 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for January 9-15, 2005
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Re: Glaucous-winged Gull in northern Illinois | Robert Hughes | Sun, 9 Jan 2005 | 4:41am |
| Small Geese in Kentucky | David Roemer | Sun, 9 Jan 2005 | 5:10pm |
| Gull Measurements | SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM | Sun, 9 Jan 2005 | 12:36pm |
| Re: Glaucous-winged Gull in northern Illinois | Phillip Pickering | Sun, 9 Jan 2005 | 2:28pm |
| Re: Banks abstract - GLGU | Matt Sharp | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 8:58am |
| Re: Small Geese in Kentucky | J. Harry Krueger | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 2:23pm |
| Re: O & L Thayer's | Joseph Morlan | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 9:53pm |
| Re: O & L Thayer's | SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 7:55pm |
| O & L Thayer's | Phillip Pickering | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 6:47pm |
| Re: O & L Thayer's | Phillip Pickering | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 10:13pm |
| Re: Barrovianus Glaucous Gulls | Declan Troy | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 12:34pm |
| Re: O & L Thayer's | Phillip Pickering | Mon, 10 Jan 2005 | 9:24pm |
| RE : Small Geese in Kentucky | Jocelyn Hudon | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 10:59am |
| Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky | Angus Wilson | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 1:46pm |
| Re: Small Geese in Kentucky | Bruce Deuel | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 9:44am |
| Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky | Bruce Deuel | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 2:38pm |
| Black-headed x Ring-bill or Mediterranean Gull? | Kevin McGowan | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 3:18pm |
| crow DNA | Ian Paulsen | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 3:01pm |
| RE : Small Geese in Kentucky | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pierr | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 9:57am |
| Re: Small Geese in Kentucky | J. Harry Krueger | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 10:17am |
| Re: Small Geese in Kentucky | =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FE?= | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 9:36am |
| Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky | Kevin McGowan | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 10:22am |
| Re: Thayer's and Herring Gulls with breast
barring | Phillip Pickering | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 4:20pm |
| Thayer's and Herring Gulls with breast barring | Robert Hughes | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 | 3:01pm |
| Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky | Laurent Raty | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 | 12:03pm |
| Arizona Arhcilochus follow-up | Mark Stevenson | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 | 3:04pm |
| Slaty-backed Gull in California. | Alvaro Jaramillo | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 | 11:27pm |
| Interbreeding of parvipes and hutchinsii | Ian Mclaren | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 | 8:29am |
| finally | Matt Sharp | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 | 8:41am |
| Eurasian x American GWTE hybrid | Jim Pike | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 | 6:32pm |
| Another gull | Aaron Brees | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 | 10:13pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Glaucous-winged Gull in northern Illinois
From: Robert Hughes <rhughes.enteract(AT)RCN.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 2005 4:41am
> Can't judge breast
> streaking at the resolution of these photos, but at a coarse level
> it looks fine for Herring, just a little filled in. What did the head/
> breast streaking look like in the field?
There was extensive fine barring on the breast and neck sides, which,
unfortunately can't be seen in the photos. This, along with the other
field marks, was what led me to believe this bird was a Glaucous-winged
Gull.
Robert Hughes
Chicago, Illinois
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Small Geese in Kentucky
From: David Roemer <dlroemer(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 2005 5:10pm
Attached are links to two pages of photos of small
geese obtained in Kentucky in December 2004. There
were seven associating with a flock of migrant
B.c.interior with a few resident birds mixed in. One
of the small geese was somewhat larger than the others
and much more alert, which I assumed to be a large
male.
A number of images have been included to provide a
good representation of the birds from different angles
and with others nearby for comparison of size,
structure, and plumage. One of the birds was
somewhat darker and more richly colored on the breast
and is shown in images T and U (right bird) on the
second page. I considered them to be B.h.hutchinsii
showing variation within the subspecies, but am
interested in opinions.
Two other birds which appeared intermediate in size
are shown in image S. Are these possibly B.c.parvipes
of which I am unfamiliar, or runt interiors.
Regarding comparative size of Cackling and Ross's
Geese, attached is another link showing a pair of what
I considered Richardson's Geese obtained in Kentucky
in 2002. That's a female Mallard standing next to one
of the geese.
I would greatly appreciate any thoughts and feedback
that can be shared on these birds.
http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose.html
http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose2.html
http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/cacklinggoose.html
David L. Roemer
Bowling Green, Ky.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Gull Measurements
From: SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 9 Jan 2005 12:36pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
For those measurements I provided, I guess I wasn't clear that they came from
Olsen and Larsson.
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Glaucous-winged Gull in northern Illinois
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 2005 2:28pm
> There was extensive fine barring on the breast and neck sides, which,
> unfortunately can't be seen in the photos.
Had a free morning today so took the opportunity to specifically study
some of the things that bothered me about the Illinois gull for pure
G-w. Interestingly, the flock of about 300 gulls at my local hotspot for
northern gulls today contained at least 9 birds that appeared to be
Herring x G-w of various ages - and zero pure Herrings. Looked
at 25-30 pure-looking adult G-w, found I may have one or two
biased conceptions of what is statistically likely.
- 3+ of the adult G-w showed white primary tongues that were
comparable to what is visible on the Illinois gull. Presumably northern
G-w can have larger tongues, and my impression that smaller
tongues are more typical is biased by the southern sample I look
at most of the year. The Illinois bird's primary pattern with the
large, nearly terminal mirror on P10, small or no mirror on P9, and
huge white tongues on P6-8 does seem to be a very good match
for some (at least non-Western-introgressed) G-w. See from this
morning-
http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/gw001.jpg
- a minority of adult G-w also showed an area of more saturated
color on the tip of the upper mandible centered above the red spot,
roughly matching the Illinois gull. They still did not give the
impression of a contrasting starkly washed out bill base/delineated
tip as I have noticed on some adult Herring and Thayer's in winter,
but as the Illinois pictures are somewhat washed out in general they
may be exaggerating that aspect.
- 3+ adults had bills that were fairly straight for G-w and could
be matches for the Illinois gull, at least taking into account that it is
facing away from the Camera slightly causing the culmen downcurve
to appear steeper than it probably is, which I didn't take into
consideration yesterday. Closest overall match I could find -
http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/gw002.jpg
The head shape and proportions still seem somewhat Herring-like
to me, and as Dave Irons notes the primaries may be fairly dark
for G-w, at least certainly for a bird that has a mantle shade that
appears identical to smithsonianus - and particularly if you take into
account the washed out nature of the photos. But otherwise given
that the streaking was seen to be G-w-like, I have to do an about face
and say that there probably aren't any statistically-based reasons to
suspect that this isn't 'mostly' G-w, with a lean to some probable
minor Herring influence, which is more or less what Jeff said
initially.
Nice bird.
Cheers,
Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Banks abstract - GLGU
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 8:58am
This has been an interesting and informative discussion
regarding Glaucous Gull subspecies. Certainly more variation
than I was previously aware of.
It seems the subject of barrovianus has been thouroughly
discussed but I am still a bit unclear about east-coast (winter)
birds. I had always assumed they were leucertes, an assumption
that was reinforced by viewing photos of GLGU from the UK
which are nominate. These birds seemed more heavily pigmented
to me and perhaps not quite as robust as the first cycle birds
I have seen along the east coast (ME-NC), though I have seen
some variation in the darkness of birds here.
Larsson and Olsen lump leucertes with nominate but the cursory note
they give as rationale for that was ambiguous and terse. There is
no mention of what specimens they examined and they cite a paper "in
litt" supposedly detailing differences between east coast and nominate GLGU.
I suppose some of the answers here are in the Banks paper and perhaps
the BNA series which I will check, but if anyone has any other comments
regarding this I would be interested.
Matt
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Geese in Kentucky
From: "J. Harry Krueger" <hkrueger(AT)cableone.net>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 2:23pm
David,
First in response to the last link of a possible "Richardson's" Goose: I do
not believe this bird to be a B. hutchinsii, but rather a small B. c.
parvipes. First, the bill size and shape is all wrong. Granted, we don't
have the best of angles in any of the three photos, but we do see enough to
note the longer, more substantial bill as compared to head, with a fairly
continuous incline of bill tip along culmen to forehead. Also, the head
shape itself is quite rounded, which is uncharacteristic of hutchinsii (look
at the other pictures of the seven birds from this year). All of the
indicators mentioned are characteristic of parvipes. It is amazing how
small this subspecies can sometimes appear, particularly when viewing a
female or a runt. Keep in mind there are numerous instances of hutchinsii x
parvipes. An intergrade between these two can produce wide size swings to
the "runt" edge, but be aware that limited research has shown that bill size
will decrease to a less degree than tarsus and body mass, therefore giving
us a bird that looks bigger billed and smaller bodied. Finally, plumage is
consistant with parvipes, as is the very thin, barely noticeable "white bib"
or "necklace" below the black stocking (granted that this is a plumage
variation seen in almost any "white-cheeked" goose, it is very common in
parvipes).
As to the seven birds from this year: I believe that they are good
representations of "typical" B. h. hutchinsii. Almost always the
square-headed look with a sharp bill to forehead angle and flat
topped-appearance coupled with an abrupt hind crown to nape angle is a
give-away to this race. I personally would not put too much stock in the
body size quotient as a primary indicator, other than obviously they are
smaller than the attendant B. c. interior. Remember when viewing potential
hutchinsii, males are potentially equal to or even larger than some parvipes
females...Size overlap here can definitely be a source of confusion if used
in isolation. Again note the bill and head relationships in your photos. The
bill is small (less than the width of the head), triangular with an approx.
45 degree angle to the culmen, and steeper angle from the culmen through
forehead, and a more rounded peak to forehead/crown transition (with a less
rounded hind crown to nape transition). The crown top itself is fairly flat.
As a good starting point, when scanning a flock of geese, look for the
smaller one with the flat-headed appearance (you'll generally miss the
hutchinsii if you're looking for a bird as small as a Mallard - that's
minima). Also, as a secondary indicator, note that the area immediately
below the black stocking is grayish (or in some birds, brownish-gray) as
contrasted to the more brown-line patterned sides of the upper chest. The
oft repeated indicator or "silvery" upperparts is very misleading, and
definitely not a way to id these birds.
As to the two geese that might be parvipes in photo "S": I don't believe
so, although this picture doesn't give us much to go on, especially with the
body angles. The head on the second bird of the trio (two smaller and the
larger presumed B. c. interior) is too flat topped. Parvipes is quite
round-headed in appearance, with little transition angle from culmen to
forehead. Also the hind crown to nape is very rounded in parvipes, whereas
this bird has a peak/point at that point. The first bird in the trio seems
to have a different head shape but that is only an optical aberration caused
by the difference in angle of head position. If you cock your head to the
left and look at the head of this bird from the same position as the
previous one, you will see that the characteristics are the same. Both
birds are not parvipes. What are they? Perhaps "runt" interiors? Head
shape and bill would lead in that direction as one possible explanation.
It is wise to remember that the subspecies variations and intergrades in
"white-cheeked" geese are so numerous and varied, that, I believe an
absolute id on every single bird seen is unwise to attempt and ultimately
impossible...but as we continue to learn, it almost rivals gulls for
"enjoyment" and frustration. Can we be "brantophiles?"
Harry Krueger
Boise, ID
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Roemer
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:00 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Small Geese in Kentucky
Attached are links to two pages of photos of small geese obtained in
Kentucky in December 2004. There were seven associating with a flock of
migrant B.c.interior with a few resident birds mixed in. One of the small
geese was somewhat larger than the others and much more alert, which I
assumed to be a large male.
A number of images have been included to provide a good representation of
the birds from different angles and with others nearby for comparison of
size,
structure, and plumage. One of the birds was
somewhat darker and more richly colored on the breast and is shown in images
T and U (right bird) on the second page. I considered them to be
B.h.hutchinsii showing variation within the subspecies, but am interested in
opinions.
Two other birds which appeared intermediate in size are shown in image S.
Are these possibly B.c.parvipes of which I am unfamiliar, or runt interiors.
Regarding comparative size of Cackling and Ross's Geese, attached is another
link showing a pair of what I considered Richardson's Geese obtained in
Kentucky in 2002. That's a female Mallard standing next to one of the
geese.
I would greatly appreciate any thoughts and feedback that can be shared on
these birds.
http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose.html
http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose2.html
http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/cacklinggoose.html
David L. Roemer
Bowling Green, Ky.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: O & L Thayer's
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 9:53pm
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:47:19 -0800, Phillip Pickering
<philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM> wrote:
>It's just that Herring x G-w have created such an incredibly
>tricky situation here, even for those intimately familiar with Thayer's.
On this tangent...
Last winter I posted a series of photos of gulls from the Central
California Coast along with labels of what I thought they were:
http://community.webshots.com/album/104073794uAYlcq
The first three are of a bird I was struggling to turn into a Kumlein's,
but couldn't quite get there. However I doubt that it would be regarded as
a Thayer's if it were seen on the East Coast. Next is what I regarded as a
"fairly typical" pale Thayer's. The next two are of a bird that I labeled
"apparent Glaucous" but which I now think was a "semi-Glaucous."
The California Gull is not controversial and was posted by request.
I received an interesting reply from someone who thought that my
"Thayer's-like" and my "fairly typical pale Thayer's" were likely both
hybrids of Herring X G-W. That set me back a bit, but not enough to change
the labels on the web site. I thought they both had a Thayer's-like jizz
and structure at the time and I never considered them to be hybrids. Am I
off-base in regarding these as pale Thayer's?
The "Apparent Glaucous" is the same bird that Luke Cole brought our
attention to in an earlier message:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501a&L=birdwg01&T=0&F=&S=&P=3370
Additional photos of the bird during it's first winter are at:
http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/glgux.htm
and also here:
http://www.badboybirding.com/GLGUxGWGU_12312002.htm
....with discussion by Stephen Davies suggesting that the bird might be
Glaucous X Glaucous-winged. Additional photos during it's second winter,
along with further discussion are here:
http://www.badboybirding.com/GLGUxGWGU_12112003.htm
I certainly welcome comments and opinions on any of these birds, preferably
to the list so that others may benefit.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
Birding Classes in SF start Feb.8 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: O & L Thayer's
From: SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 10 Jan 2005 7:55pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
I haven't studied all the pictures mentioned by Phil yet, but among the first
year birds I must say that 286 is very disturbing, and I have a hard time
buying it as a Thayer's. What is it???
Don't know. I could easily buy HEGU x GWGU. It's hefty, short-winged, and
quite patterned on the tertials. Also, the white edges on the primaries are
more
than usual (though perhaps within range of THGU). But all of these combined in
one bird...
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: O & L Thayer's
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 6:47pm
I finally picked up the Olsen and Larsson "Gulls of" book today-
should have had it long ago as it is obviously an invaluable
resource in countless ways.
That said I was a bit disappointed to see that at least a few of the
photos of immature "Thayer's" are not representative of what is
typical (to state it in a conservative manner).
#294 in particular has a very Glaucous-winged-like jizz. In fact,
compare the head shape, general proportions, centralized eye
placement, more centralized feel to the leg placement, bulk of the
chest, and bulk and vertical extent of the rear to the entire flock
of more standard Thayer's directly opposite in #298. I know
single photos can be misleading in shape aspects so I hesitate to say
it is totally outside the possible range of appearance for Thayer's,
but I would say that the shot by itself is actually more representative
of what typically *separates* Herring x Glaucous-winged from
Thayer's, rather than what is typical of Thayer's. I wouldn't have
used this particular shot in the book, at least without a strongly
stated caveat about hybrids in the caption (rather than a statement
implying that Thayer's jizz is very similar to Herring which would
tend to mislead non-experts).
I also wonder about #288, which seems subtly G-w-like to me for
many of the same reasons mentioned above, as does #286, which
additionally has progressed scap molt more typical of Herring for
the date, and also using the G-w as a baseline seems to have a colder,
grayer plumage tone more typical of Herring.
Note also that *all but two* of the Thayer's shots are from California,
with the only exceptions being an odd dark Iceland Gull-shaped bird
photographed in Denmark (289), and a flight photo from Connecticut :)
While most of the other California photos appear to be nice shots of
Thayer's, perhaps for a book of this ambition it would have been
safer and more representative to have solicited at least some of the
included photos from (or visited) northern Washington or southern
B.C., more in the heart of Thayer's wintering range, and where every
other Thayer's-like bird isn't a hybrid.
I do realize the book is an evolving resource in its early stages, and
applaud the effort that went into it (boggles my mind to think about
it). It's just that Herring x G-w have created such an incredibly
tricky situation here, even for those intimately familiar with Thayer's.
I would have been a little more cautious and gone with Thayer's shots
that were more standard-looking (again, see Michael Shepard's page
for a good cross section of Thayer's structural appearance from the
heart of their wintering range - )
http://www.birdinfo.com/ThayersGull_image.html
Respectfully,
Phil Pickering
Lincoln City, Oregon
philliplc(AT)harborside.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: O & L Thayer's
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 10:13pm
Both Thayer's appear to have prototypical scap and covert
patterning and are fine structurally. The pale one with the
patterned tertials does look like it's closer to the Kumlien's
end of things than the vast majority of west coast Thayer's,
but otherwise I see no reason to suspect either is a hybrid.
If these are hybrids then we are in serious trouble.
Cheers,
Phil
> Last winter I posted a series of photos of gulls from the Central
> California Coast along with labels of what I thought they were:
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/104073794uAYlcq
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Barrovianus Glaucous Gulls
From: Declan Troy <declan.troy(AT)ACSALASKA.NET>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 12:34pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
A few points of clarification based on comments to my original posting:
I thought my comment was silent about the identity of glaucous gulls
in the western US; I'll leave that to those of you seeing the birds
in question and that have a handle on the range of variation of
putative "populations" of glaucous gulls to judge for yourselves.
The point I was trying to draw attention to is that descriptions of
the winter range of barrovianus (some transcribed in other postings)
limit it to the Pacific coast of North America; i.e., no mention of
Asia. Clearly this is incorrect. The reality is not as clean cut as
barrovianus along the eastern Pacific and pallidissimus along the
western Pacific. Indeed the center of winter abundance of barrovianus
may prove to be in Asia with a lesser component remaining in North
America.
Certainly some larophiles have suspected a component of the glaucous
gulls in Japan are barrovianus but this has not made it into the
literature, even the popular gull literature. I've only had a couple
of birds make it as far south as Japan (one is there now). Most are
further north along Kamchatka and in the Sea of Okhotsk.
In my original post I indicated a winter absence of my study birds
from mainland North America. This includes Alaska. Except during
spring, finding one of the study birds along Alaska south of the
Bering Strait is the exception. So I'm not holding out for one of
these birds to make it to the Pacific Northwest! The caveats are too
numerous to list but FWIW we've had a couple of the gulls we've
tracked summer in arctic Canada, as far east as the Boothia Peninsula
(well into leucertes' range). These birds also wintered in Asia.
The study is ongoing......
>This is great information, but I don't think it proves barrovianus
>doesn't occur in W. N. America. It's important to remember that
>Glaucous is essentially a vagrant (admittedly a common one) to the
>USA and NW Europe. For example you can't go anywhere in Britain or
>the US (outside Alaska) and see more than 20-30 Glaucous at once,
>and the number of places you can do that is only a handful. For
>example there are more Yellow-browed Warblers in the UK or Blackpoll
>Warblers in California each year than Glaucous Gulls. Therefore
>we're getting such a tiny % of the population that I suspect you
>would need a few hundred recoveries to get one in the W. US
>(assuming some are going here).
>Glaucous Gulls are common in Hokkaido, Japan in winter, which backs
>your evidence that a lot are going there.
>
>FWIW, I've tracked 30-odd Glaucous Gulls using satellite telemetry.
>All these birds were trapped during the breeding season on the North
>Slope of Alaska. Although most literature mentions the Pacific coast
>of North America as the wintering area for barrovianus, almost all
>of these birds have wintered in Asia and none along mainland North
>America.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: O & L Thayer's
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 2005 9:24pm
> I haven't studied all the pictures mentioned by Phil yet, but among the
first
> year birds I must say that 286 is very disturbing, and I have a hard time
> buying it as a Thayer's. What is it???
I don't know either, but as far as these things can be judged using
logic, the finely patterned tertials and tail tip, exceptionally wide
primary fringes, and upperparts patterning might suggest a
Herring x Glaucous backcross with a dark bill.
I have seen gulls nearly identical to this in large mixed flocks of
Herring and G-w on at least a few occasions. And I do think
that at least some of both Herring and G-w have underlying
patterning to the tertails, tail, primaries etc., typically filled
in by an overlying layer - and perhaps more likely to be
revealed in a genetic mix. Combining shifting of saturation
levels of various pigment layers with structural shifts could
return unexpected results.
ouch my head..
Cheers,
Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky
From: Jocelyn Hudon <Jocelyn.Hudon(AT)GOV.AB.CA>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 10:59am
Kevin,
Check E.E. Paxinos, H.F. James, S.L. Olson, M.D. Sorenson, J. Jackson, and R.C.
Fleischer. 2002. MtDNA from fossils reveals a radiation of Hawaiian geese
recently derived from the Canada goose (Branta canadensis) PNAS 99(3):
1399-1404.
available for download at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/3/1399
Jocelyn Hudon
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]On Behalf Of Kevin McGowan
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] RE : [BIRDWG01] Small Geese in Kentucky
At 05:57 PM 1/11/2005 +0100, Pierre-André CROCHET wrote:
>...
>First, what recent genetic results suggest (and that forms the basis of
>the AOU split) us that Canada (Branta canadensis) and Cackling (Branta
>hutchinsii) geese to not intergrade much (if at all). Despite claims of
>parvipes X hutchinsii (or is it parvipes X taverneri?) intergradation in
>the literature, this is not apparent in the genetic data (in what I have
>read so far at least).
I haven't seen any genetic data looking at hutchinsii (sensu stricto) at
all. Have you? I still feel like that piece of the puzzle is still missing.
Kevin
*****************************************************
Kevin J. McGowan
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
159 Sapsucker Woods Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607/254-2432
fax 607/254-2111
kjm2(AT)cornell.edu
http://birds.cornell.edu/crows/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky
From: Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)MED.NYU.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 1:46pm
Hi All,
-- Jocelyn Hudon brings up an interesting paper and Fig. 4 presents a
'maximum parsimony phylogram' comparing mitochondrial gene sequence
data from a number of Branta and Anser geese. As Jocelyn points out,
the study includes a data point for _hutchinsii_, which clusters
with _minima_ and _taverneri_. Interestingly, Barnacle Goose is on
the same branch as these small-bodied Canada Geese (aka Cackling
Geese) and would seem more closely related Cackling Goose than are
the large-bodied Canada Geese ( _occidentalis_ and _maxima_). Perhaps
it should be considered a Palearctic Cackler?
One niggle I have with the paper is that they do not provide
information on the number or origins of the specimens used to obtain
the Cackling Goose data. Did I simply missed it or if the data has
been reported elsewhere?
-- Another snipper of interest is the limited divergence between
Pale-bellied (_hrota_) and Black Brant (_nigricans_) Brant, which are
used as reference point for comparing Hawaiian geese to the
Canada-types. The divergence between the two brant is comparable to
the subspecies within the large or small-bodied Canadas. Again is
this their data or simply something recycled from elsewhere?
-- Throughout our many discussions of Canada/Cackling Goose ID, one
question that still has me scratching my head, is why the two are so
similar in basic appearance? Many authors conclude that the 'Canada
like' plumage pattern is plesiomorphic, meaning ancestral, but given
the apparent distance between the Canada and Cackling Geese, why have
they not diverged more - as in the case of Barnacle Goose? My guess
would be that there is a strong behavioural or ecological reason to
maintain the basic plan. I wonder how much is known about pair
formation in the two species and whether this relies on criteria that
are independent of appearance? Could the brown/black plumage offer
such good camouflage at a critical period in the adult life that it
is strongly selected for?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
>Check E.E. Paxinos, H.F. James, S.L. Olson, M.D. Sorenson, J.
>Jackson, and R.C. Fleischer. 2002. MtDNA from fossils reveals a
>radiation of Hawaiian geese recently derived from the Canada goose
>(Branta canadensis) PNAS 99(3): 1399-1404.
>available for download at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/3/1399
>
>Jocelyn Hudon
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Geese in Kentucky
From: Bruce Deuel <BDEUEL(AT)DFG.CA.GOV>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 9:44am
Hi all,
From my western perspective I would have no trouble assigning the middle bird of
Paul's photo "S" to parvipes. I am very interested in the cautions folks are
putting out about intergrades between parvipes and hutchinsii. While, given
their ranges, it would seem this combo is likely in the population, can anyone
direct me to literature that actually documents such hybrids?
Cheers,
Bruce Deuel
Redding/Red Bluff, CA
>>> þ Hertzel <phertzel(AT)RCONNECT.COM> 1/11/2005 8:37:35 AM >>>
At 03:23 PM 1/10/05, J. Harry Krueger wrote:
>As to the two geese that might be parvipes in photo "S": I don't believe
>so, although this picture doesn't give us much to go on, especially with the
>body angles. . . . What are they? Perhaps "runt" interiors?
In my opinion, the middle bird of the three is parvipes. The body size,
intermediate between the large-bodied bird at right and the hutchinsii in
the foreground, is about perfect, the structure of the neck, unusually long
and snakey for such a small bird, is a good match for parvipes, and the
head shape is not out of range, especially if the bird has some hutchinsii
ancestry. This last variable has to be taken into consideration on every
intermediate-sized bird, in my opinion. Head shape alone, cannot be used
to rule out a bird that may be (primarily) parvipes.
>It is wise to remember that the subspecies variations and intergrades in
>"white-cheeked" geese are so numerous and varied, that, I believe an
>absolute id on every single bird seen is unwise to attempt and ultimately
>impossible
Definitely the best advice.
Paul Hertzel
Mason City, IA
The geese in question are here:
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose.html
>
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose2.html
>
>David L. Roemer
>Bowling Green, Ky.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky
From: Bruce Deuel <BDEUEL(AT)DFG.CA.GOV>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 2:38pm
I have absolutely no answer to Angus's question as to why Canada and
Cackling Goose look alike, but why do Snow and Ross's Geese look alike?
Is there reason to think something grossly different is going on in
these 2 groups?
Cheers,
Bruce Deuel
Red Bluff/Redding
bdeuel(AT)dfg.ca.gov
>>> Angus Wilson <wilsoa02(AT)MED.NYU.EDU> 1/11/2005 12:44:15 PM >>>
Hi All,
-- Jocelyn Hudon brings up an interesting paper and Fig. 4 presents a
'maximum parsimony phylogram' comparing mitochondrial gene sequence
data from a number of Branta and Anser geese. As Jocelyn points out,
the study includes a data point for _hutchinsii_, which clusters
with _minima_ and _taverneri_. Interestingly, Barnacle Goose is on
the same branch as these small-bodied Canada Geese (aka Cackling
Geese) and would seem more closely related Cackling Goose than are
the large-bodied Canada Geese ( _occidentalis_ and _maxima_). Perhaps
it should be considered a Palearctic Cackler?
One niggle I have with the paper is that they do not provide
information on the number or origins of the specimens used to obtain
the Cackling Goose data. Did I simply missed it or if the data has
been reported elsewhere?
-- Another snipper of interest is the limited divergence between
Pale-bellied (_hrota_) and Black Brant (_nigricans_) Brant, which are
used as reference point for comparing Hawaiian geese to the
Canada-types. The divergence between the two brant is comparable to
the subspecies within the large or small-bodied Canadas. Again is
this their data or simply something recycled from elsewhere?
-- Throughout our many discussions of Canada/Cackling Goose ID, one
question that still has me scratching my head, is why the two are so
similar in basic appearance? Many authors conclude that the 'Canada
like' plumage pattern is plesiomorphic, meaning ancestral, but given
the apparent distance between the Canada and Cackling Geese, why have
they not diverged more - as in the case of Barnacle Goose? My guess
would be that there is a strong behavioural or ecological reason to
maintain the basic plan. I wonder how much is known about pair
formation in the two species and whether this relies on criteria that
are independent of appearance? Could the brown/black plumage offer
such good camouflage at a critical period in the adult life that it
is strongly selected for?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
>Check E.E. Paxinos, H.F. James, S.L. Olson, M.D. Sorenson, J.
>Jackson, and R.C. Fleischer. 2002. MtDNA from fossils reveals a
>radiation of Hawaiian geese recently derived from the Canada goose
>(Branta canadensis) PNAS 99(3): 1399-1404.
>available for download at
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/3/1399
>
>Jocelyn Hudon
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Black-headed x Ring-bill or Mediterranean Gull?
From: Kevin McGowan <kjm2(AT)CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 3:18pm
I think I saw the Bucks Co. gull a couple of years ago in New York, and
this post has gotten me to get off my butt and post pictures of
it. <http://birds.cornell.edu/crows/woodburne_gull.htm>
birds.cornell.edu/crows/woodburne_gull.htm, or linked from the Bad Photos
of Good Birds page <http://birds.cornell.edu/crows/brdphoto.htm>
birds.cornell.edu/crows/brdphoto.htm.
We originally called it a Black-headed Gull, but then realized it was
probably a Black-headed X Ring-billed Gull hybrid. The suggestion was made
that it might be a Mediterranean Gull, and after looking at photos of that
species, I wasn't sure. The face is just right, and as Kenn mentions, a
second-winter bird comes pretty darned close to this one.
Could people with experience with Mediterranean Gull please comment?
If this is the same individual as the Bucks Co., PA one, then it must be a
hybrid, as it still has the "second-winter" wings.
Kevin
Kevin J. McGowan
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
159 Sapsucker Woods Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607/254-2432
fax 607/254-2111
kjm2(AT)cornell.edu
http://birds.cornell.edu/crows/
*****************************************************
>>>Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:14:28 -0700
From: Kenn Kaufman <kenn.kaufman(AT)WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Possible Black-headed X Ring-billed Gull?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In viewing anything that suggests this hybrid combination -- or that
suggests Ring-billed X Franklin's, Ring-billed X Bonaparte's, or any other
combination involving a standard-white-mirror-in-black-primary-tips X
something-with-more-white-in-the-primaries -- we need to keep in mind the
possibility of Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus). Despite the name,
that species has increased in recent decades in northwestern Europe, and it
would be a plausible vagrant in eastern North America. I don't think the
Pennsylvania bird is that species; the one photo that I viewed had some
resemblance to a second-winter Mediterranean Gull, but I think it showed too
much black in the primaries. Still, it's a bird that we should all be
keeping in mind. Not every odd-looking gull is a hybrid!
Kenn Kaufman
Tucson, AZ
>Devich Farbotnik asked me to post this information and a link to the photo
>of a gull that he saw recently in Bucks County, eastern Pennsylvania. He
>would like to know if this bird possibly fits a Black-headed X Ring-billed
>Gull hybrid or a Black-headed X Mew Gull hybrid. He would appreciate any
>input on what this gull may be.
>
>It can be viewed by clicking on
>http://www.users.fast.net/~becard/index8.html and then clicking on
>"Another
>Bucks County Mystery Gull".
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: crow DNA
From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker(AT)ZIPCON.NET>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 3:01pm
HI:
I saw this on another listserver:
Dr. Rene Ha at the University of Washington has been doing some research
into the mitochondrial DNA of crows. She'll be discussing the results so
far at the Vashon Audubon meeting at 7:00 pm on Thursday, January 13. I
quote from her abstract, though they are still gathering more data: "The
results suggest that there may be more differences between the
Northwestern Crow and American Crows than there are between the American
and Fish Crow."
--
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way!"
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pierre-Andr=E9_CROCHET?= <pierre-andre.crochet(AT)CEFE.CNRS.FR>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 9:57am
Dear all,
I have until now read with a lot of interest the debates over the ID of "Canada"
geese forms, but refrained from contributing. The main reason is that I have so
little experience with IDying these birds ...
I have nevertheless two remarks on the subject.
First, what recent genetic results suggest (and that forms the basis of the AOU
split) us that Canada (Branta canadensis) and Cackling (Branta hutchinsii) geese
to not intergrade much (if at all). Despite claims of parvipes X hutchinsii (or
is it parvipes X taverneri?) intergradation in the literature, this is not
apparent in the genetic data (in what I have read so far at least). It suggests
that, while most subspecies are intergrading of course (like all subspecies do),
the canadensis and hutchinsii groups do not. It might thus be possible to draw
a line between them more easily than between other subspecies.
My second remark, related to the first, is that in Europe (for what it is
worth), people call parvipes birds rather different from hutchinsii (clearly
larger, with a quite different structure).
The suggestion (tentatively) is that may be part of the confusion stems from the
fact that the lesser group is more variable than realised (some hutchinsii or
taverneri can be larger and less typical than others) and not from
intergradation. May be (and I insist, may be) the limit between Branta
canadensis and Branta hutchinsii is not that blurred, if you allow more
variation in the Lesser group, and less in parvipes (the name seems to be
attributed to all kind of goose that do not fit clearly in one group). I suspect
the answer will depend on observations of birds from known origin (birds colour
marked on the breeding grounds, birds on the breeding grounds).
In Europe, the identification of cachinnans and michahellis (I'm talking gulls
now) has started when ringed birds from the cachinnans breeding grounds were
discovered in Western Europe. These birds were used a yardstick to establish
identification criteria.
Last, let's remember that there is a lot of variation within "good" species,
making a lot of birds difficult to allocate, and that the fact that some
individuals are difficult or impossible to allocate is not per se enough to
disprove their species status.
Cheers,
Pierre
PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL // ATTENTION NOUVELLE ADRESSE EMAIL
Pierre-André Crochet
CNRS-UMR 5175 Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive
1919, route de Mende
34293 Montpellier cedex 5
France
tel: + 33 6 07 32 60 75
+ 33 4 67 61 32 98
fax: + 33 4 67 41 21 38
pierre-andre.crochet(AT)cefe.cnrs.fr
-----Message d'origine-----
De : NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] De la part de þ Hertzel
Envoyé : mardi 11 janvier 2005 17:38
À : BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Objet : Re: [BIRDWG01] Small Geese in Kentucky
At 03:23 PM 1/10/05, J. Harry Krueger wrote:
>As to the two geese that might be parvipes in photo "S": I don't believe
>so, although this picture doesn't give us much to go on, especially with the
>body angles. . . . What are they? Perhaps "runt" interiors?
In my opinion, the middle bird of the three is parvipes. The body size,
intermediate between the large-bodied bird at right and the hutchinsii in
the foreground, is about perfect, the structure of the neck, unusually long
and snakey for such a small bird, is a good match for parvipes, and the
head shape is not out of range, especially if the bird has some hutchinsii
ancestry. This last variable has to be taken into consideration on every
intermediate-sized bird, in my opinion. Head shape alone, cannot be used
to rule out a bird that may be (primarily) parvipes.
>It is wise to remember that the subspecies variations and intergrades in
>"white-cheeked" geese are so numerous and varied, that, I believe an
>absolute id on every single bird seen is unwise to attempt and ultimately
>impossible
Definitely the best advice.
Paul Hertzel
Mason City, IA
The geese in question are here:
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose.html
>
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose2.html
>
>David L. Roemer
>Bowling Green, Ky.
--
passerelle antivirus du campus CNRS de Montpellier
--
--
passerelle antivirus du campus CNRS de Montpellier
--
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Geese in Kentucky
From: "J. Harry Krueger" <hkrueger(AT)cableone.net>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 10:17am
Although not very recent: Literature on parvipes x hutchinsii
C. D. MacInnes 1962. Nesting of small Canada Geese near Eskimo Point,
Northwest Territories. J. Wildl. Manage. 26: 247–256.
R. S. Palmer 1976. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 2: waterfowl. Pt.
1. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.
C. E. Van Wagner, A. J. Baker 1990. Association between mitochondrial DNA
and morphological evolution in Canada Geese. J. Mol. Evol. 31: 373–382.
Anyone know of anything else that would shed light on the intergrade issue?
Harry Krueger
Boise, ID
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bruce Deuel
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:44 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Small Geese in Kentucky
Hi all,
From my western perspective I would have no trouble assigning the middle
bird of Paul's photo "S" to parvipes. I am very interested in the cautions
folks are putting out about intergrades between parvipes and hutchinsii.
While, given their ranges, it would seem this combo is likely in the
population, can anyone direct me to literature that actually documents such
hybrids?
Cheers,
Bruce Deuel
Redding/Red Bluff, CA
>>> þ Hertzel <phertzel(AT)RCONNECT.COM> 1/11/2005 8:37:35 AM >>>
At 03:23 PM 1/10/05, J. Harry Krueger wrote:
>As to the two geese that might be parvipes in photo "S": I don't
>believe so, although this picture doesn't give us much to go on,
>especially with the body angles. . . . What are they? Perhaps "runt"
interiors?
In my opinion, the middle bird of the three is parvipes. The body size,
intermediate between the large-bodied bird at right and the hutchinsii in
the foreground, is about perfect, the structure of the neck, unusually long
and snakey for such a small bird, is a good match for parvipes, and the head
shape is not out of range, especially if the bird has some hutchinsii
ancestry. This last variable has to be taken into consideration on every
intermediate-sized bird, in my opinion. Head shape alone, cannot be used to
rule out a bird that may be (primarily) parvipes.
>It is wise to remember that the subspecies variations and intergrades
>in "white-cheeked" geese are so numerous and varied, that, I believe an
>absolute id on every single bird seen is unwise to attempt and
>ultimately impossible
Definitely the best advice.
Paul Hertzel
Mason City, IA
The geese in question are here:
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose.html
>
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose2.html
>
>David L. Roemer
>Bowling Green, Ky.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Small Geese in Kentucky
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FE?= Hertzel <phertzel(AT)RCONNECT.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 9:36am
At 03:23 PM 1/10/05, J. Harry Krueger wrote:
>As to the two geese that might be parvipes in photo "S": I don't believe
>so, although this picture doesn't give us much to go on, especially with the
>body angles. . . . What are they? Perhaps "runt" interiors?
In my opinion, the middle bird of the three is parvipes. The body size,
intermediate between the large-bodied bird at right and the hutchinsii in
the foreground, is about perfect, the structure of the neck, unusually long
and snakey for such a small bird, is a good match for parvipes, and the
head shape is not out of range, especially if the bird has some hutchinsii
ancestry. This last variable has to be taken into consideration on every
intermediate-sized bird, in my opinion. Head shape alone, cannot be used
to rule out a bird that may be (primarily) parvipes.
>It is wise to remember that the subspecies variations and intergrades in
>"white-cheeked" geese are so numerous and varied, that, I believe an
>absolute id on every single bird seen is unwise to attempt and ultimately
>impossible
Definitely the best advice.
Paul Hertzel
Mason City, IA
The geese in question are here:
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose.html
>
>http://www.biology.eku.edu/KOS/goose2.html
>
>David L. Roemer
>Bowling Green, Ky.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky
From: Kevin McGowan <kjm2(AT)CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 10:22am
At 05:57 PM 1/11/2005 +0100, Pierre-André CROCHET wrote:
>...
>First, what recent genetic results suggest (and that forms the basis of
>the AOU split) us that Canada (Branta canadensis) and Cackling (Branta
>hutchinsii) geese to not intergrade much (if at all). Despite claims of
>parvipes X hutchinsii (or is it parvipes X taverneri?) intergradation in
>the literature, this is not apparent in the genetic data (in what I have
>read so far at least).
I haven't seen any genetic data looking at hutchinsii (sensu stricto) at
all. Have you? I still feel like that piece of the puzzle is still missing.
Kevin
*****************************************************
Kevin J. McGowan
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
159 Sapsucker Woods Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607/254-2432
fax 607/254-2111
kjm2(AT)cornell.edu
http://birds.cornell.edu/crows/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Thayer's and Herring Gulls with breast
barring
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 4:20pm
> On January 9, I saw and photographed an adult Thayer's Gull and an
> adult Herring Gull with conspicuous breast barring. I bring this up
> because, among the larger gulls, Glaucous-winged is the only one
> assumed to have breast barring as an adult. I placed photos of these
> birds on my Web site, URL below.
>
> http://theorniphile.info/Extras/larus_thayeri.html
I've been looking at this since it came up last year and can
safely say that some amount of latitudinal direction to the markings
is normal on at least a minority of adult Herring and Thayer's,
typically most evident on the lowest part of the hood when present.
Still such birds don't seem to ever match the appearance of many
G-w, probably because the latitudinal marks typically aren't nearly
as dense and usually don't extend as high up onto the neck/head
as they do in many G-w. So it's a matter of density and degree
I guess. There is clearly no hard and fast rule, though, that would
necessarily link any latitudinal markings to G-w ancestry.
I've also noticed that at least to some extent the appearance
of breast markings on Herring and Thayer's can be posture
dependant, changing with position of the feathers.
Also, I'm starting to get the impression that density of hood
markings tends to average heavier in hybrids (the recently-posted
Illinois Glaucous-winged/Herring thing perhaps being an example.)
This may be due to an occasional superimposing of patterns. Hard
to tell because avg density of markings is also obviously maturity-
based to some extent.
Cheers,
Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Thayer's and Herring Gulls with breast barring
From: Robert Hughes <rhughes.enteract(AT)RCN.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 2005 3:01pm
On January 9, I saw and photographed an adult Thayer's Gull and an
adult Herring Gull with conspicuous breast barring. I bring this up
because, among the larger gulls, Glaucous-winged is the only one
assumed to have breast barring as an adult. I placed photos of these
birds on my Web site, URL below.
http://theorniphile.info/Extras/larus_thayeri.html
Robert Hughes
Chicago, Illinois
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: RE : Small Geese in Kentucky
From: Laurent Raty <l.raty(AT)SKYNET.BE>
Date: 12 Jan 2005 12:03pm
Hi Kevin,
> I haven't seen any genetic data looking at hutchinsii (sensu stricto) at
> all. Have you? I still feel like that piece of the puzzle is still
> missing.
Besides the Paxinos et al. paper, you may also want to read :
Scribner K.T., Malecki R.A., Batt B.D.J., Inmal R.L., Libants S. & Prince
H.H. (2003) : Identification of source population for Greenland Canada
Geese: genetic assessment of a recent colonization. The Condor 105 (4) :
771 - 782.
Free abstract (full text for subscribers only ) here :
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0010-5422&volume=105&issue=04&page=0771
This paper presents mtDNA and microsatellite data from five East-Canadian
goose populations, along with similar data from the newly-founded Greenland
population.
The Canadian populations are described using a terminology established by
Dickson (2000, ref. below), rather than subspecies names : they include one
"Tall Grass Prairie" population (= hutschinsii s.s.), two "North Atlantic"
populations (= canadensis), and two "Atlantic" populations (= easternmost
part of interior).
Dickson K.M. (2000) : The diversity of Canada Geese. Pp. 11-24 in Dickson
K.M. (Ed.) : Towards the conservation of the diversity of Canada Geese
(Branta canadensis). Canada Wildlife Service Occassional Paper 103.
Pdf of the whole volume (big! > 17 Mb) downloadable here :
http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/papers/103/index_e.cfm
Cheers,
Laurent
Laurent raty
Brussels, Belgium
l.raty(AT)skynet.be
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Arizona Arhcilochus follow-up
From: Mark Stevenson <drbrdr(AT)WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 12 Jan 2005 3:04pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
The Tucson hummingbird was captured and examined, proving it to be =
Arizona's first Ruby-throated Hummingbird. Details at:
http://www.sabo.org/rthu/rthuinaz.htm
Mark Stevenson
Tucson, AZ
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Slaty-backed Gull in California.
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 13 Jan 2005 11:27pm
Hey gull fans
I apologize for changing the topic from Glaucous, to Slaty-backed but
today I found a bird that fits the elusive (at least for California)
Slaty-backed Gull. It is a bird in its second cycle and photos can be seen
here:
http://www.coastside.net/chucao/gulls/Slatyback.htm
There is no accepted record from Slaty-backed Gull in California, although
there have been some good contenders. I would appreciate any thoughtful
discussion on this bird, particularly in reference to the identification. I
think I ruled out all other possibilities, but you never know what you
people will come up with ;-)
Regards
Al
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, CA
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
http://www.fieldguides.com/home.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Interbreeding of parvipes and hutchinsii
From: Ian Mclaren <iamclar(AT)DAL.CA>
Date: 14 Jan 2005 8:29am
Hi all:
With geese as with gulls, it seems to be deja vu all over again (comme on
dit). I promised myself I wouldn't get involved again, but can't resist.
We covered the question of intergradation of Cackling and Canada
geese back in summer 2004. In particular, I posted (archived mailing of
July 23) some literaure search on the subject in the archived mailing
of July 23. The oft-mentioned evidence for intergradation along the west
coast of Hudson Bay has since been shown to be incorrect. We don't know
that there is breeding-ground intergradation further west between the
tundra-nesting hutchinsii (or taverneri beyond) with parvipes, which nests
within the treeline well west of Hudson Bay into AK. Older literature
claiming this is not based on beeding-ground observations as far as I am
aware, but may be inference from perceived intermediates on wintering
grounds.
It should be clear, though, that the "split" between Canada and Cackling
is based on mtDNA, transmitted by females. The only exception I know of is
based on a specimen from the wintering grounds that the authors confess
could be a result of mis-id. That said, there is published evidence of
some exchange of nuclear DNA (presumably via roaming males) between the
two species in AK (Van Wagner and Baker 1990), although some such studies
may have involved incorrectly assigned subspecies (e.g. Morgan et al.
1977, working with serum proteins, included 13 "taverneri" from Cook
Inlet, AK, where they do not breed). So, there may well be some grounds
for being wary of identifying perceived intermediates, but let's not
overdo it.
Cheers, Ian
Ian A. McLaren
Biology Department
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS B3H 4J1
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: finally
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 14 Jan 2005 8:41am
VIREO has a part of it's collection on-line.
around 20,000 images and counting. The best part
is it is all free. To see larger images with locations (but not dates :() and
make lightboxes
you have to register.
You will find mis-ids. If they are glaring like a tanager in with penguins they
are likely a result of typos and we are working on that.
If they seem reasonable, ie between similar species please let me know and I
will try and correct them, likewise sex and age info.
Hopefully this site will evolve. For now it is intended as a means to get more
of our collection
seen and to sell reproduction rights. I am glad to
hear suggsetion on how it can be made more useful
to birders/ornithologists, and I realize a simple
improvement will be to include dates.
Matt
the url
http://vireo.acnatsci.org
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Eurasian x American GWTE hybrid
From: Jim Pike <jpike44(AT)EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 14 Jan 2005 6:32pm
Hi, While cruising the BirdsIreland.com site, I happened upon what I
believe is a Eurasian (A.c.crecca) x American (A.c.carolinensis) Green-
winged Teal hybrid (called just a carolinensis on the site):
http://www.birdsireland.com/pages/rare_bird_news/2004/november_photos.html
Scroll down past two other teal pics to the GWTE photo at the bottom of
the page. It was taken at Bell Harbour on 1 Nov 2004. I think this bird is
a hybrid based on the thin wispy white vertical stripe at the side of the
breast, the presence of a vague creamy partial outline above the green
facial patch, a head color closely matching the crecca in the photo
(rather than being the darker rufous of carolinensis), and a thin whitish
scapular line (rather than the grayish-tan color of carolinensis) which is
bordered below by black. The latter feature is better seen in another
photo of this bird on the Irish Birding website within the 2004 Review
section. In that photo, the inner web of the scap is more clearly
whitish.
I'm curious as to other opinions about this bird.
Jim Pike
Huntington Beach, CA
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Another gull
From: Aaron Brees <abrees(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 14 Jan 2005 10:13pm
I have posted four photos of an unusual gull from central Iowa along with
some very brief comments. They are labeled "Bird 2" and are about halfway
down the page at: http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/birdpics/mystery.html
Any comments would be appreciated.
Aaron Brees
Des Moines, Iowa
abrees(AT)hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland