another that had yellow-pink legs). In all cases, these birds were
well-documented, and it is accepted within the Great Lakes region, that
adult California Gulls show highly variable leg colouration during winter.
It seems reasonable (if however bewildering) that this may be peculiar to
vagrant California Gulls (and perhaps other species); presumably it is
related to diet, but I would defer to those who have studied this
phenomenon.
My only summer-time experience with adult California Gulls was in May one
year in Utah. These birds of course all had strongly yellow legs.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Simms
Moenchengladbach, Germany
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 12:22pm
While I agree that older Cal Gulls certainly show plenty of variation in
yellow v. gray-green leg color, the issue of relevance is whether or not
they show pink legs similar to a Herring Gull (since the leg color is
identical to the other gulls in the picture). I certainly can't recall
seeing one. I will try to look at some locally the next few days to
confirm this.
Secondly, I think it is dangerous to start drawing conclusions from
birds seen out of normal range, especially for a group as complex as
large gulls.
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Simms
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:35 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Trondheim Gull
Dear all,
To those who have expressed concern over the leg colour and/or the bill
markings of the Trondheim bird, please see pages 126 and 127 (colour
plates
of California Gull) in Olsen and Larsson. Whether or not people see
"Tronheim-like" features on California Gulls within their natural range
...
these colour plates clearly show these features in such birds.
Additionally, from my experience seeing adult California Gulls in the
Great
Lakes region of North America, I have to say that approx. 50% of them
have
not had strongly yellow legs (I recall one bird that had dull greenish
legs
and another that had yellow-pink legs). In all cases, these birds were
well-documented, and it is accepted within the Great Lakes region, that
adult California Gulls show highly variable leg colouration during
winter.
It seems reasonable (if however bewildering) that this may be peculiar
to
vagrant California Gulls (and perhaps other species); presumably it is
related to diet, but I would defer to those who have studied this
phenomenon.
My only summer-time experience with adult California Gulls was in May
one
year in Utah. These birds of course all had strongly yellow legs.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Simms
Moenchengladbach, Germany
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Trondheim Gull
From: Jeff Davis <jndavis(AT)NETPTC.NET>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 1:06pm
Even if the leg color of an adult California Gull can be as pink as that of
the Trondheim bird, we probably all agree this color is not typical and
actually is quite rare. So what are the odds that a bird so far outside its
normal geographic range would also have legs outside the species' normal
color range? Not very good, I'd guess. But isn't there evidence that
vagrancy can be a sign of genetic variability? If there is, I wonder if a
vagrant is more likely than a typical bird to be an outlier in other
respects (i.e., in phenotype). I doubt this hypothesis has much merit--all
the vagrants I've seen seemed otherwise "normal"--but it's something to
think about.
Jeff Davis
Prather, Fresno Co., CA
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Simms
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:35 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Trondheim Gull
Dear all,
To those who have expressed concern over the leg colour and/or the bill
markings of the Trondheim bird, please see pages 126 and 127 (colour
plates
of California Gull) in Olsen and Larsson. Whether or not people see
"Tronheim-like" features on California Gulls within their natural range
...
these colour plates clearly show these features in such birds.
Additionally, from my experience seeing adult California Gulls in the
Great
Lakes region of North America, I have to say that approx. 50% of them
have
not had strongly yellow legs (I recall one bird that had dull greenish
legs
and another that had yellow-pink legs). In all cases, these birds were
well-documented, and it is accepted within the Great Lakes region, that
adult California Gulls show highly variable leg colouration during
winter.
It seems reasonable (if however bewildering) that this may be peculiar
to
vagrant California Gulls (and perhaps other species); presumably it is
related to diet, but I would defer to those who have studied this
phenomenon.
My only summer-time experience with adult California Gulls was in May
one
year in Utah. These birds of course all had strongly yellow legs.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Simms
Moenchengladbach, Germany
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Separation of sibling species
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 1:42pm
Now if only this applied to Cackling vs Canada Goose :))
Robert Bleiweiss (2004) Ultraviolet plumage reflectance distinguishes
sibling bird species . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073. Published
online before print November 16, 2004
Abstract: Realistic studies of plumage color need to consider that
many birds can see near-UV light, which normal humans cannot
perceive. Although previous investigations have revealed that
UV-based plumage reflectance is an important component of various
intraspecific social signals, the contribution of UV signals to
interspecific divergence and speciation in birds remains largely
unexplored. I describe an avian example of an interspecific
phenomenon in which related sympatric species that appear similar to
humans (sibling species) differ dramatically in the UV. Both UV video
images and physical reflectance spectra indicate that the dorsal
plumage of the tanager Anisognathus notabilis has a strong UV-limited
reflectance band that readily distinguishes this species from its
sibling congener Anisognathus flavinuchus. The main human-visible
distinction between A. notabilis (olive back) and coexisting A.
flavinuchus (black back) also occurs among different geographic
populations of A. flavinuchus. Notably, however, olive- and
black-backed taxa interbreed (differentiated populations of A.
flavinuchus) unless the additional UV distinction is present (A.
notabilis vs. A. flavinuchus). Thus, UV-based reflectance can be an
essential component of plumage divergence that relates to
reproductive isolation, a key attribute of biological species.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Separation of sibling species
From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker(AT)ZIPCON.NET>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 2:50pm
HI:
Can a UV Field Guide to North American Birds be far behind?? I wonder if
binoculars can be fitted with a lens to see UV light?
--
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way!"
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Trondheim Gull
From: Joel Weintraub <jweintraub(AT)fullerton.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 4:03pm
I live where California Gulls winter in the tens of thousands, if not
hundred of thousands (over the course of the winter). During the winter of
1997-1998 I made an effort to read the bands of gulls at nearby Doheny State
Beach, Dana Point, Orange County, California. Over 360 individual bands
were read from California Gulls....most from California and Nevada bred
individuals, but some from Wyoming, and a few banded birds were from a
colony in Alberta, Canada.
Following the proverb that one look is worth 1000 reports, I went down to
the beach this morning and digiscoped the gull flock. I took about 50
pictures. I've choosen 4 of them and put them AT THE VERY BOTTOM (links are
out of sight on the opening page) at:
http://members.cox.net/orcorba/
Scroll down to the bottom of the website to access the links. I hope this
gives some statistical sense of what an average California Gull flock looks
like....in southern California. I choose 2 photos to give a feeling for the
flock, and 2 for both leg and bill colors (and proportions).
The first picture was taken with an Olympus 5050 Camera with a 2X
telephoto...equivalent to a 200 or so lens. There are some larger Western
Gulls with pinkish legs in the foreground, and a first year California Gull
with pinkish legs at the bottom of the picture. The remaining 3 pictures
were taken with an Olympus 5050 camera, and a Swarovski ATS 80HD scope, but
the scope lens I used was an astronomy eyepiece....a Celestron 45mm Ultra
with a Swarovski astronomy lens adaptor. With this setup I have no
vignetting, and a very fast and wide angle digiscoping setup. The pictures
are equivalent to about a 1000 mm lens. The first 3 pictures were taken from
a distance of about 30 feet (10 m) from the flock, the last about 200 feet
(about 65 m).
Leg color is variable among adults, but is usually yellow to more likely, a
grayish-bluish color. First year birds have pinkish legs. My monitor is
very dark, (and I've ordered a new one), so my interpretation of color from
the digitals may be off. I did nothing to the images aside from cropping
some of them....no other manipulation was done.
Joel Weintraub, Dana Point, California
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Separation of sibling species
From: Joel Weintraub <jweintraub(AT)fullerton.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 4:12pm
UV is an important part of floral patterns. There are filters that can
block all light but UV and I've taken photos using a regular film camera of
flowers through such filters. That filter is NOT the UV filter you see for
cameras (the 1A filter). Looking through a true UV filter without any
enhancement, you will probably see nothing.
When I tried to take a photo with my digital camera through the UV filter, I
got negative results. It appeared the digital camera was programmed to only
record over the visible range.
Although your posting might have been in jest, to have a binocular see UV
you would have to enhance that portion of the spectrum in order to see
it....and then convert it to something the human eye can see.... a difficult
task.
Joel Weintraub, Dana Point, CA
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Separation of sibling species
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 4:24pm
In essence this is no different than night vision binoculars. You just
need some image processing electronics to do the conversion. Since the
author was able to see a difference in UV plumage on these birds,
presumably some kind of equipment for viewing UV already exists.
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joel Weintraub
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:12 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Separation of sibling species
UV is an important part of floral patterns. There are filters that can
block all light but UV and I've taken photos using a regular film camera
of
flowers through such filters. That filter is NOT the UV filter you see
for
cameras (the 1A filter). Looking through a true UV filter without any
enhancement, you will probably see nothing.
When I tried to take a photo with my digital camera through the UV
filter, I
got negative results. It appeared the digital camera was programmed to
only
record over the visible range.
Although your posting might have been in jest, to have a binocular see
UV
you would have to enhance that portion of the spectrum in order to see
it....and then convert it to something the human eye can see.... a
difficult
task.
Joel Weintraub, Dana Point, CA
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 4:55pm
I've been enjoying and learning from the current Cackling/Canada
goose discussion but a concern I have is that we are focusing very
much on mystery birds. The same holds true for the European
literature (principally Birding World, Dutch Birding and Birdwatch),
which has worked hard to identify vagrants or possible vagrants to
subspecies. The dilemma of course is that we may never know for sure
what these birds are and there is a risk that these will used as
references, especially when acknowledged experts tentatively assign
them to one form or another. There is an understandable tendency for
original caveats to be ignored or omitted in summaries or reviews.
The specimen photos go part way to solving this concern and I think
everyone will agree that the variation is some of these sets is an
eye-opener. This is best illustrated by the Southhampton Island
specimens photographed by Pierre Bannon
(http://www.pbase.com/pbannon/hutchins) and brought to our attention
by Ron Pittaway and Jean Iron.
My experience of looking at and photographing wintering Canada Geese
on Long Island, NY is that they are quite variable (size, breast
color, throat stripe etc) but this may be due to the mixed origins of
eastern stocks following the widespread, and poorly thought out,
reintroduction programs. From reading collars, I know we are getting
birds from all four points of the compass. It would be very helpful
if birders in the west (BC, WA, OR, CA, NV, MT etc) could photograph
live taverneri and parvipes (if possible ID'd by neck collars) and
disseminate these reference images on the web. Steven Mlodinow has
offered his written impressions of taverneri and Stephen Davies has
posted useful photos of several western forms. [I would certainly be
happy to host photos on http://www.oceanwanderers.com if that is a
limiting factor.] Photos of birds in the field would supplement the
specimen shots that are already available and provide a bench mark
for further discussion.
This seems like a perfect opportunity for birders across the
continent to look at and document in a critical fashion their common
local birds and broadcast their findings for the greater good. We can
anticipate an explosion of new information on both the extent and
frequency of variation within each of the main populations and maybe
robust field identification criteria for each will emerge.
Lastly, the name issue (use of 'Cackling' to mean the polytypic
species or the discrete subspecies _minima_) is a genuine problem for
birders and conservationists, less so for scientific authors or
museum experts. It is better to thrash this out now before the
literature gets too muddy. I was impressed by Phil Davis' research of
the older literature which shows nicely the plethora of names that
have been used at one time or another. Presumably the AOU gods
considered these pitfalls when they selected the name? Can anyone on
the AOU Check-list Committee, or someone close to the committee,
offer the official rational behind their decision to use Cackling
Goose over other names?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Separation of sibling species
From: Rafael Lizarralde <wartiger(AT)TWCNY.RR.COM>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 4:57pm
I think that the most useful thing to do (though definitely in the future
rather than now) would be a genetic modification of our cones in the retina.
However, human genetic modification isn't internationally legal. Perhaps in
the closer future, digital eyes which would send a different picture with UV
included.
PS. Does anyone think that infrared sensors would be incredibly useful to
bird researchers? I mean, you could locate all the birds nearly instantly.
(except in high temps...) Or are birds actually warm enough to detect?
Wishful thinking,
~Rafael Lizarralde
is a newer birder who goes to Venezuela during the summer. He is also a
so-called nerd (or "biogeek", bio as in biology, as named by peer critics)
in 8th grade.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Canada Goose in Massachusetts
From: Mike Patterson <celata(AT)pacifier.com>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 5:13pm
This was on my to-do list for this week. I figured it
would be useful to have in the run-up to Christmas Counts.
I had the video camera batteries charged and everything...
then the catalytic converter when out on my truck....
Anyway, I will be trying for pictures of Dusky, Taverner's
and Aleutian this weekend at Willapa NWR and a couple other
spots.
Angus Wilson wrote:
> From reading collars, I know we are getting
> birds from all four points of the compass. It would be very helpful
> if birders in the west (BC, WA, OR, CA, NV, MT etc) could photograph
> live taverneri and parvipes (if possible ID'd by neck collars) and
> disseminate these reference images on the web. Steven Mlodinow has
> offered his written impressions of taverneri and Stephen Davies has
> posted useful photos of several western forms. [I would certainly be
> happy to host photos on http://www.oceanwanderers.com if that is a
> limiting factor.] Photos of birds in the field would supplement the
> specimen shots that are already available and provide a bench mark
> for further discussion.
>
--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
celata(AT)pacifier.com
Nobody EXPECTS the Spanish Inquisition....
- Cardinal Ximinez
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Italy: second Greater Sandplover (Charadrius
leschenaultii)
From: Menotti Passarella <menotti.passarella(AT)LIBERO.IT>
Date: 20 Nov 2004 2:04am
Hi all.
Yesterday the second Greater Sandplover (Charadrius leschenaultii) for Italy
(if accepted) was found in the
nature Reserve of Gorino, Po Delta, NE Italy by Menotti Passarella, Roberto
Tinarelli, Dante Bonazzi, Paolo Gallerani, Luisella Fontolan and Zita
Montanari. Roberto was able to see also a Purple Sandpiper (Calidris
maritima) very unusual in the Mediterranean. After the observation of the
Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) las month
http://birdingitalynet.blog.tiscali.it/nj1608308/
the Gorino reserve is surely the best hotspot for waders in Italy, with more
than 10.000-12.000 waders regularly wintering with more than 20 species.
Photos of the Greater Sandplover are available on Surfbirds:
http://www.surfbirds.com/cgi-bin/gallery/display.cgi?gallery=gallery11
and in these other site:
http://birdingitaly.ilcannocchiale.it/
Cheers
Menotti Passarella
info(AT)birdingitaly.com
www.birdingitaly.net
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland