 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for March 13-19, 2005
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Re: Binbrook gull again | Dick Newell | Sun, 13 Mar 2005 | 1:52am |
| unsubscribe | Gdlaubach(AT)AOL.COM | Sun, 13 Mar 2005 | 7:47am |
| Re: winter distribution of kumlieni | John Idzikowski | Sun, 13 Mar 2005 | 8:49pm |
| Re: winter distribution of kumlieni | Cliff and Lisa Weiss | Sun, 13 Mar 2005 | 9:42pm |
| Re: winter distribution of kumlieni | Phillip Pickering | Sun, 13 Mar 2005 | 9:48pm |
| Re: [obol] Lower Klamath and Tule Lake -
"yellow-billed" Swan | David Vander Pluym | Mon, 14 Mar 2005 | 1:37pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | The Holdens | Tue, 15 Mar 2005 | 7:00pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Dick Newell | Tue, 15 Mar 2005 | 11:47pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Phillip Pickering | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 | 9:23am |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Matt Sharp | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 | 12:34pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Peter Adriaens | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 | 2:03pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Phillip Pickering | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 | 2:06pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Don Roberson | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 | 9:20pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Phillip Pickering | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 | 10:41pm |
| Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age | Peter Adriaens | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 4:22am |
| more photos of YGLU candidate in Texas | Martin Reid | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 5:13am |
| Frontiers of Gull ID?? | Wayne C. Weber | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 10:10am |
| Re: Frontiers of Gull ID?? | Robert Hughes | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 10:19am |
| Re: Frontiers of Gull ID?? and Peregrine Falcon
question. | Alvaro Jaramillo | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 11:08am |
| Re: Frontiers of Gull ID?? and Peregrine Falcon
question. | GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 3:56pm |
| Bird research can be damaged by ABA butterfly
article. | Barb Beck | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 4:36pm |
| Pomarine Jaeger and Peregrine Falcon | Alvaro Jaramillo | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 | 11:17pm |
| Re: Pomarine Jaeger and Peregrine Falcon | Phillip Pickering | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 2:08am |
| More gulls | Robert Hughes | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 8:38am |
| A (novel) gull i.d. request | Ian Mclaren | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 9:29am |
| Re: A (novel) gull i.d. request | Peter Adriaens | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 10:22am |
| Re: A (novel) gull i.d. request | Phillip Pickering | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 10:35am |
| Re: More gulls | John Idzikowski | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 4:06pm |
| More on retarded 2nd cy HEGUs | Jeff Poklen | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 4:16pm |
| a strange Glaucous in 'A (novel) gull id
request' | jen brumfield | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 7:34pm |
| Lariphobes hit the delete: a mystery dark-winged
gull in TX | Martin Reid | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 7:51pm |
| Bendire's Thrasher flanks | GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM | Fri, 18 Mar 2005 | 10:28pm |
| Re: a strange Glaucous in 'A (novel) gull id
request' | Eric Mills | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 4:56am |
| Another NS gull oddity | Ian McLaren | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 6:09am |
| Brown Creeper tail lengths | Sandra Keller | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 8:28am |
| Rock or Willow Ptarmigan | Bill and Nancy LaFra | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 9:37am |
| Re: Another NS gull oddity | Phillip Pickering | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 10:47am |
| NA Dunlins, merlins and gulls -photos for id.
reference etc.. | Julian Hough | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 10:58am |
| Re: NA Dunlins, merlins and gulls -photos for id.
reference etc.. | Alan Wormington | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 11:12am |
| Re: Rock or Willow Ptarmigan | Wayne C. Weber | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 12:57pm |
| RFI: tail-spreading | Jason Rogers | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 4:21pm |
| Re: Brown Creeper tail lengths | Matt Kenne | Sat, 19 Mar 2005 | 8:14pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook gull again
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)ZEN.CO.UK>
Date: 13 Mar 2005 1:52am
re: http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/mystery/posseuro.htm
On 12/3/05 6:44 pm, "Matt Sharp" <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG> wrote:
> My first guess would have been argetatus/teus *
> does this taxon really show such little
> variation that the Binbrook bird can be ruled not
> one of those with certainty? What are the other
> possibilitie before it is relegated to the other
> trash-can (hybrid). Excuse my ignorance here but
> can somewhere eliminate michahellis/cacchinans.
> And what about vegae?
>
Argentatus shows plenty of variation and it is a good question as to why
this bird is not a European Herring Gull. In a court of law, it is
acceptable evidence if someone picks out an individual from an identity
parade, without providing an explanation of how the suspect was identified.
Humans are extraordinarily good at identifying faces. We are not quite so
good at identifying birds, as we have not being doing it since birth, and
folk who take up bird-watching later in life are especially challenged by
cryptic birds, such as gulls.
To my eye, this bird looks strange as a European Herring Gull, but I cannot
muster a convincing argument as to why I donıt like it, especially as, very
occasionally, birds are found with a contrasting white head, a stubby bill,
pink coming through on the bill and a pale eye (in a first winter?), and
gleaming white undersides to the flight feathers (explained because it is
above snow?). All of these features could be found in argentatus sometime
but in my experience, they are unusual, and the probabilities stack up
against it. Vagrant birds that do not look quite right should be questioned
(e.g. The recent feather-perfect Irish Thayerıs Gull that looks structurally
more like Iceland Gull). One thing is clear, we do not have enough well
organised ³identity parades² of known gulls with which to compare strange
gulls when they occur.
Why is it not michahellis or cachinnans? Again there are things that one
could nitpic to eliminate these two, but it looks even less like either of
these than European Herring Gull. My experience of Vega is insufficient for
me to comment. One might also ask, why is it not an odd Great Black-backed
Gull? Perhaps this is a little easier to refute.
Am I right that, on rare occasions, smithsonianus can exhibit a tail band?
[Certainly European Herring Gull can sometimes have an all black tail.]
I wish there had been a photograph of this bird on the deck.
Dick Newell
Cambridge, UK
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: unsubscribe
From: Gdlaubach(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 13 Mar 2005 7:47am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: winter distribution of kumlieni
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 13 Mar 2005 8:49pm
Here's a less blurry underwing shot taken from a previously ignored image
that seems to show p6 and its band much more clearly-
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/tips2.jpg
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Pickering" <philliplc(AT)harborside.com>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Cc: <idzikoj(AT)uwm.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: winter distribution of kumlieni
> > Here's a paste of the wingtips from the only fair spread wing shot; p6
is
> > perhaps better defined.
> >
> > http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/milwwingtips.jpg
>
>
> Respectfully, I don't think those blurry underwing shots mean
> much. The appearance of the upperside of P6 tip seems pretty
> straightforward in the standing and swimming shots (last fully
> exposed tip beyond the tertials):
> http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/tk0305c.jpg
> http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/tk0305e.jpg
>
> Looks like the dark band crosses over onto the inner web then
> fades out. Thayer's almost always (always?) show an obvious
> band extending solidly accross the entire inner web on the
> upperside, visible while standing as well as in flight. Examples -
> http://www.thebirdguide.com/gulls/thayers20.jpg
> http://www.harborside.com/~philliplc/thayers6.jpg
> and also see every adult shot in O & L.
>
> Note how the P6 band can fade out starting on the inner web
> on Kumlien's - O & L illustrations page 30, spread wing
> shots page 225. It's possible this is one of the safest and most
> defining features an intergrade can show. This bird may still be
> "mostly" Thayer's of course, but I don't think it's safe as a pure,
> or even "pure enough to be countable" Thayer's. If you buy into
> the hybrid swarm theory it's most likely (technically) a Kumlien's.
> Even if you don't I think you'd have to consider this at best a T-K
> intergrade, if not a "pure" Kumlien's.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: winter distribution of kumlieni
From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <october(AT)IDA.NET>
Date: 13 Mar 2005 9:42pm
John,
It appears the bird in the new photo you posted is not the
same individual. The line you have pointing to P6 in the
swimming bird shot appears to point to the black subterminal
band on P7. If you examine the other original photo of the
spread wing you can clearly see that P5 has no black present
at all. Assuming the new photo is labeled correctly P5 has
a solid black subterminal band that appears to cross both
webs. The white A-spots all appear much smaller on the new
photo as well.
Cliff
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: winter distribution of kumlieni
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 13 Mar 2005 9:48pm
> Here's a less blurry underwing shot taken from a previously ignored image
> that seems to show p6 and its band much more clearly-
>
> http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/tips2.jpg
I mean no disrespect by this, but are you confident there aren't two
different birds involved here?
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/tk0305d.jpg and
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/tk0305e.jpg
Not only are the primary patterns different but the gonydeal
marking look more pronounced on the former.
In any case, even if P10 is mis-stacked directly over P9 in on both
sides in the spread wing shots (very unlikely) you're numbering on the
standing stack can't be correct. P6 and 7 would not line up
perfectly - the break in the black you are probably looking at is
a normal offset that can occur in the band crossing from one web
to the other. P6 normally does not extend nearly that far beyond the
tertials. Normally the proximal edge of the black band on P6 tip (and
the white on the tip of P5) tend to line up very close to the tertial tips,
which is the case with the broken band here.
Cheers,
Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: [obol] Lower Klamath and Tule Lake -
"yellow-billed" Swan
From: David Vander Pluym <SCRE(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 14 Mar 2005 1:37pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I don't see the discussion yet on the webpage, but here it is. This extent
of the yellow is less than that on the bird that was up there this year, and
the shape of the yellow is different. So it could be a different bird (or the
same bird wih the yellow changed) I have recieved one comment so far on this
years bird from Europe that it was outside the range of Whooper (though maybe
not Bewick's?) and that it was likely a hybrid. This is where my thoughts have
been, but I still welcome expirenced comments. If this years bird is a hybrid
then I would think that last years bird is also outside the range of Whooper
Swan. http://www.fauna.is/picture2e.asp?ID=443 that website shows a bird
with a similar amount of yellow (but still more yellow than the bird out there
this year showed) and it is also the only reference to this liitle amount of
yellow on the bill that I have seen, is this actually within the variation of
Whoopers and is it seen regularly? All photos on the web I can find of Whooper
Swans were of the first two birds. I have uploaded video captrues from Nov
onto CALBIRDS and I still would like to see more expirenced comments on either
bird.
David Vander Pluym
Santa Cruz, Ca
In a message dated 3/14/2005 11:51:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
birdboy(AT)bkpix.com writes:
For anyone who is interested in a little light reading, I have copied the
Klamath Whooper Swan ID discussion that appeared on OBOL last March and pasted
it onto a single webpage (underneath the images) at:
http://www.noahstrycker.com/randompages/swan.htm
This might help with swan ID discussions about the bird at Lower Klamath this
year, whether it is the same individual or not. Feel free to forward to
CALBIRDS or ID-frontiers if applicable.
Good birding --
Noah Strycker
Quoting SCRE(AT)aol.com:
> The photos do not match the bird thats out there this year. The bird out
> there actually has more yellow on the bill and a different shape to
> it. Granted
> at least within Tundra Swans the amount of yellow can vary from year to year
> so it could be the same bird. Looking at the photos and the sketch the bird
> last year seems well outside the range of Whooper Swan which would show a
lot
> more yellow than that bird. Were outside experts consulted? In looking at
> photos of Whoopers on the web I could find non which showed the black
> above the
> yellow on the forehead and no yellow point extending along the lower
> edge of the
> bill. The head shape and cheek contour looks a little off as well for
> Whooper. I'm not sure Bewick's Swan can actually be ruled out on
> that bird. The
> shape of the yellow actually looks better for it than for Whooper.
> Again I think
> swan sp is the appropriate title for that bird. If you want I can forward
> this to CALBIRDS and ID-frontiers for more discussion.
>
> David Vander Pluym
> Santa Cruz, Ca
>
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: The Holdens <holdens(AT)MOUNTAINCABLE.NET>
Date: 15 Mar 2005 7:00pm
Hello everyone,
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied both privately and to
the list about the "European-like" Herring Gull. I was
also interested in the discussion about 1st ba. Herring Gulls with paler eyes as
this is something I noticed quite a bit this
winter, so I made a page of various birds I've seen showing the paler eye. I
first started noticing birds like this back in
mid-January and by this time of year, I would guess more than 50% of the 1st Ba.
Herring Gulls show some contrast in the eye (which
can be seen when given close views). You can see the photos here:
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/odd/paleye.htm
For those interested, I also photographed another Herring Gull with a
somewhat similar tail to the first bird in Binbrook (from
a different location). I felt that this might be an example of a very lightly
marked tail for a smith. Herring Gull(?).
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/1/mar13pal.htm
Good Birding (and Gulling!)
Brandon Holden
Hamilton, Ontario
www.PeregrinePrints.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)ZEN.CO.UK>
Date: 15 Mar 2005 11:47pm
Re:
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/mystery/posseuro.htm
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/feb1305.jpg
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/1/mar13pal.htm
Am I missing something here? The above 3 gulls all have a banded tail (OK,
the 2nd is a little broader) and are so similar in general tone, a lot of
the feather detail, the pattern of black and pink on the bill that, whatever
they are, they are the same taxon - most likely pale smiths.
[The 3rd bird, despite seeming to have rounded primaries, also looks a 1st
winter/basic]
Dick Newell
Cambridge, UK
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 9:23am
> http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/mystery/posseuro.htm
> http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/feb1305.jpg
> http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/1/mar13pal.htm
>
> Am I missing something here? The above 3 gulls all have a banded tail (OK,
> the 2nd is a little broader) and are so similar in general tone, a lot of
> the feather detail, the pattern of black and pink on the bill that,
whatever
> they are, they are the same taxon - most likely pale smiths
Maybe, but I don't think it's a safe assumption that they are the same
taxon. The appearance of the rect barring is radically different, with
the barring being much more coarse, stark, and regular on the
original bird. Also the original bird has much softer, lower contrast
upperparts patterning even though it does not appear to be
particularly faded. The head and underparts are also more sparsely
marked on the original.
Cheers,
Phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 12:34pm
Now that Brandon has backed me into a corner - thanks
for that, I just love the taste of crow. I will make another
boldfaced potentially false assertion.
Other than the Jan 19 bird here
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/odd/paleye.htm
I think all of these are 2nd cycle smiths including the original
which started this whole discussion.
Note on the March 4th bird at the above URL the 2 adult gray
lower scaps. The March 13th bird here
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/1/mar13pal.htm
Has an adult gray tertial on the left side. It also has differently
shaped and length feathers in the secondaries. Not sure what that indicates.
Martin Reid has an interesting page here
http://www.martinreid.com/hsmitp41.html
showing the great variation in 2nd cycle HEGUs.
Thanks to Brandon for the fantastic shots that allow a feather by feather
discussion.
Matt
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Peter Adriaens <peter.adriaens(AT)dutchbirding.nl>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 2:03pm
> http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/odd/paleye.htm
> http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/1/mar13pal.htm
>
With all due respect Matt, but I believe ALL of these birds are really in
their 1st winter.
My reasoning is as follows:
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/Jan905.jpg
This bird has the typical, regularly barred greater coverts of a 1st-year
bird. Note also the (near) absence of white tips to the tertials, and the
large, brown centres of the lesser and marginal wingcoverts: the bird has
a typical, juvenile wing. In addition, the outer edge of the tail is
regularly barred (neat, evenly spaced barring) and the bill is quite dark,
both again indicating a 1st-cycle bird.
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/feb505.jpg
This bird is perhaps most difficult, but I think it is also a 1st-year,
not 2nd (unlike what is mentioned on the website). The tertials lack the
white tips of 2nd-cycle birds, the wingcoverts (especially the lesser and
marginal ones, with their large, brown centres) look juvenile to me, a few
remaining, juvenile lower scapulars are visible, and a bit of evenly
spaced barring on the outer edge of the tail is just visible.
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/feb1305.jpg
The very pointed outer primaries give this bird away as a first winter. As
supporting characters, the iris is not that pale, and there is no
distinctly pale tip to the bill. Both these characters may be shown by a
minority of 2nd-winter birds, but they are rare in combination.
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/feb1905.jpg
This bird has the typical contrast of freshly moulted mantle/scapulars
against worn, brownish, juvenile wingcoverts. In 2nd-winter birds, the
entire upperparts are much more of a mess, generally. Note also the little
bit of evenly spaced barring just visible on the outer edge of the tail.
There is no distinctly pale tip to the bill.
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/HEGU/1baeye/mar405.jpg
The primaries are worn and pointed (juvenile feathers), the tertials are
worn, juvenile feathers, there is a contrast of fresh scapulars against
worn wingcoverts, and there is evenly spaced barring on the outer edge of
the tail. Two lower scapulars are rather plain, yes, but they do not look
very adult-like to me.
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/Binbrook%20Euro/palsmith.jpg
> Has an adult gray tertial on the left side.
>
What you refer to as a gray tertial is, in fact, one of the lower
scapulars -- which normally cover the tertials completely in a flying
bird. At
rest,(http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/photo/Binbrook%20Euro/palesmit.jpg)
the bird shows the typical contrast of freshly moulted mantle/scapulars
against worn, juvenile wingcoverts. The tertials lack the broad, pale tips
of 2nd-cycle birds, and both the iris and bill tip are rather dark. On the
flying bird, the secondaries look mostly rather pointed to me.
I hope we can all agree on the age of these birds. Later on, we may even
be able to identify them...
Kind regards,
Peter
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 2:06pm
I'm not seeing adult gray where you mention it. I do see a
few apparent next generation feathers out of sequence (like the
tertial on March 13) that suggests a prematurely dropped
feather.
I have seen 2C smith as early as November with nearly adult-
like iris color, so it wouldn't surprise me if some 1C birds started
to pale in Feb/March, although I can't say I've paid attention to
that.
Interesting conjecture, although most of the Ontario birds look
within the normal range of appearance for 1C to me. For example
most have what would be somewhat worn/abraded primaries
and tertials for a 2C that early in the year, much more typical
of retained juvenile. Also not seeing much in the way of 2nd-gen
tertial patterns like wide pale tips or fine marbling.
Cheers,
Phil
>Now that Brandon has backed me into a corner - thanks
for that, I just love the taste of crow. I will make another
boldfaced potentially false assertion.
Other than the Jan 19 bird here
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/odd/paleye.htm
I think all of these are 2nd cycle smiths including the original
which started this whole discussion.
Note on the March 4th bird at the above URL the 2 adult gray
lower scaps. The March 13th bird here
http://www.peregrineprints.com/gulls/pg/Hegu/1/mar13pal.htm
Has an adult gray tertial on the left side. It also has differently
shaped and length feathers in the secondaries. Not sure what that indicates.
Martin Reid has an interesting page here
http://www.martinreid.com/hsmitp41.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Don Roberson <creagrus(AT)montereybay.com>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 9:20pm
In central California, several of us have struggled with this bird,
nicely photographed by Jeff Poklen in Santa Cruz County:
http://www.pbase.com/jpkln/image/40565287
You can go to "next" to see another photo of the bird
It is very pale-eyed, strongly suggesting 2nd cycle, but the plumage
seemed more like first cycle. If 2nd cycle, why no hint of any gray
feathers to mantle? I am reasonably sure this was photo'd between
Nov-Feb, although I don't see an actual date here. Jeff will be back by
the weekend to answer that.
In trying to follow this thread, I'm having trouble placing this bird in
the scheme.
Thanks,
Don Roberson
Pacific Grove cA
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 10:41pm
> http://www.pbase.com/jpkln/image/40565287
Even ignoring the iris color the primary stack is a dead giveaway
for 2nd-cycle here - either P9/10 are exceptionally rounded, or more
likely they are still growing and not even visible. Also the wavy fine
irregular covert markings and the fine irregular markings on the
tertial edges are much more typical of 2C smith, at least the west
coast version.
I see maybe 1-2 2nd-cycle smith (or smith-like whatever) a year
without gray in the mantle when I'm paying attention, a few patterned
much like this bird. Presumably it's most likely just an uncommon
extreme of their normal variation in maturity of plumage.
Cheers,
Phil
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Binbrook Ontario Herring Gull - age
From: Peter Adriaens <peter.adriaens(AT)dutchbirding.nl>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 4:22am
>> http://www.pbase.com/jpkln/image/40565287
>
This is certainly a 2nd-cycle bird, indeed.
>
> I see maybe 1-2 2nd-cycle smith (or smith-like whatever) a year
> without gray in the mantle when I'm paying attention, a few patterned
> much like this bird. Presumably it's most likely just an uncommon
> extreme of their normal variation in maturity of plumage.
>
I find it interesting to see that such retarded, 2nd-cycle birds seem to
be considered 'uncommon extremes' from a West Coast perspective.
I quickly checked my images from Newfoundland, from late January - early
February, and out of 21 second-cycle birds 9 lacked any grey feathers in
the mantle/scapulars, so this seems to be more common at least in NE
Canada.
Peter
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: more photos of YGLU candidate in Texas
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 5:13am
Dear all,
I relocated the gull originally found at Port Aransas three weeks ago
(first pics here: http://www.martinreid.com/gullsp80.html ) it is
interesting to note the molt progression in the wing coverts; latest photos
here: http://www.martinreid.com/gullsp80b.html
As always, I'd value feedback on this bird - thanks.
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Frontiers of Gull ID??
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)TELUS.NET>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 10:10am
Bird ID People,
Perhaps we should rename this group the "Frontiers of Gull
Identification". By my count, during the last week (March 10 to 17),
47 of 54 messages posted to this group (87%) have dealt with gull
identification.
Yes, gulls are fascinating, but perhaps the larophiles could allow a
few of the rest of us to get a word in edgewise? After all, there are
another 192 or so families of birds out there besides the Laridae....
:-) :-)
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus(AT)telus.net
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Frontiers of Gull ID??
From: Robert Hughes <rhughes.enteract(AT)RCN.COM>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 10:19am
----DELETED multipart/alternative MIME SECTION----
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01&A=3D1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Frontiers of Gull ID?? and Peregrine Falcon
question.
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 11:08am
Wayne
I disagree with you gulls are not fascinating, they are frustrating. I
wish I could have something else to talk about, but here in Half Moon Bay in
winter gulls are the problem identification issues. No worries, spring will
be here soon and then juvenile shorebirds will come to us soon after.
But seriously, I think all we need to do is make sure that gull postings
have an appropriate subject line and those who want to delete can do so.
And even more seriously, let's talk about identification issues, gull or
otherwise, instead of talking about what we should or shouldn't be talking
about.
To legitimize this posting somewhat, I have a question. A couple of weeks
ago in Kona, Hawaii I saw a juvenile Peregrine Falcon with a group. The bird
was solid brown above (obtaining a few dark grey first basic feathers) and
densely streaked on the belly with a contrastingly paler chest. There was no
white tail tip. It showed a paler forehead thin moustache markings. In a way
the head was like a tundrius, but the body looked too dark. Perhaps this was
just an effect of wear? What I want to know is if there are any good
resources on what the migratory Asian forms of Peregrine Falcon look like,
and if they have narrow moustaches like tundrius?
Cheers
Alvaro
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, CA
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
http://www.fieldguides.com/home.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
> [mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne C. Weber
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:42 AM
> To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] Frontiers of Gull ID??
>
> Bird ID People,
>
> Perhaps we should rename this group the "Frontiers of Gull
> Identification". By my count, during the last week (March 10 to 17),
> 47 of 54 messages posted to this group (87%) have dealt with gull
> identification.
>
> Yes, gulls are fascinating, but perhaps the larophiles could allow a
> few of the rest of us to get a word in edgewise? After all, there are
> another 192 or so families of birds out there besides the Laridae....
> :-) :-)
>
>
> Wayne C. Weber
> Delta, BC
> contopus(AT)telus.net
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Frontiers of Gull ID?? and Peregrine Falcon
question.
From: GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 17 Mar 2005 3:56pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Indeed, Al, that great doorstop of a book, Raptors of the World
(Ferguson-Lees and Christie), contains info on the topic. The Eurasian tundra
form,
calidus, is similar to tundrius (either through convergence or relatedness)
and,
like that form, is a long-distance migrant making some significant water
crossings. So, I certainly would not rule out that form when considering a
bird
in HI, particularly as quite a few of their prey species also make that trip.
Anyway, the relevant text:
"F. p. calidus (tundras and arctic islands of Eurasia; highly migratory,
wintering south through Phillipines to Sunda and New Guinea) Paler and, on
average, bulkier and longer-winged with less black crown, narrower moustaches,
bigger white cheek-patches [sic]; white to pink-white below with almost plain
chest above narrow barring; juvenile dark brown above with contrasting buff
crown, buff below with narrow streaking."
Granted, most of that description was of adults, but I would suggest that
the juvs, too, are narrow-mustached. Of course, the one form that you want to
see illustrated is not, the book including only references to some plumage
differences between nominate and calidus in the plate notes. Also
unfortunately, the incredibly-good European guide by Mullarney et al. does not
mention
calidus. The relevant volume of the Handbook of Birds of the World depicts
adult calidus, but not juv. I do not own the relevant volume of Birds of the
Western Palearctic. Also, I do not have handy here the 1957 A.O.U. Check-list
to see if there are records for that form from the New World, but I cannot
imagine that it has NOT occurred, what with the species' name.
Sincerely,
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01&A=1
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Bird research can be damaged by ABA butterfly
article.
From: Barb Beck <barb(AT)BIRDNUT.OBTUSE.COM>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 4:36pm
Hi,
This is NOT about gulls - (Honest the gull discussions are welcome but
it is fun to pick on them.) There are white things flying here like crazy but
it
is SNOW. This is not really about bird ID and I may get
shot by the list owner but I think it concerns all of us who
band and work with birds and that eventually filters into id work.
I am horribly disturbed by the recent butterfly article in Birding. I am also a
butterfly
enthusiast who is horrified at the untruths presented. From where these people
are coming from
there are also horrid implications for birding research.
Here is my letter to Birding Magazine as well as a post by a very respected
Butterly expert
Hank Brodkin from Arizona. What I am saying not just concenrns Alberta but much
of the west
If you do not think such propaganda is appropriate to Birding please express
your feelings
to them. The editor is Ted Floyd <tedfloyd(AT)aba.org> and there are other aba
addresses
in my post.
Barb Beck
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: You have damaged bird research by your butterfly article.
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:55:15 -0700
From: Barb Beck <barb(AT)birdnut.obtuse.com>
To: rdowning(AT)aba.org
CC: tedfloyd(AT)ABA.ORG, srunnels(AT)aba.org, cwallace(AT)aba.org, bex(AT)aba.org,
earnesen(AT)aba.org, srunnels(AT)aba.org, lfujimoto(AT)aba.org, lrhodes(AT)aba.org,
member(AT)aba.org, bpatrick(AT)aba.org, winging(AT)aba.org, onele(AT)aba.org,
Plus others others not in the aba orginazation
Hello
I cannot believe how the American Birding Association which I have
supported for years printed that article by Jeff Glassberg in their
Birding Magazine. I have saved all of my old editions of the mag and
use them in my class. I have stocked much of my library and recording
collection from your ABA sales. However, I am not renewing my
membership. You have done immense damage both to birds and to
butterflies by promoting this guy, his ego and anti-science ideas and
the list of completely false statements your magazine.
The article contains so many falsehoods I hardly know where to start but
I will leave that for later in this message. Since he claims that we
know all we need to know about butterflies certainly he considers
research on birds which is one of the most highly studied groups of
animals as completely unnecessary. Is the next ABA magazine going to
come out with an article declaring that we know all we need to know
about birds and that no more bird research is necessary? I have a
banding permit.. I believe banding is still very necessary and that the
netting and handling that we put the birds through is worth it for the
information that we get about distribution, the state of the current
population re age and health as well as the return records. You are
dealing with a person who is not only against netting of butterflies
but also of birds. He and his group at their convention a few years ago
were invited to a place to watch butterflies. His group destroyed the
moth traps put out by the person who invited them - this is much like
those who do thousands of dollars in damage to banders mist nets. NABA
did not step up to chastise those responsible for the destruction or
apologize to the person whose traps had been destroyed immediately.
How do I know his position on netting birds - he told me in a phone
conversation. He was complaining to me (at that time the editor of the
Alberta Butterfly counts) about the fact that we used nets. Our species
are far more varied than what he meets in the eastern US and although I
identify by far the majority of butterflies by binoculars we use nets
for those we cannot because we want our count data to adequately record
what is in this province. A few of us also collect specimens if we
encounter a butterfly which has not been adequately described in our
literature - more about that later. He said Audubon would not approve
of nets - never did get it clear if he meant the man or the society but
I pointed out to him that the man shot his subjects and that the Audubon
society sponsors some bird banding programs and also pointed out that I
use nets to net birds when banding. To that he replied that many of
them objected to that.
Re the article:.
1. Glassberg is certainly NOT the father of identifying butterflies in
natural poses that he claims to be nor with using close focus
binoculars. The Audubon Society had Bob Pyles field guide which did
just that before we even heard of him. And Bob fully gives credit to
the Field guides that came before him from Hollands Butterfly Book at
the turn of the century to that commissioned by Peterson from Klotz.
BTW Peterson COLLECTED butterflies with Klotz and Peterson painted many
of his birds from dead specimens. You should read the inrtoduction by
RTP to the Klotz book. Watching butterflies with binoculars in the west
was well underway before any of Glassbergs publications came out and
certainly before his western publication.. Even before close focus
binoculars John Acorn was promoting a system devised by Carroll Perkins
which involved putting a camera lens on small binoculars to examine
insects in close detail close up up here. It is laughable the way
Glassberg tries to compare himself to Roger Tory Peterson.
2. Glassberg certainly did not start from scratch in creating field
marks as he claims. Many of the field marks in his book are lifted from
past field guides and other authors. It is very difficult to develop
field marks even though once you see them they seem quite obvious. Look
at how long birders looked at the Epidonax before they got some down.
Anyway many of his field marks do not in general work in the west.
They were developed without an appreciation of the wide variability that
we have in the west. His books are of very very limited use here.
Fortunately many of us in this part of the west have excellent local
guides such as the Butterflies of Cascadia by Bob Pyle, the Butterflies
of BC by Guppy and Shephard and the Butterflies of Alberta by Bird,
Kondla, Sperling, Pyle and Hilchie. .In Canada we also have the
Butterflies of Canada by Layberry, Hall and Lafontaine. For a general
guide the Kaufman guide is far superior to the Glassberg books to help
you identify a butterfly through binoculars or in a net..
3. Glassberg refuses to admit that habitat destruction is the cause of
the loss of butterflies. He wants to discredit the people who collect
and study our butterflies to try to figure out what we have. In the ABA
article he goes even farther picturing the collector as anti social and
saying that there is a stigma associated with nets. That is not the
group I know. This is far from the case but guess possibly he is running
out of real arguments against those studying butterflies and trying to
properly sort out what we have so he has resulted in character
assassination and name calling. He is completely ignorant of the
reproductive differences between birds and butterflies. Certainly birds
and mammals can be sent to extinction by killing by man sometimes even
with the knowledge that it is the last population. No North American
butterfly has ever been sent to extinction by collectors. It has been
by habitat destruction. In fact on several occasions people (I think
Opler was one) have tried to see just how difficult it would be to
extirpate a butterfly by collecting several times a day everything that
was flying and removing it from the area. The attempts failed. So
little is know about the butterflies in some parts of North America that
there is a very very great danger that good species will go extinct
without ever being recognized.
4. If you want an illustration of how far the lack of concern for
habitat goes with this guy pick up the NABA mag from a few years ago in
which he details his triumphant "natural" photo of a Mitchel's Satyr.
It is totally disgusting. Somehow he got permission for himself and
about 8 of his buddies to enter a protected area to photograph this
butterfly. These people (all proudly photographed trouncing habitat)
spent TWO days stomping foodplants and crushing immature stages of this
butterfly before they got their perfect "natural" photo. How much
better the Mitchel's Satyr would have been off if these ignorant fools
had merely snagged one with a net, cooled it and taken their photo and
left the place with minimal damage.. At least they only tramped the
edges of the stream and did not run their SUV through it. That was my
last copy of the NABA magazine - I never did renew my membership. NABA
claims to be promoting butterfly habitat by encouraging people to plant
things that attract butterflies in their gardens. City homes planted
with "butterfly gardens" can hardly replace natural habitat which is
being lost daily any more than bird houses in city gardens can replace
nesting habitat for warblers.
5. He claims that butterfly nets discourage people from participating in
watching butterflies. The man is rarely confused by facts even when they
involve his own organization. Alberta for a number of years with less
than 1 percent of the population in NA held almost10 percent of the NABA
counts. Almost all of our participants use nets although people who do
not chose to use a net are also encouraged to attend and are respected.
Alberta pulled out of the NABA counts a couple years ago because their
set of names derived from their flat earth view of butterfly taxonomy
could not adequately represent the species of butterfly we have in the
province. We do those counts to get a permanent record of what we have
much as Alberta participates very highly in CBCs (Edmonton has CBCs
going back to 1908 and holds the record for the most participants in any
CBC) BBS routes (with a small population we have a huge number of the
routes some over very difficult roads) and with other bird related
volunteer projects. By lumping good species whose ranges overlap we
loose data on these butterflies. Even if they had kept the data by
subspecies things would be ok but some of our information is lost.
More about the names later. He thinks that butterfly watching should be
an elitist hobby enjoyed only by those who can afford expensive close
focus binoculars. He is completely out of touch with kids with real nets
(proper nets which have a bag which is at least 1.5 times as long as the
diameter of the hoop and not those things sold in dollar stores as
butterfly nets) catching butterflies.
6. He claims that "nets are shotguns" which is as foolish as you can
get. Almost all of our netting except for those collecting specimens for
scientific study is net and release. Many of us do not even handle the
butterfly. It is slipped into a cold vial so its wings are not damaged,
examined and released without being touched. Wild rumors were spread on
the internet about how nets tore the legs off butterflies. This greatly
concerned my husband and I and we examined all that we netted for a
while. In all the butterflies netted from large Greater Fritillaries
to tiny Blues not one lost legs in the net - Is this more NABA
propaganda or did they not realize that that some of the butterflies
only have 4 large legs (two being just little stubby "brushes") A study
in Illinois has recorded the kill of butterflies by roads and highways.
Glassberg on the way to his favorite country butterfly watching sites
probably kills many more butterflies with their cars than if a hord of
collectors went with him collected all that they saw unless they keep
their speed below about 6 mph or only travel at times which are too cold
for leps to be flying. The feet of people trouncing habitat to get the
perfect angle to photograph or id a butterfly with binoculars because
they refuse to quickly net it, however, could certainly be considered as
"shotguns".
7. He has stated that we know all we need to know about butterflies.
Wow what a statement. Butterflies have only been studied a very small
fraction of the amount that birds have. (Imaging what he thinks of
further bird study) Butterfly study has often been done by people who
work at it as a hobby because there is very very little funding for
butterfly research. Too illustrate how poorly known some of the
butterflies we have in the west are just last year I was involved in
getting the specimens for the establishment of what appears to be two
new species in the province and possibly a third. These were during our
butterfly counts. This would be like declaring in the 1850's or earlier
that we knew all we needed to know about birds. Trying to equate the
knowledge of birds in the 1940s to the current knowledge we have about
butterflies is absolutely outrageous and shows a horrid ignorance about
what we know about these creatures.
8. Does he want to discredit those studying butterflies and claim that
we already know all we need to know about them because the NABA
corporation sells a lot of books and it is costly and inconvenient to
update book names with new ones or handle the many splits that should be
made to those represented in his books? If you control the names and
taxonomy so that many species are lumped under one name the books do
not go out of date and you have fewer species to deal with in them.. He
has taken many of the lumps that were made decades ago with NO
supporting evidence (for example the Leto Fritillary (Speyeria leto)
and the Great Spangled Fritillary we have here (Speyeria cybele
pseudocarpenteri) were claimed to be the same species because the
ingrade in Alberta but no details given or any evidence whatsoever to
back up the statement.. That is amazing because nobody here can find
the place where they ingrade even though the area of the ingrade in the
sw corner of the province has been covered now quite well in recent
years. But fewer species means that he has less to cover in his books
and can pretend that things are simpler than they really are - again
like calling all Epidonax flycatchers Least Flycatchers. He does not
want to confuse people with changes but when changes finally must come
they are going to be swamped. Much better to change things as research
dictates they should be changed as is done with the AOU.
9. He has driven a wedge particularly in the east between those
studying butterflies and those watching which thank goodness does not
exist here in this part of the country. He has convinced many good
meaning people that the people studying butterflies are horrid people
out to damage butterfly populations. Here watchers and collectors in
general work together. Those who do not want to carry a net for catch
and release id are respected, those who carry a net for net and release
are respected and those who collect for study collections are
respected. At least he has not poisoned this part of the continent. He
has upset the eastern lepidpoterists so much that they were even blaming
birdwatchers for their problems. I defended birders completely and
vocally on many of these leps lists but looks like I was wrong - the
ABA is now on record as supporting this antiscience outlook too. I am
now ticked off because I must write a letter to the butterfly newsgroups
explaining that birders are indeed a part of the problem and that the
ABA can now be considered a major contributor. I should have realized
this with the ABA a few years ago when they wrote a such an unfavorable
editorial about Ken Kaufmans butterflies guide. Ken realizes that we
have a lot to learn about butterfly taxonomy and respects collectors and
what they do as well as encouraging non collectors to appreciated them
and clearly states that in his book.. I wrote a letter to the editor of
Birding (and I am sure at least a few others did but no dissenting)
view was published. The Kaufman guide does not have the beautiful
butterfly photos that the Glassberg guide contains but comes much closer
to giving a picture of the diversity that we have and is far more
useful identifying species in the west.
10. NABA is a corporation.. It is not a club, there are no elected
members. It is totally controlled by Jeff Glassberg. It is registered
as a non-profit company for tax purposes. That does not mean that it
does not pay those it employs.
11. He claims to have brought name stability and that is the biggest
joke of all. Furthermore he attempts to give legitimacy to his
"committee" which does not even include one taxonomist by comparing it
to the AOU committee which provides us with lists of bird names. He
started out with the Miller Brown List which contained many old
unjustified lumps. When Opler came out with a new list it was used to
update the eastern list but not used to sort out many of the antiquated
taxonomic messes in the west. In the west in particular we have
scientifically demonstrated good species which they still lump under one
species. Because the ranges of these species overlap we cannot use only
one name to describe them. Glassberg still claims that they can be
sorted out later by range. As stated before it is difficult to confuse
the man with facts. Some of them like our Hesperis and Atlantis
Fritillaries have extensive overlap in the ranges. In fact Glassberg
even admits these are good species but still does nothing about them so
our data turned in for preservation by NABA is lumped and that can never
be taken apart. In cases where there is not very very good evidence that
things are not separate species it would be acceptable to keep the data
by subspecies but that is also not allowed by NABA rules. His
"committee" (most votes are 4-0 with him on name changes) does meet to
make changes to names, apparently mostly common names Glassberg does not
like such as changing the historic name of the White Admiral to
Red-Spotted Admiral. The AOU does not change established accepted common
names to things their committee might like better. There is not even a
taxonomist on the NABA committee. Their list of names is a complete
joke not something which should be equated to that put out by the AOU..
The only stability he has brought to namesis the fact that his books all
use his names and they do not change to reflect current (and even
relatively old) advances in taxonomy. NABA has not done anything
constructive with the names but has merely added to the names babble.
12. Lets put things in perspective. Peterson did not have good field
marks for separating the Epidonax Flycatchers at first and used a Least
Flycatcher to illustrate all. He DID NOT claim that they were all Least
Flycatchers. If you could not recognize the song it was an Epidonax
sp. Birders would not be happy identifying all of the various silent
epidonax flycatchers as Least Flycatchers. But that is essentially what
Glassberg promotes for butterflies. He does not recognize that many of
the things which he calls species are species complexes. For example
there is a complex of Celistrina, the Azures. He wants all of them
called Spring Azure and that is how the data is stored for the NABA
butterfly counts. Birders doing BBS routes or CBCs would be very
upset if they had to list all the epidonax flycatchers they identified
as Least Flycatchers. Heck we are even allowed to identify birds by
form or by ssp where appropriate on these surveys.
13.. People say that having so many butterflies makes things too
complicated for beginners. How is that any different that for the
birds. People can start with a common local list or a very simple
local book. Teach beginners that there are Azures and have them lump
them under the complex name and not try to call every blue butterfly a
Spring Azure. When their eye gets trained to see the differences in the
blues they can start identifying the species which make up the complex.
I start birders out with silent Epidonax that way. Explaining that
there are many that look a lot alike and later when they become much
more familiar with them you can see the subtle differences which make up
the field marks to separate the various species when silent.. In no
field can you learn everything at once. But at least what you learn
should be correct. What you identify to put into a permanent database
like that maintained by the BBS routes or the CBCs should be identified
to the best of your identification skills. If it is just to a complex -
so be it an it should be entered as Azure sp. If the actual species can
be identified it should be entered that way. If it is a field
identifiable ssp it should be entered as the proper ssp because further
knowledge about the bird or butterfly might show that it is indeed a
good species.
14. Glassbergs field marks plain do not work for a lot of the species
in the area of our province where his book is supposed to be
applicable.. In the east they are dealing with a much simpler set of
butterflies. They do not have the extensive regional variation we
experience here in the west.. Here in Alberta our birds were split
east and west by the glaciers and often the species or subspecies meet
in this province with confusing results. If you think there are great
differences in the songs and calls of the Pacific and Cordillerian
Flycatc here guess again. Many are intermediate (even when examining the
sonograms) Butterflies like the birds were split east and west but also
some butterflies remained north of the glaciers in ice free areas and
some came over the land bridge which formed during the ice age and still
other scattered population existed in ice free refugia in the glaciers.
Couple this with the high diversity of habitat and we have a real
challenge. His field marks may work for separating some populatins of
similar looking species but cannot even come close for all. I was
amazed how simple it was to butterfly in the east. I butterflied
Newfoundland without needing to use a net simply because there were not
so many similar looking species. I know the butterflies of Alberta very
well and still cannot identify all of them with binoculars.
15. I am truly amazed that left out of the article was how Jeff
Glassberg created the world in 3 days and then took off the other 4 to
butterfly. as well as comments discrediting the other guy who was
supposed to have done it.
If the ABA has not gone completely off the deep end like the NABA an
apology is in order for the quality of this article and possibly an
honest intelligent article by Kenn Kaufman about butterflies, enjoying
butterflies (with and without a net), butterfly study and the real
history of butterfly watching and collecting in North America is in
order to attempt to undo some of the falsehoods you spread in this
article and if you can get him to write it an article by Bob Pyle a
lepidopterist, author of the first butterfly guide to NA which used
natural poses for identification and many other books concerning
butterflies including the fantastic guide to the Butterflies of
Cascadia. He has been very active in the Lepidpoterist Society as well
as promoting casual butterfly watching (with and without a net) and
cooperation, tolerance and respect for all of us concerned with butterflies.
If people want to learn the butterflies of a particular area the key
thing they need is a good book which shows the butterflies they have in
their region and the regional variant of the species. Glassberg's
Western Butterfly book will only lead to frustration. I do not know if
his books are general enough to work in the east - possibly they do
becasue there is not so much variation. For a general book Kaufman's
guide is far superior in sorting out the regional variation here.
Barbara Hardin Beck, PhD
Adjunct Professor
Department of Renewable Resources
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Barb.Beck(AT)ualberta.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Hank Brodkin [mailto:hbrodkin(AT)cox.net]
*Sent:* Fri 3/11/2005 10:41 AM
*To:* Leps-l; Tils; Texas Butterfly List; Southwest Lep group
*Cc:* Libby Sullivan; Rich Bailowitz
*Subject:* [SoWestLep] Glassberg Article in Birding
In the new March/April issue of BIRDING there is an article "The Birth
of Butterflying" by Jeffrey Glassberg where Jeff seems to take single
handed credit for the birth of this avocation. It distresses us that
there is no mention of Robert Michael Pyle, the prize-winning naturalist
and conservationist whose book, which preceded Jeff's guides, Jeff
mentions but not the man.
He also seems to be extending the collecting debate into a type of class
warfare mentioning at one point the "stigma of netting".
I quote a portion of the article:
"In the Northeast, large numbers of butterfliers are very active in the
field and have developed very excellent field-identification skills. In
some northeastern parks, one is more likely to encounter groups of
butterflyers than birders. In contrast, in parts of the West, much of
the discussion is still dominated by a small group of collectors and
netters - but this will rapidly change."
I am sure that the many active butterfly enthusiasts in Texas,
California. Oregon. Washington, Arizona and elsewhere will be happy to
learn this.
Ironically there are two strips of pinned specimens decorating the page
edges of the article.
Where would Jeff be without the shoulders of the collectors who preceded
him? How often has Jeff studied collections in museums and elsewhere to
increase HIS knowledge? AND WHY DOES HE INSIST ON TRYING TO BUILD A
DIVIDE BETWEEN PEOPLE WHOSE INTERESTS AND LOVE OF BUTTERFLIES ARE EQUAL
TO HIS OWN.
Hank Brodkin
Member of the SEABA Chapter of NABA
Carr Canyon, AZ
hbrodkin(AT)cox.net
Butterflies of Arizona - a Photographic Guide
http://members.cox.net/hbrodkin
>>> Error in line 2 of birdwg01.mailtpl: unknown formatting command <<<
-> . FO ON <-
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Pomarine Jaeger and Peregrine Falcon
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 17 Mar 2005 11:17pm
Birders
Cross posting here to the Hawaii group and ID frontiers. I have set up a
page with a few photos from our Hawaii tour from a couple of week ago here:
http://www.coastside.net/chucao/gulls/hawaii.htm
The questions regarding these birds are: How come there are two body plumage
types of Pomarine Jaegers which both have entirely dark underwing coverts?
Are they all adults? Are the barred birds third winters? Is it morph
dependent? How does R1 moult work in jaegers? Anyone out there who has
looked at specimens?
Peregrine Falcon - do these photos help anyone in differentiating between
tundrius, calidus, and japonicus?
Thanks
Al
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, CA
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
http://www.fieldguides.com/home.htm
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pomarine Jaeger and Peregrine Falcon
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 2:08am
> http://www.coastside.net/chucao/gulls/hawaii.htm
Interesting Pom photos -thanks for posting.
If there were numbers of two distinct types present my guess is that
the dark birds are dark-morph adults still with largely basic-plumage
bodies - perhaps Jaegers molt remiges before body plumage (?)
Anyway, that would be the most logical solution, for whatever logic
is worth.
Along those lines it's interesting that all of these birds have underwing
coverts in various states of molt/growth. The top (dark) bird in particular
has almost nothing where the greater covert tract should be. I wonder
if a near-mature subadult with growing coverts would necessarily
show any detectable covert barring.
Haven't studied it on skins (would love the opportunity), but I
have extensively studied Long-tailed R1 molt in dated photos
and I've seen no reason to think that they grow two sets annually.
It could be that there is just a wide variation in timing of when they
drop them. As I've posted before in this forum O & L seem to
have mistaken extending R2s for R1s on at least one photo of a
winter Long-tailed in their book, which makes me wonder what
their conclusion of two annual R1 molts is based on.
Cheers,
Phil
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: More gulls
From: Robert Hughes <rhughes.enteract(AT)RCN.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 8:38am
I hate to do this since everyone is probably suffering from larid fatigue,
but here are some gulls to chew on from Lake Michigan.
Probable hybrid Great Black-backed x Herring Gull
http://theorniphile.info/rare_birds/gbbg_hegu_hybrid.html
Probable hybrid Glaucous x Herring Gulls
http://theorniphile.info/rare_birds/nelsons_gulls.html
Kumlien's Gull series
http://theorniphile.info/rare_birds/kumliens_gulls.html
Robert Hughes
Chicago
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: A (novel) gull i.d. request
From: Ian Mclaren <iamclar(AT)DAL.CA>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 9:29am
All:
Before you delete, this one is really different from the feather-scrutiny
discussions of late.
Take a look at:
http://bernieb.smugmug.com/gallery/222995/127/17685590
A birder friend photographed some years ago a small gull in a melee of
gulls, shearwaters, and gannets off the Canso Causeway, joining Cape
Breton I. with mainland NS. At the time he was struck by vivid red
legs, but it didn't stick around. He sent the (pre-digital) print to me
for scrutiny, and I enlarged the bird image (< 2mm long on negative) and
sharpened it in Photoshop, but it's still marginal from unfocus and
motion (which may have produced the seemingly odd head shape, etc.). It
does seem to have am unmarked head, tiny bill, and vivi red feet, but the
tail seems to taper into nothingness.
Do others think what I think it may be?
Cheers, Ian
Ian A. McLaren
Biology Department
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS B3H 4J1
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: A (novel) gull i.d. request
From: Peter Adriaens <peter.adriaens(AT)dutchbirding.nl>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:22am
>
> http://bernieb.smugmug.com/gallery/222995/127/17685590
>
>
> Do others think what I think it may be?
>
Is this not most likely a Bonaparte's Gull ? Especially the wing pattern
leads me to think of that species.
Peter
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: A (novel) gull i.d. request
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:35am
> > http://bernieb.smugmug.com/gallery/222995/127/17685590
> >
> >
> > Do others think what I think it may be?
> >
>
> Is this not most likely a Bonaparte's Gull ? Especially the wing pattern
> leads me to think of that species.
>
> Peter
I agree - looks like a Bonaparte's. If it lacked a tail band it is
probably a molting 2nd-winter bird. Ross's would not show
white outer primaries.
Cheers,
Phil
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More gulls
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 4:06pm
As long as Bob is posting these odds and ends from the Midwest, here are 2 more
fascinating birds from Indiana that I just recently
became aware of. I do not remember them being posted here previously. One of the
lines of consideration revolves around the record
of Indiana's first and only Kelp Gull from about 7 years ago.
http://www.jkcassady.com/gallery/lbbgdark.htm
http://www.jkcassady.com/gallery/oddgull.htm
Also, a typical Thayer's from Milwaukee today-
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/thgu318.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/thgu318b.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/gulls/thgu318c.jpg
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
_____
>I hate to do this since everyone is probably suffering from larid fatigue, but
here are some gulls to chew on from Lake Michigan.
>
>
> Probable hybrid Great Black-backed x Herring Gull
>
> http://theorniphile.info/rare_birds/gbbg_hegu_hybrid.html
>
> Probable hybrid Glaucous x Herring Gulls
>
> http://theorniphile.info/rare_birds/nelsons_gulls.html
>
> Kumlien's Gull series
>
> http://theorniphile.info/rare_birds/kumliens_gulls.html
>
>
> Robert Hughes
> Chicago
>
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: More on retarded 2nd cy HEGUs
From: Jeff Poklen <jpkln(AT)CRUZIO.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 4:16pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Thanks to Don Roberson for posting questions (16 March) regarding =
http://www.pbase.com/jpkln/image/40565287 during my absence and also to =
Phil Pickering for pointing out specific plumage indicators of this =
gull's 2nd cycle status. Much appreciated. The date, 22 Nov 04, should =
be visible at the lower left of the photo. Here's another example of a =
pale-eyed, retarded 2nd cycle (or lingering 1st cycle) HEGU, albeit a =
much darker, rather worn-plumaged individual =
http://www.pbase.com/jpkln/image/40650204 photographed at St. John's, =
Newfoundland, Canada on 7 Dec 05. Primaries appear well rounded. It's =
hard to tell if there's a touch of gray or just reflected light at the =
center of the mantle. Comments most welcome.
Jeff Poklen
Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: a strange Glaucous in 'A (novel) gull id
request'
From: jen brumfield <elfin_skimmer(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 7:34pm
Hi folks -
I have no comment on the identification of the gull that is the original
subject of scrutiny in the "A (novel) gull I.D. request" posting of late.
HOWEVER, I would like to elicit a simple little question regarding ANOTHER
bird found in that SAME photo gallery, in fact, in the exact same gallery
(#9) as the original bird in question. Basically, just go to the original
website that was listed (gallery page number 9) in the aforementioned post:
http://bernieb.smugmug.com/gallery/222995/127/17685590
and click on any of the top 6 pictures ABOVE what is deemed the 'it looks
like a Bonaparte's Gull' picture...all of the pictures containing a swarm of
gulls resting on the water. Ok, now check out the single, white bird (1st or
2nd year Glaucous Gull, apparently) that appears amongst the throng of
gulls. WHY does this bird have extremely dark blackish primaries? This is
not at all an artifact of lighting. 'Distant' photos, yes, but I feel that,
in each of the photos in which this individual appears, the aforementioned
marking is extremely noticeable. And, for a Glaucous Gull, this bird appears
to have an awfully 'rounded' head. Is this, possibly, a Nelson's Gull?
Let me know if I'm missing something here. If you have any trouble getting
to the website through my post, please refer to Ian McLaren's (respectfully)
original post 'A (novel) gull id request', go to that website, and click any
of the top 6 photos at the left side of the page, as described before.
Please comment on this bird.
Thank you.
Jennifer Brumfield
Akron, Ohio
elfin_skimmer(AT)hotmail.com
www.meadowhawkart.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Lariphobes hit the delete: a mystery dark-winged
gull in TX
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 18 Mar 2005 7:51pm
Dear Normal-people-who-like-gulls - ;-)
Here's one that's not the usual oddball from Texas:
http://www.martinreid.com/gullsp83.html
- I lack much experience with Western Gull, but assume that the barring in
the outer retrices and the general streakiness is all wrong for that taxon.
My tentative thoughts are that the only pure taxon that it might fit would
be a Kelp Gull on a Northern molt cycle.
This does not seem the most likely explanation, so I've considered various
hybrid combos....
KelpXHerg may be the best bet; can anyone from Louisiana provide an update
on the situation there since the article by Dittman and Cardiff (now 13+
years ago)? Does anyone have info on other Kelps breeding north of their
"normal" range?
I thought about LBBGXHerg, and this might explain many of the features -
but not the bill shape and the weird leg color.
Anything else I should consider (other than stop going to the landfill)?
Cheers,
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Bendire's Thrasher flanks
From: GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 18 Mar 2005 10:28pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hi all:
I have a current need to know about the color and pattern of the flanks of
Bendire's Thrasher. I am having to resort to photos on the web and to field
guides to gauge the reasonableness of a description or two. The pictures I've
seen and the field guides that I've checked do not indicate any flank
streaking, simply illustrating a bird with somewhat warm-colored flanks with no
pattern. Kaufman's otherwise excellent treatment of Bendire's in Advanced
Birding (well, it seems excellent, but I don't really know having never seen
the
species) doesn't discuss the flanks.
So, does Bendire's EVER have any streaking on the flanks? What about in May
and June? What color are the flanks in May and June?
I'd appreciate any and all assistance, either through ID Frontiers or via
personal responses to my post.
Thanks,
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: a strange Glaucous in 'A (novel) gull id
request'
From: Eric Mills <e.mills(AT)DAL.CA>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 4:56am
Very few birders actually saw the bird mentioned by Jen
Brumfield, but we did conclude from Bernard Burke's photographs
that it was a Nelson's Gull.
Eric Mills
On 19 Mar 2005, at 2:24, jen brumfield wrote:
> Hi folks -
>
> I have no comment on the identification of the gull that is the original
> subject of scrutiny in the "A (novel) gull I.D. request" posting of late.
> HOWEVER, I would like to elicit a simple little question regarding ANOTHER
> bird found in that SAME photo gallery, in fact, in the exact same gallery
> (#9) as the original bird in question. Basically, just go to the original
> website that was listed (gallery page number 9) in the aforementioned post:
>
> http://bernieb.smugmug.com/gallery/222995/127/17685590
>
> and click on any of the top 6 pictures ABOVE what is deemed the 'it looks
> like a Bonaparte's Gull' picture...all of the pictures containing a swarm of
> gulls resting on the water. Ok, now check out the single, white bird (1st or
> 2nd year Glaucous Gull, apparently) that appears amongst the throng of
> gulls. WHY does this bird have extremely dark blackish primaries? This is
> not at all an artifact of lighting. 'Distant' photos, yes, but I feel that,
> in each of the photos in which this individual appears, the aforementioned
> marking is extremely noticeable. And, for a Glaucous Gull, this bird appears
> to have an awfully 'rounded' head. Is this, possibly, a Nelson's Gull?
>
> Let me know if I'm missing something here. If you have any trouble getting
> to the website through my post, please refer to Ian McLaren's (respectfully)
> original post 'A (novel) gull id request', go to that website, and click any
> of the top 6 photos at the left side of the page, as described before.
>
> Please comment on this bird.
> Thank you.
>
> Jennifer Brumfield
> Akron, Ohio
> elfin_skimmer(AT)hotmail.com
> www.meadowhawkart.com
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Eric L. Mills
286 Kingsburg Road
RR#1, Rose Bay, Nova Scotia B0J 2X0, CANADA
E.Mills(AT)Dal.Ca
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Another NS gull oddity
From: Ian McLaren <I.A.McLaren(AT)DAL.CA>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 6:09am
All:
I'm holding off on summarizing responses to the small gull photo'd at Canso.
You
may want to download and further enlarge the photo to appreciate what seems to
be an overall pale (probably overly contrasty)upper wing, almost orthogonal to
the lens, with a narrowish carpal bar extending from dark wing tips, and no
hint of dark secondary margins. Does the last exclude some candidates?
Bernard Burke has added another oddity to his photo site, immediately following
the photo of the above gull. You can access it directly:
http://bernieb.smugmug.com/gallery/222995/15/17747995
I guess it's nothing other than an abormally long-legged Black-headed Gull,
even
given the "stretched" tarsus, with feathering exposed. I've found not published
or web photos that show such extreme lankiness.
Cheers, Ian
Ian McLaren
Biology Department
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS B3H 4J1
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Brown Creeper tail lengths
From: Sandra Keller <skeller(AT)SNIP.NET>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 8:28am
Hello,
I offered to post this to the list for another birder from PA who
doesn't subscribe to
Birding Frontiers. He posted to PA Birds a week ago or so and no one has
been able
to give him a definative answer. Please respond either to him directly or
better yet, back
to the list and I'll forward to him. The original question being "Why the
differences in
tail length?". Both pics were taken recently in PA.
From Bob:
>Sandra,
>That would be great if you could do that. I was looking around the web
>for some place to inquire but didn't come up with anything. Here are the
>links to the pix again if you want to use them in your letter.
>http://www.pbase.com/rcm1840/image/40714583
>http://www.pbase.com/rcm1840/image/40714568
>Appreciate your interest.
>Bob
>Bob Moul (Yellowlegs(AT)Suscom.net)
>Adams County, PA USA
Most responses so far to him - including mine - have been on the line of:
"Creepers wouldn't be molting now, so that doesn't explain the differences
in
tail length." And "The only subspecies we should get is americana, so
different races are probably not involved, so that doesn't explain the
differences in tail length." And "It doesn't seem like an photo artifact.
The
first picture seems to show a Creeper with a distinctly longer tail than the
second pic."
Sandra Keller
Barrington, NJ
skeller(AT)snip.net
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Rock or Willow Ptarmigan
From: Bill and Nancy LaFramboise <wlafra(AT)OWT.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 9:37am
Are there any in-hand measurements/characteristics that can be used to tell
whether a taxidermy specimen of a ptarmigan is Rock or Willow? The black
tail rules out White-tailed. The specimen may be female as there is no
black facial line of a winter male Rock.
Would bill measurements separate the species?
Bill & Nancy LaFramboise
wlafra(AT)owt.com
Richland, WA
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Another NS gull oddity
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 10:47am
> I'm holding off on summarizing responses to the small gull photo'd at
Canso. You
> may want to download and further enlarge the photo to appreciate what
seems to
> be an overall pale (probably overly contrasty)upper wing, almost
orthogonal to
> the lens, with a narrowish carpal bar extending from dark wing tips
Honestly this photo is so blurred that I'm not sure how far you can safely
get picking it apart at a fine level. Notice how the chest seems to extend
past the eye, and also the apparent primary bar referenced above seems
to be at a strange angle compared to the leading edge of the hand. The
upperwing also appears to be reflecting a lot of light and may be quite
washed out in the photo.
> and no
> hint of dark secondary margins. Does the last exclude some candidates?
I've seen 2nd-winter Bonaparte's with clean secondaries but retaining
traces of immaturity in the primaries and coverts. Usually they have
a fairly obvious post-auricular spot though, so that could be an argument
against, unless it's blurred into the eye here.
Obviously this shot is suggestive of 1st-winter Ross's is some ways,
but I don't think the primary pattern fits - does not appear to be
much black in the outer primaries/primary coverts, and the (apparent)
fairly wide, heavy nature of the black on the primary tips seems much
more suggestive of a Bony. Also would a 1st-winter Ross's normally
show the bright red feet?
Can't comment on appearance of 2nd-winter Black-headed, but
even so I'm not sure how you would safely differentiate from Bony
in a photo like this. Patterning seems wrong for Little Gull, R-l
Kittiwake, not sure what else it could be. Probably forgetting
something..
Cheers,
Phil
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: NA Dunlins, merlins and gulls -photos for id.
reference etc..
From: Julian Hough <jrhough1(AT)SNET.NET>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 10:58am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Dear All,
I've finally found time to update photos on my website. Among many =
photos, some that may be of interest to UK (and US) birders.=20
can be found in the galleries including:
juv.Red-necked Stint
juv/1st-w 'hudsonia' Dunlin
Wilson's (delicata) Snipe
Juv. Northern (hudsonius) Harriers
Taiga (columbarius) Merlins
Rough-legged Hawk
Kumlien's and Thayer's Guls
American Herring Gulls
Ring-billed Gulls
West coast Gulls
http://www.naturescapeimages.net/foto.html
In addition I've added some artwork to the ILLUSTATION galleries =
including pen & ink, pencil and a watercolor.
Feel free to check it out. If anyone wishes to purchase photos, please =
e-mail me privately.
Best,
Julian Hough,
CT, USA
jrhough1(AT)snet.net
www.naturescapeimages.net
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: NA Dunlins, merlins and gulls -photos for id.
reference etc..
From: Alan Wormington <wormington(AT)JUNO.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 11:12am
Re the following from Julian Hough:
> I've finally found time to update photos on my website. Among many
> photos, some that may be of interest to UK (and US) birders.
Comment: Canadian birders might also be interested. After all, last
time I checked Canada was still a part of North America.
Alan Wormington
Leamington, Ontario
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Rock or Willow Ptarmigan
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)TELUS.NET>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 12:57pm
Bill and Nancy,
W.E. Godfrey in "Birds of Canada" (1986) gives some measurements which
should be helpful in distinguishing Rock from Willow Ptarmigans.
Rock Ptarmigan are smaller overall and smaller-billed than Willow
Ptarmigan. However, there is overlap between the two species in
overall body length and in bill length. On the other hand, there
appears to be little or no overlap in lengths of the tail, tarsus, or
wing.
Measurements given by Godfrey are as follows:
Overall Length (both sexes)
Willow 35.5 to 43 cm
Rock 32.5 to 39.5 cm
Exposed culmen (males only)
Willow 12.5 to 17.5 mm (mean, 14.1)
Rock 11.5 to 14.5 mm (mean, 12.8)
Tarsus (males only)
Willow 34.5 to 38 mm (mean, 36.4)
Rock 31.0 to 33.5 mm (mean, 32.2)
Tail (males only)
Willow 129 to 140 mm (mean, 133.2)
Rock 101 to 117.5 mm (mean, 107.7)
Closed wing (males)
Willow 210.5 to 226 mm (mean, 217.9)
Rock 178 to 195.5 mm (mean, 187)
Closed wing (females)
Willow 196.5 to 205 mm (mean, 200.4)
Rock 173.5 to 188 mm (mean, 179)
I hope this will be useful.
"Birds of Canada" is an excellent source of information on standard
measurements of any bird species which are found regularly within
Canada.
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus(AT)telus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill and Nancy LaFramboise <wlafra(AT)OWT.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 8:36 AM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Rock or Willow Ptarmigan
> Are there any in-hand measurements/characteristics that can be used
to tell
> whether a taxidermy specimen of a ptarmigan is Rock or Willow? The
black
> tail rules out White-tailed. The specimen may be female as there is
no
> black facial line of a winter male Rock.
>
> Would bill measurements separate the species?
>
>
> Bill & Nancy LaFramboise
> wlafra(AT)owt.com
> Richland, WA
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RFI: tail-spreading
From: Jason Rogers <hawkowl(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 4:21pm
I've always assumed that as a bird (say, for example, a sparrow) spreads its
tail, rectrices become visible in sequence when the tail is viewed from
above. That is, rectrices 1 and 2 are always visible. Then as the tail is
spread, R3, R4, R5, and R6 come in to view in that order.
However I got to wondering if it would be possible for, say, R1, R2, and
R4-R6 to be visible, while R3 is "stacked" underneath R2 and out-of-view.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Jason Rogers
Banff, AB
hawkowl(AT)hotmail.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Brown Creeper tail lengths
From: Matt Kenne <mkenne(AT)NETAMUMAIL.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 2005 8:14pm
Hi,
Interesting question. When I looked at the pics, the creepers seemed to
have extension of tailfeathers beyond the tips of the primaries of
(ballpark guesstimate) 3 bill-lengths and 4 bill-lengths- a sizable
difference- so I looked up creeper measurements in Pyle's ID Guide.
There is a 1-2 mm average difference between male and female
bill-lengths, with males longer. Bill lengths run 12-16 mm. in the
widespread americana subspecies, and tail lengths run 55 mm. (shortest
male) to 67 mm. (longest female). So, normal ratios of bill length to
total tail length could go 16/55 (3 1/2 times) for a short-tailed male,
and 12/67 (5 1/2 times) for a long-tailed female. Those are extremes,
but it looks like noticeable variation in visible tail extension is not
unexpected.
Matthew Kenne
Algona, Iowa
mkenne(AT)netamumail.com
Sandra Keller wrote:
> Hello,
> I offered to post this to the list for another birder from PA who
> doesn't subscribe to
> Birding Frontiers. He posted to PA Birds a week ago or so and no one
> has been able
> to give him a definative answer. Please respond either to him directly
> or better yet, back
> to the list and I'll forward to him. The original question being "Why
> the differences in
> tail length?". Both pics were taken recently in PA.
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland