 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for December 24-31, 2006
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds | Jim Hengeveld | Sun, 24 Dec 2006 | 7:00am |
| Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds | Alan Contreras | Sun, 24 Dec 2006 | 9:53am |
| Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds | Kevin Karlson | Sun, 24 Dec 2006 | 1:10pm |
| Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds | Alan Contreras | Sun, 24 Dec 2006 | 1:19pm |
| Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds | Alvaro Jaramillo | Sun, 24 Dec 2006 | 1:36pm |
| Re: Wood Pewee id | Ted Floyd | Sun, 24 Dec 2006 | 6:59pm |
| Re: Solitary Vireo ID | =?windows-1252?Q?Jim | Mon, 25 Dec 2006 | 11:29am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | Wayne C. Weber | Wed, 27 Dec 2006 | 2:44am |
| possible Utah Western Gull | Tim Avery | Wed, 27 Dec 2006 | 5:27pm |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | Ted Floyd | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 7:11am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 9:10am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | Alan Contreras | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 9:43am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | Wayne C. Weber | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 9:56am |
| Western Wood-Pewee - Vagrancy | Alan Wormington | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 10:22am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 10:44am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 10:52am |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | Alvaro Jaramillo | Thu, 28 Dec 2006 | 11:31am |
| Pewees and specimens | Cameron Cox | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 1:11am |
| Re: Pewees and specimens | Alan Contreras | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 7:50am |
| Re: Pewees and specimens | Christopher Vogel | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 7:56am |
| Re: Pewees and specimens | Lethaby, Nick | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 8:54am |
| Museum Collections | sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 12:26pm |
| Utah Thayer's or Kumliens | Tim Avery | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 5:12pm |
| Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's | Bruce Mactavish | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 6:24pm |
| Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's | Nick Komar | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 6:37pm |
| Re: Wood Pewee ID | Phil Davis | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 6:57pm |
| Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's | Alan Contreras | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 7:14pm |
| Re: Museum Collections | Andrew Engilis | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 8:14pm |
| Re: Wood Pewee id | Joseph Morlan | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 8:20pm |
| Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumliens | Cliff and Lisa Weiss | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 | 9:23pm |
| Redpoll ID challenge | Mark Brown | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 12:35am |
| Re: Pewees and specimens | Cameron Cox | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 12:54am |
| Redpoll ID pictures | Mark Brown | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 9:36am |
| Re: Pewees and specimens | Alan Contreras | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 9:47am |
| Re: Redpoll ID challenge | Mike Kirch | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 10:03am |
| Provincetown, MA juvenile Thayer's photos | James H. Barton | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 10:10am |
| Re: Pewees and specimens - searchable AFN series | Phil Davis | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 12:13pm |
| The Utah small gull, plus a few of my own | Martin Reid | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 1:14pm |
| searchable AFN series | Alan Contreras | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 8:55pm |
| A couple of odd Herring Gulls. I guess. | Alvaro Jaramillo | Sat, 30 Dec 2006 | 10:46pm |
| Re: searchable AFN series | Dick Newell | Sun, 31 Dec 2006 | 2:55am |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
From: Jim Hengeveld <jhengeve(AT)INDIANA.EDU>
Date: 24 Dec 2006 7:00am
--Apple-Mail-71--316913806
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
This past Wednesday (December 20), the CBC team I was with covering a
portion of the Goose Pond (Indiana) CBC circle observed an adult male
Euphagus sp. The bird was all glossy-black with a noticeably
different-colored, iridescent bluish head. That sense of a bluish
head seemed to remain constant regardless of the viewing angle. It
was overcast, with lighting subdued. The blackbird was in the top of
a tree that we were standing right next to so we saw the bird
reasonably well, though only briefly. We did not get a sense for
tail length or bill shape, both of which differ subtly between Rusty
and Brewer's Blackbirds (Rusty with shorter tail and thinner bill base).
Again, we saw no rusty/brownish edgings on body feathers of the
bird. Other Rusty Blackbirds that we and a couple of other groups
saw during the day showed distinct rusty edges to the head and body
feathers. Both Rusty & Brewer's Blackbirds, like most other
icterids, molt only once a year (the pre-basic, which takes place on
the breeding grounds) and attain "breeding" plumage through the
wearing off of the rusty/brownish feather edgings (though, according
to Pyle, a small % of BRBL-2Y males?-might undergo a limited PA molt).
Sibley lists the adult male breeding plumage for both BRBL & RUBL as
Jan-Aug. According to Pyle, AHY male RUBLs have "a moderate amount
of rusty edging" to the body plumage from Aug-Mar, and little or none
from Mar-Jul. For AHY male BRBLs the body plumage has "light to
moderate, brownish tipping" from Aug-Mar.
So, the questions are:
How common is it for RUBL or BRBL to have worn off all of their pale
feather edgings by mid- to late-December?
Is RUBL or BRBL more likely to show a contrasting bluish iridescent
head?
I can't recall seeing male BRBLs with an iridescent bluish (rather
than violet) head despite the specific epithet of "cyanocephalus,"
though I can't say that I've actually studied it closely.
Thanks for any insight you can provide.
...........Jim
-------------------
James Hengeveld
Biology Dept. Jordan Hall A112
Indiana University 812: 855-5353
Bloomington, IN 47405 jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
--Apple-Mail-71--316913806
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
----DELETED HTML-ENCODED SECTION----
<p>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01
<p>
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
<p>
--Apple-Mail-71--316913806--
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 24 Dec 2006 9:53am
Almost all of the Brewer's here - I'd say over 99 percent, have lost all
edgings and are in colorful plumage, and heads are blue-purple. Not as
offset as a Common Grackle head, but clear.
Field guides sometimes say that male Brewer's don't look this way until
January, but in Oregon some of them look sharp by October and most of them
by late November. By CBC season there are usually very few with any
significant edgings and the heads are colorful.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
> From: Jim Hengeveld <jhengeve(AT)INDIANA.EDU>
> Reply-To: Jim Hengeveld <jhengeve(AT)INDIANA.EDU>
> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:00:47 -0500
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
>
> This past Wednesday (December 20), the CBC team I was with covering a
> portion of the Goose Pond (Indiana) CBC circle observed an adult male
> Euphagus sp. The bird was all glossy-black with a noticeably
> different-colored, iridescent bluish head. That sense of a bluish
> head seemed to remain constant regardless of the viewing angle. It
> was overcast, with lighting subdued. The blackbird was in the top of
> a tree that we were standing right next to so we saw the bird
> reasonably well, though only briefly. We did not get a sense for
> tail length or bill shape, both of which differ subtly between Rusty
> and Brewer's Blackbirds (Rusty with shorter tail and thinner bill base).
>
> Again, we saw no rusty/brownish edgings on body feathers of the
> bird. Other Rusty Blackbirds that we and a couple of other groups
> saw during the day showed distinct rusty edges to the head and body
> feathers. Both Rusty & Brewer's Blackbirds, like most other
> icterids, molt only once a year (the pre-basic, which takes place on
> the breeding grounds) and attain "breeding" plumage through the
> wearing off of the rusty/brownish feather edgings (though, according
> to Pyle, a small % of BRBL-2Y males?-might undergo a limited PA molt).
>
> Sibley lists the adult male breeding plumage for both BRBL & RUBL as
> Jan-Aug. According to Pyle, AHY male RUBLs have "a moderate amount
> of rusty edging" to the body plumage from Aug-Mar, and little or none
> from Mar-Jul. For AHY male BRBLs the body plumage has "light to
> moderate, brownish tipping" from Aug-Mar.
> So, the questions are:
>
> How common is it for RUBL or BRBL to have worn off all of their pale
> feather edgings by mid- to late-December?
>
> Is RUBL or BRBL more likely to show a contrasting bluish iridescent
> head?
>
> I can't recall seeing male BRBLs with an iridescent bluish (rather
> than violet) head despite the specific epithet of "cyanocephalus,"
> though I can't say that I've actually studied it closely.
>
> Thanks for any insight you can provide.
>
> ...........Jim
>
>
>
> -------------------
> James Hengeveld
> Biology Dept. Jordan Hall A112
> Indiana University 812: 855-5353
> Bloomington, IN 47405 jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
From: Kevin Karlson <karlson3(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 24 Dec 2006 1:10pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Jim and All:
I saw a flock of about 40 Rusty Blackbirds near Cape May NJ on Dec 10
this year, and was surprised to see several of the adult males in what
you would call full breeding plumage, with no trace of rusty feather
edges anywhere on the body or head. Most adult males still had various
amounts of rusty edges sprinkled throughout their plumage. Rusty
Blackbirds do not show a contrasting glossy head, but may actually show
a bit of purplish gloss to their upperparts and tail in good light. The
dates that Sibley gives are averages for breeding and non-breeding
plumage, with a good number of individuals showing breeding or
nonbreeding plumage up to three months outside these averages on either
end. Kevin Karlson.
Jim Hengeveld wrote:
> This past Wednesday (December 20), the CBC team I was with covering a
> portion of the Goose Pond (Indiana) CBC circle observed an adult male
> Euphagus sp. The bird was all glossy-black with a noticeably
> different-colored, iridescent bluish head. That sense of a bluish
> head seemed to remain constant regardless of the viewing angle. It
> was overcast, with lighting subdued. The blackbird was in the top of
> a tree that we were standing right next to so we saw the bird
> reasonably well, though only briefly. We did not get a sense for tail
> length or bill shape, both of which differ subtly between Rusty and
> Brewer's Blackbirds (Rusty with shorter tail and thinner bill base).
>
> Again, we saw no rusty/brownish edgings on body feathers of the bird.
> Other Rusty Blackbirds that we and a couple of other groups saw during
> the day showed distinct rusty edges to the head and body feathers.
> Both Rusty & Brewer's Blackbirds, like most other icterids, molt only
> once a year (the pre-basic, which takes place on the breeding grounds)
> and attain "breeding" plumage through the wearing off of the
> rusty/brownish feather edgings (though, according to Pyle, a small %
> of BRBL-2Y males?-might undergo a limited PA molt).
>
> Sibley lists the adult male breeding plumage for both BRBL & RUBL as
> Jan-Aug. According to Pyle, AHY male RUBLs have "a moderate amount of
> rusty edging" to the body plumage from Aug-Mar, and little or none
> from Mar-Jul. For AHY male BRBLs the body plumage has "light to
> moderate, brownish tipping" from Aug-Mar.
> So, the questions are:
>
> How common is it for RUBL or BRBL to have worn off all of their pale
> feather edgings by mid- to late-December?
>
> Is RUBL or BRBL more likely to show a contrasting bluish iridescent
> head?
>
> I can't recall seeing male BRBLs with an iridescent bluish (rather
> than violet) head despite the specific epithet of "cyanocephalus,"
> though I can't say that I've actually studied it closely.
>
> Thanks for any insight you can provide.
>
> ...........Jim
>
>
>
> -------------------
>
> James Hengeveld
>
> Biology Dept. Jordan Hall A112
>
> Indiana University 812: 855-5353
>
> Bloomington, IN 47405 jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu
> <mailto:jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu>
>
>
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
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: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 24 Dec 2006 1:19pm
I wonder if there is a regional difference in Brewers' molt cycle? The ones
in W. Oregon are mostly in nice glossy plumage by early December. I just
looked at a huge blackbird flock yesterday and they were all quite
blue-purple. Rich Hoyer had seen a few fuzzy ones in the same flock on a
CBC a couple of days earlier, but most were fresh.
We look carefully at anything fuzzy, hoping for a Rusty (very rare here) and
the fact that our Brewer's have changed by early winter makes the sorting
fairly easy. It is the dullest redwings that are the midwinter issue in our
flocks.
The Brewers that live in Eugene year-round (at least, there are birds
present here year-round, origin by season uncertain) are mostly nice now,
only a few have slight edgings. These are common town birds in winter that
we have to dodge on sidewalks, so I see them quite well every day.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
> From: Kevin Karlson <karlson3(AT)COMCAST.NET>
> Reply-To: Kevin Karlson <karlson3(AT)COMCAST.NET>
> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:10:32 -0500
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
>
> Jim and All:
> I saw a flock of about 40 Rusty Blackbirds near Cape May NJ on Dec 10
> this year, and was surprised to see several of the adult males in what
> you would call full breeding plumage, with no trace of rusty feather
> edges anywhere on the body or head. Most adult males still had various
> amounts of rusty edges sprinkled throughout their plumage. Rusty
> Blackbirds do not show a contrasting glossy head, but may actually show
> a bit of purplish gloss to their upperparts and tail in good light. The
> dates that Sibley gives are averages for breeding and non-breeding
> plumage, with a good number of individuals showing breeding or
> nonbreeding plumage up to three months outside these averages on either
> end. Kevin Karlson.
>
> Jim Hengeveld wrote:
>
>> This past Wednesday (December 20), the CBC team I was with covering a
>> portion of the Goose Pond (Indiana) CBC circle observed an adult male
>> Euphagus sp. The bird was all glossy-black with a noticeably
>> different-colored, iridescent bluish head. That sense of a bluish
>> head seemed to remain constant regardless of the viewing angle. It
>> was overcast, with lighting subdued. The blackbird was in the top of
>> a tree that we were standing right next to so we saw the bird
>> reasonably well, though only briefly. We did not get a sense for tail
>> length or bill shape, both of which differ subtly between Rusty and
>> Brewer's Blackbirds (Rusty with shorter tail and thinner bill base).
>>
>> Again, we saw no rusty/brownish edgings on body feathers of the bird.
>> Other Rusty Blackbirds that we and a couple of other groups saw during
>> the day showed distinct rusty edges to the head and body feathers.
>> Both Rusty & Brewer's Blackbirds, like most other icterids, molt only
>> once a year (the pre-basic, which takes place on the breeding grounds)
>> and attain "breeding" plumage through the wearing off of the
>> rusty/brownish feather edgings (though, according to Pyle, a small %
>> of BRBL-2Y males?-might undergo a limited PA molt).
>>
>> Sibley lists the adult male breeding plumage for both BRBL & RUBL as
>> Jan-Aug. According to Pyle, AHY male RUBLs have "a moderate amount of
>> rusty edging" to the body plumage from Aug-Mar, and little or none
>> from Mar-Jul. For AHY male BRBLs the body plumage has "light to
>> moderate, brownish tipping" from Aug-Mar.
>> So, the questions are:
>>
>> How common is it for RUBL or BRBL to have worn off all of their pale
>> feather edgings by mid- to late-December?
>>
>> Is RUBL or BRBL more likely to show a contrasting bluish iridescent
>> head?
>>
>> I can't recall seeing male BRBLs with an iridescent bluish (rather
>> than violet) head despite the specific epithet of "cyanocephalus,"
>> though I can't say that I've actually studied it closely.
>>
>> Thanks for any insight you can provide.
>>
>> ...........Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> James Hengeveld
>>
>> Biology Dept. Jordan Hall A112
>>
>> Indiana University 812: 855-5353
>>
>> Bloomington, IN 47405 jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu
>> <mailto:jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
>> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>>
>> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>>
>
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 24 Dec 2006 1:36pm
Folks
The average adult male Brewer's has little to no pale edging during fresh
plumage. The young males on the other hand can have extensive pale edging.
Perbasic molts are complete or nearly so in the young males, so they look
nothing like the juvenile plumage and are adult like after they wear away
the pale edges (although their primary tips look brownish rather than
black). The variation in how early some Brewer's get glossy is therefore age
related, and many if not most adults are always glossy. The buff edging
wears away to reveal the glossy plumage, it is not a separate molt that
occurs (just to back up for those folks who are wondering how these changes
come about). I imagine that there is also a good deal of variation in how
early Rusty Blackbirds look entirely black, with the adult males getting
there before young males.
Cheers
Alvaro
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, California
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
www.fieldguides.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Contreras
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 12:20 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
I wonder if there is a regional difference in Brewers' molt cycle? The ones
in W. Oregon are mostly in nice glossy plumage by early December. I just
looked at a huge blackbird flock yesterday and they were all quite
blue-purple. Rich Hoyer had seen a few fuzzy ones in the same flock on a
CBC a couple of days earlier, but most were fresh.
We look carefully at anything fuzzy, hoping for a Rusty (very rare here) and
the fact that our Brewer's have changed by early winter makes the sorting
fairly easy. It is the dullest redwings that are the midwinter issue in our
flocks.
The Brewers that live in Eugene year-round (at least, there are birds
present here year-round, origin by season uncertain) are mostly nice now,
only a few have slight edgings. These are common town birds in winter that
we have to dodge on sidewalks, so I see them quite well every day.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
> From: Kevin Karlson <karlson3(AT)COMCAST.NET>
> Reply-To: Kevin Karlson <karlson3(AT)COMCAST.NET>
> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:10:32 -0500
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Rusty/Brewer's Blackbirds
>
> Jim and All:
> I saw a flock of about 40 Rusty Blackbirds near Cape May NJ on Dec 10
> this year, and was surprised to see several of the adult males in what
> you would call full breeding plumage, with no trace of rusty feather
> edges anywhere on the body or head. Most adult males still had various
> amounts of rusty edges sprinkled throughout their plumage. Rusty
> Blackbirds do not show a contrasting glossy head, but may actually show
> a bit of purplish gloss to their upperparts and tail in good light. The
> dates that Sibley gives are averages for breeding and non-breeding
> plumage, with a good number of individuals showing breeding or
> nonbreeding plumage up to three months outside these averages on either
> end. Kevin Karlson.
>
> Jim Hengeveld wrote:
>
>> This past Wednesday (December 20), the CBC team I was with covering a
>> portion of the Goose Pond (Indiana) CBC circle observed an adult male
>> Euphagus sp. The bird was all glossy-black with a noticeably
>> different-colored, iridescent bluish head. That sense of a bluish
>> head seemed to remain constant regardless of the viewing angle. It
>> was overcast, with lighting subdued. The blackbird was in the top of
>> a tree that we were standing right next to so we saw the bird
>> reasonably well, though only briefly. We did not get a sense for tail
>> length or bill shape, both of which differ subtly between Rusty and
>> Brewer's Blackbirds (Rusty with shorter tail and thinner bill base).
>>
>> Again, we saw no rusty/brownish edgings on body feathers of the bird.
>> Other Rusty Blackbirds that we and a couple of other groups saw during
>> the day showed distinct rusty edges to the head and body feathers.
>> Both Rusty & Brewer's Blackbirds, like most other icterids, molt only
>> once a year (the pre-basic, which takes place on the breeding grounds)
>> and attain "breeding" plumage through the wearing off of the
>> rusty/brownish feather edgings (though, according to Pyle, a small %
>> of BRBL-2Y males?-might undergo a limited PA molt).
>>
>> Sibley lists the adult male breeding plumage for both BRBL & RUBL as
>> Jan-Aug. According to Pyle, AHY male RUBLs have "a moderate amount of
>> rusty edging" to the body plumage from Aug-Mar, and little or none
>> from Mar-Jul. For AHY male BRBLs the body plumage has "light to
>> moderate, brownish tipping" from Aug-Mar.
>> So, the questions are:
>>
>> How common is it for RUBL or BRBL to have worn off all of their pale
>> feather edgings by mid- to late-December?
>>
>> Is RUBL or BRBL more likely to show a contrasting bluish iridescent
>> head?
>>
>> I can't recall seeing male BRBLs with an iridescent bluish (rather
>> than violet) head despite the specific epithet of "cyanocephalus,"
>> though I can't say that I've actually studied it closely.
>>
>> Thanks for any insight you can provide.
>>
>> ...........Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> James Hengeveld
>>
>> Biology Dept. Jordan Hall A112
>>
>> Indiana University 812: 855-5353
>>
>> Bloomington, IN 47405 jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu
>> <mailto:jhengeve(AT)indiana.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
>> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>>
>> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>>
>
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee id
From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 24 Dec 2006 6:59pm
Hello, birders. Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, I guess I'll
give it a go.
>Hi Nick,
>Was wondering if you might like to look at some images of a Pewee from May
>28, 2006 on Saint Paul Island. Do you have any thoughs as to the identity
>of this individual?
>Feel free to forward these on to anyone who you think might be interested,
>just ask them to send comments to me.
A few preliminary points of context:
1. About a year and a half ago, I summarized for F-ID my speculations about
and observations of vagrant wood-pewees; see
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506A&L=BIRDWG01&P=R1283&I=-3.
2. Since that time, I have continued to look at and wonder about vagrant
wood-pewees. I have been lucky enough in the past year-and-a-half to observe
one unambiguous Eastern Wood-Pewee here in Colorado, two "pretty good"
candidates, four or five "maybes", a dozen or so probable Westerns showing
some Eastern-like characters, and of course many hundreds of basically
"normal" Westerns.
3. I'm pretty sure I saw photos of this selfsame St. Paul Island bird, at
least a month ago. They came to me via Britain, without any indication of
the bird's location--so as to keep me guessing, eh?
So what is this bird?
Well, my first impression, on seeing the photos earlier in the year, was
that this bird is a Western Wood-Pewee. That is, I looked quickly at the
photos, closed my eyes, and thought, "Hm... Western?" Not the sort of
analysis that would pass muster with most bird records committees, I
realize. Then again, I believe that first impressions--at least in the case
of species and species complexes with which we have extensive field
experience--*are* important. Too often, in my opinion, when we are
confronted with an odd gull or tubenose (or wood-pewee), we go straight to
P9 or culminicorn exfoliation or something. That's great, but better to do
so *after* we've taken a deep breath, after we've taken a good look at the
whole bird. Better, that is, to propose a hypothesis and then examine the
evidence for the hypothesis, rather than to analyze the evidence and then
propose a hypothesis.
Back to that first impression. The bird is decidely grayish and devoid of
greenish hints. Now, that sort of assessment is subjective in the field, of
course, and even more so from photographs. But as I noted in my earlier
posting, and as I have noticed repeatedly since then, Easterns really do
seem to be more greenish than Westerns. And I'm just not seeing it on this
bird. Also good for Western: This bird's breast shows an extensive grayish
wash, with no greenish or greenish-yellow highlights, and with little if any
"cleavage", i.e., a vertical line (thin or thick, discrete or diffuse)
separating the two halves of the breast. Good for Western, *but*: I have
seen multiple presumed or definite Westerns that do, in fact, show cleavage
(sometimes strongly so) and greenish or greenish-yellow on the breast
(usually weakly so). Third point in favor of Western: The bird is
prominently crested; I've noticed that Westerns average more crested than
Easterns, although with much "noise" and overlap in this character--so much
so that I consider the distinction to be of limited use for separating the
two species.
And now for some problems with the hypothesis that this bird is a Western
Wood-Pewee. Most obvious to many observers, I suspect, is the color of the
lower mandible (or just plain ole mandible, if Tony Leukering is out there):
It looks to be pretty solidly orangish. The death knell for Western?--I
don't think so, as I've been noticing multiple presumed or definite Westerns
with extensively or wholly orangish lower mandibles. That is to say, I've
come to view lower mandible color as rather less reliable than it is
classically portrayed to be. Also good for Eastern: The wing-bars are broad,
they are largely white, and they show generally good contrast. Another death
knell for Western?--not necessarily, because of the problem of feather wear.
By late May (when this bird was photographed), wing-bar width, color, and
contrast may be rendered relatively less reliable because of a fair amount
of feather wear; and regardless of how old the bird's feathers are, they've
surely taken a beating, as they've made it all the way from South America to
western Alaska. Yet another point against Western: This bird does not show
any indication of the splotchiness on the vent and undertail coverts that I
often see on Westerns (but that I rarely see on Easterns, too); call it a
minor strike against Western.
Something surely worth considering is the relative probabilities of the two
wood-pewee species' reaching St. Paul Island. Westerns routinely breed well
into Alaska, whereas Easterns start to drop out as breeders around the 100th
parallel. In other words, large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much*
closer to western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees.
But that may not be as significant a point as it might seem at first glance.
Eastern Wood-Pewees do, indeed, vagrate throughout the West, whereas
Westerns are almost unheard of as vagrants well to the East; is Eastern, in
general, more prone to vagrancy than Western? I am reminded of the status of
Summer Tanager in California: I have read (in Garrett & Dunn's southern
California book, I believe; that volume has permanently wandered from my
bookshelf, alas, so I can't check) that late-season Summer Tanagers at the
desert oases are actually more likely to be eastern -rubra- than western
-cooperi-. Thus, proximity of the nearest breeders is not necessarily a good
proxy for vagrant probability. Still, I am tempted to say that Western
Wood-Pewee is the more probable vagrant to St. Paul Island, but with the
significant caveat noted above.
Back to the question at hand: What is this bird? I don't know, but I guess
I'd lean toward Western. Yes, there are several good points in favor of
Eastern, but each one is equivocal to some degree or another. Conversely,
the several good points in favor of Western seem a little more solid. Bottom
line: If I were on a bird records committee with responsibility for records
from St. Paul Island, I'd call this one an unidentified wood-pewee. Another
bottom line: If I were a juror, I'd say that a preponderance of evidence
favors Western, but that Eastern cannot be ruled out beyond a reasonable
doubt. And if records committees behaved more like juries--oh, never mind...
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd(AT)aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
>Thanks,
>and Merry Xmas!
>
>Gavin Bieber
>Kingbird77 AT hotmail.com
>Tucson, AZ
>www.wingsbirds.com
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Solitary Vireo ID
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Jim_Pike?= <jpike44(AT)EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: 25 Dec 2006 11:29am
Hi,
My vote is squarely in the Blue-headed camp. The high contrast white trim
on the outer rectrices (visible from both above and below) is an
especially good mark.
Jim Pike
Huntington Beach, CA
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee ID
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)TELUS.NET>
Date: 27 Dec 2006 2:44am
Ted,
I agree totally with two of the points you raise:
(1) Reliably distinguishing Eastern from Western Wood-Pewees in
the field based on plumage alone (i.e., without hearing
vocalizations) is very difficult;
(2) The normal distribution of the two species, and the relative
likelihood of each one reaching St. Paul Island, is a significant
factor in trying to identify the bird in question.
I do not disagree with your analysis of the visual field marks,
in which you definitely seem to lean toward Western Wood-Pewee.
However, I believe that your discussion of distributional patterns
is seriously flawed, and that you have greatly overestimated the
likelihood of an Eastern Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea.
I will preface my remarks by noting that flycatchers in general are
noted for long-distance vagrancy, and that almost nothing is
impossible when it comes to out-of-range birds. However, both
wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than most
flycatchers, and the Eastern Wood-Pewee, so far as I can determine,
has never been previously documented in the vast area north of
the Lower 48 and west of southern Saskatchewan.
You state:
"Eastern Wood-Pewees do, indeed, vagrate throughout the West,
whereas Westerns are almost unheard of as vagrants well to the
East; is Eastern, in general, more prone to vagrancy than Western?"
"The West", I'm afraid, means more than California and/or Colorado.
Here's what I have able to find out about accepted records of
Eastern Wood-Pewee in the Pacific Coast States, western
Canada, and Alaska:
California-- only 9 accepted records through 2003
Oregon-- one record only (Malheur NWR, May 1994)
Washington-- no records
British Columbia-- no records
Alberta-- no records
Northwest Territories-- no records
Yukon-- no records
Alaska-- no records
If I've overlooked a record somewhere, someone please correct me,
but I did check the latest online checklists, books, and Records
Committee Reports for all of the above except NWT.
You are quite correct that Western Wood-Pewees are almost
unheard of as vagrants well to the east (shall we say, east of the
Mississippi?). I was lucky enough, with 3 other observers, to find one
of the few Western Wood-Pewees ever recorded east of the
Mississippi-- at Bellefontaine Beach on the Mississippi Coast, nearly
30 years ago. That bird, fortunately, vocalized repeatedly, which made the
I.D. easy. (If anyone is interested, this occurrence was documented by
a short article in the MISSISSIPPI KITE.) There was one previous record
for Mississippi, which I believe was a bird collected by Alan Feduccia.
Western Wood-Pewees do, as you noted, breed well into southeastern
and south-central Alaska (and the southern Yukon). I'm not
sure how many out-of-range records there may be in northern and western
Alaska, but the A.O.U. Check-list does mention records at Point Barrow
and Umiat on the Arctic Slope.
St. Paul is about 600-700 miles from the nearest point in the normal
breeding range of Western Wood-Pewee, versus at least 2600
miles from the nearest breeding range for the Eastern.
Based on geographic considerations alone, I would say that the
likelihood of a wood-pewee on St. Paul being a Western would
be at least 95%.
Whether or not you agree with my judgment in this case,
a legitimate question is-- how certain do we have to be? If it
were a first or even second state record, I would probably want to be
99% sure that the identification is correct. However, this is a record
that will likely never be judged by a records committee, because it
is a species that is already widespread and of regular occurrence
in Alaska.
I'm not sure how the Alaska state records committee (assuming there
is one) operates, but a good argument could be raised for evaluating
vagrant records differently in different parts of this huge and far-flung
state. (The Ontario records committee, for instance, evaluates records
separately for northern and southern Ontario, which makes sense to me
for this province of more than 400,000 square miles.) However,
unless such a system were in place, I would be on the verge of
calling this bird a Western Wood-Pewee and being done with it--
admitting that there's a slight chance I might be wrong.
It's too bad that this bird apparently was not heard vocalizing.
This would have settled the problem right off the bat, and
made all of this theorizing and second-guessing unnecessary!
All the best,
Wayne C. Weber, Ph.D.
51-6712 Baker Road
Delta, BC V4E 2V3
Canada
contopus(AT)telus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Floyd" <tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee id
Hello, birders. Since nobody else has chimed in on this one,
I guess I'll give it a go.
>Hi Nick,
>Was wondering if you might like to look at some images of a
Pewee from May 28, 2006 on Saint Paul Island. Do you have
any thoughts as to the identity of this individual?
>Feel free to forward these on to anyone who you think might be interested,
>just ask them to send comments to me.
A few preliminary points of context:
1. About a year and a half ago, I summarized for F-ID my speculations
about and observations of vagrant wood-pewees; see
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506A&L=BIRDWG01&P=R1283&I=-3.
2. Since that time, I have continued to look at and wonder about vagrant
wood-pewees. I have been lucky enough in the past year-and-a-half
to observe one unambiguous Eastern Wood-Pewee here in Colorado,
two "pretty good" candidates, four or five "maybes", a dozen or so
probable Westerns showing some Eastern-like characters, and of
course many hundreds of basically "normal" Westerns.
3. I'm pretty sure I saw photos of this selfsame St. Paul Island bird, at
least a month ago. They came to me via Britain, without any indication
of the bird's location--so as to keep me guessing, eh?
So what is this bird?
Well, my first impression, on seeing the photos earlier in the year, was
that this bird is a Western Wood-Pewee. That is, I looked quickly at the
photos, closed my eyes, and thought, "Hm... Western?" Not the sort of
analysis that would pass muster with most bird records committees, I
realize. Then again, I believe that first impressions--at least in the case
of species and species complexes with which we have extensive field
experience--*are* important. Too often, in my opinion, when we are
confronted with an odd gull or tubenose (or wood-pewee), we go straight to
P9 or culminicorn exfoliation or something. That's great, but better to do
so *after* we've taken a deep breath, after we've taken a good look at the
whole bird. Better, that is, to propose a hypothesis and then examine the
evidence for the hypothesis, rather than to analyze the evidence and then
propose a hypothesis.
Back to that first impression. The bird is decidely grayish and devoid of
greenish hints. Now, that sort of assessment is subjective in the field, of
course, and even more so from photographs. But as I noted in my earlier
posting, and as I have noticed repeatedly since then, Easterns really do
seem to be more greenish than Westerns. And I'm just not seeing it on this
bird. Also good for Western: This bird's breast shows an extensive grayish
wash, with no greenish or greenish-yellow highlights, and with little if any
"cleavage", i.e., a vertical line (thin or thick, discrete or diffuse)
separating the two halves of the breast. Good for Western, *but*: I have
seen multiple presumed or definite Westerns that do, in fact, show cleavage
(sometimes strongly so) and greenish or greenish-yellow on the breast
(usually weakly so). Third point in favor of Western: The bird is
prominently crested; I've noticed that Westerns average more crested than
Easterns, although with much "noise" and overlap in this character--so much
so that I consider the distinction to be of limited use for separating the
two species.
And now for some problems with the hypothesis that this bird is a Western
Wood-Pewee. Most obvious to many observers, I suspect, is the color of the
lower mandible (or just plain ole mandible, if Tony Leukering is out there):
It looks to be pretty solidly orangish. The death knell for Western?--I
don't think so, as I've been noticing multiple presumed or definite Westerns
with extensively or wholly orangish lower mandibles. That is to say, I've
come to view lower mandible color as rather less reliable than it is
classically portrayed to be. Also good for Eastern: The wing-bars are broad,
they are largely white, and they show generally good contrast. Another death
knell for Western?--not necessarily, because of the problem of feather wear.
By late May (when this bird was photographed), wing-bar width, color, and
contrast may be rendered relatively less reliable because of a fair amount
of feather wear; and regardless of how old the bird's feathers are, they've
surely taken a beating, as they've made it all the way from South America to
western Alaska. Yet another point against Western: This bird does not show
any indication of the splotchiness on the vent and undertail coverts that I
often see on Westerns (but that I rarely see on Easterns, too); call it a
minor strike against Western.
Something surely worth considering is the relative probabilities of the two
wood-pewee species' reaching St. Paul Island. Westerns routinely breed well
into Alaska, whereas Easterns start to drop out as breeders around the 100th
parallel. In other words, large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much*
closer to western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees.
But that may not be as significant a point as it might seem at first glance.
Eastern Wood-Pewees do, indeed, vagrate throughout the West, whereas
Westerns are almost unheard of as vagrants well to the East; is Eastern, in
general, more prone to vagrancy than Western? I am reminded of the status of
Summer Tanager in California: I have read (in Garrett & Dunn's southern
California book, I believe; that volume has permanently wandered from my
bookshelf, alas, so I can't check) that late-season Summer Tanagers at the
desert oases are actually more likely to be eastern -rubra- than western
-cooperi-. Thus, proximity of the nearest breeders is not necessarily a good
proxy for vagrant probability. Still, I am tempted to say that Western
Wood-Pewee is the more probable vagrant to St. Paul Island, but with the
significant caveat noted above.
Back to the question at hand: What is this bird? I don't know, but I guess
I'd lean toward Western. Yes, there are several good points in favor of
Eastern, but each one is equivocal to some degree or another. Conversely,
the several good points in favor of Western seem a little more solid. Bottom
line: If I were on a bird records committee with responsibility for records
from St. Paul Island, I'd call this one an unidentified wood-pewee. Another
bottom line: If I were a juror, I'd say that a preponderance of evidence
favors Western, but that Eastern cannot be ruled out beyond a reasonable
doubt. And if records committees behaved more like juries--oh, never mind...
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd(AT)aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: possible Utah Western Gull
From: Tim Avery <tanager(AT)TIMAVERYBIRDING.COM>
Date: 27 Dec 2006 5:27pm
This gull was photographed this afternoon in northern Utah. We would
appreciate
any comments regarding the birds ID:
http://timaverybirding.com/wegu/wegu.html
Cheers,
Tim
Indianapolis, IN and Salt Lake City, UT
tanager(AT)timaverybirding.com
http://www.timaverybirding.com
http://www.birdtography.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee ID
From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 2006 7:11am
Hello, birders.
Many thanks to Wayne Weber for his stimulating remarks about vagrancy
vis-a-vis the St. Paul Island wood-pewee. Although I disagree with various
of Wayne's specific points (see below), I am completely on board with
Wayne's most general point, namely, that probability of occurrence is a
critical parameter in the evaluation of records of problematic vagrants. I
would further state that making sense of probability of occurrence requires
a fair bit of statistical sophistication. Indeed, I said so, about
two-and-a-half years ago, here on F-ID:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
But I suspect nearly nobody read my posting--perhaps because it was a
smidgeon mathematical, the kiss of death, no doubt. Well, I got only one
response; then again, that single respondent told me that my posting changed
his life!
Anyhow:
>However, I believe that your discussion of distributional patterns is
>seriously flawed, and that you have greatly overestimated the likelihood of
>an Eastern Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea.
Huh?
First, I noted that "large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much* closer
to western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees." Then,
I posed a cautionary question (just a question, not an assertion): "[But] is
Eastern, in general, more prone to vagrancy than Western?" Next, I cited as
an example the potentially relevant case of Summer Tanager ("late-season
Summer Tanagers at the desert oases [in California] are actually more likely
to be eastern -rubra- than western -cooperi-"). But then I concluded with
the following: "Still, I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the
more probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..."
I am absolutely certain that I did not estimate the likelihood of an Eastern
Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea region.
>I will preface my remarks by noting that flycatchers in
>general are noted for long-distance vagrancy, and that almost nothing is
>impossible when it comes to out-of-range
>birds. However, both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
>most flycatchers,
There's a somewhat subtle problem here of detectability. Both of the
wood-pewees have pretty much completely vacated North America by mid-autumn.
Conversely, other largely long-distance migrant flycatcher genera, e.g.,
Tyrannus, Myiarchus, Empidonax, etc., *do* show a well-documented pattern of
late-season vagrancy throughout the continent. What I'm getting at is the
following: Vagrants in those other genera have a reasonably good shot at
detection, because of the fact that they vagrate at a time of year during
which pretty much *any* long-distance migrant flycatcher is notable in much
of North America. So if you find a Tyrannus in Oregon in October, or a
Myiarchus in New York in November, or an Empidonax in Indiana in December,
it is a great find, period. You pay attention. And even if it is "just" a
late Western Kingbird in Oregon, or "just" a late Great Crested Flycatcher
in New York, or "just" a late Yellow-bellied Flycatcher in Michigan, well,
it is still a very good record--all things considered, perhaps a "better"
record than, say, Tropical Kingbird (Oregon), Ash-throated Flycatcher (New
York), or Hammond's Flycatcher (Michigan).
But how many of us take a second look at the genera Myiarchus, Tyrannus, and
Empidonax *at those times of year at which they are expected*? In other
words, how many vagrants represented by those genera go undetected during
ordinary/expected periods of occurrence for the genera? For sure, I agree
with Wayne that "both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
most flycatchers", but I would add the following significant qualifier:
"from mid-autumn into early spring". The date of this St. Paul Island
wood-pewee was 28 May, a date on which I hypothesize that wood-pewees might
be as likely to vagrate as any other sort of flycatcher.
Sorry; I think the preceding two paragraphs were a bit muddy. So I'll boil
it down to the following bottom line: From mid-spring to early autumn,
wood-pewees may be just as prone to vagrancy as other flycatchers.
>and the Eastern Wood-Pewee, so far as I can determine,
>has never been previously documented in the vast area north of the Lower 48
>and west of southern Saskatchewan.
Vast, yes; but massively under-birded. More on that in a moment.
>"The West", I'm afraid, means more than California and/or Colorado.
Let's not dismiss California and Colorado quite yet; again, more in a
moment.
>Here's what I have able to find out about accepted records of Eastern
>Wood-Pewee in the Pacific Coast States, western
>Canada, and Alaska:
>
>California-- only 9 accepted records through 2003
(Actually, 10 accepted records for California through 2003; See Western
Birds, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 98 & 106.)
>Oregon-- one record only (Malheur NWR, May 1994)
>Washington-- no records
>British Columbia-- no records
>Alberta-- no records
>Northwest Territories-- no records
>Yukon-- no records
>Alaska-- no records
And Colorado, by the way: 17 accepted records through 2004, with at least 6
more, pending review, in 2005 & 2006.
I posit that California and Colorado *are* suitable bellwethers for
ascertaining the status of vagrant Eastern Wood-Pewees in the West. Bear
with me here for just a sec. First, let's compare California and New York,
two coastal states with extensive and sophisticated birding communities;
California has 10 records of Eastern Wood-Pewee; New York has 0 records
through 2006 of Western Wood-Pewee. Next, let's compare Colorado and
Missouri, two fly-over states with solid birding communities and that are a
good 100+ miles away from the nearest breeding by the "other" wood-pewee;
Colorado has 17 Eastern Wood-Pewees; Missouri has 0 records through 2005 of
Western Wood-Pewee. Maybe that's not a fair comparison, though?--because
Missouri is somewhat farther from Western Wood-Pewees than Colorado is from
Eastern? Well, then how about Minnesota?--which gets at least as close to
breeding Western Wood-Pewees as Colorado does to breeding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Same result: 0 Minnesota records of Western Wood-Pewee through
2005. (For the record, several of Colorado's Eastern Wood-Pewees have been
west-slope birds, and quite a number have been from the Front Range region,
so it's not just strays barely penetrating the eastern-tier counties along
the Kansas border.)
I am not yet ready to reject the hypothesis that Eastern Wood-Pewee is more
prone to westward vagrancy than Western Wood-Pewee is to eastward vagrancy.
In well-birded states and provinces west of the range of Eastern Wood-Pewee
(California, Colorado, etc.), birders are, in fact, finding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Conversely, in well-birded states and provinces east of the
range of Western Wood-Pewee (New York, Missouri, Minnesota, etc.), birders
are not, in general, finding Western Wood-Pewees. It is a little misleading
to cite data from Yukon and the Northwest Territories; that would rather be
like citing the number of Western Wood-Pewee records from Labrador and
Greenland. That is to say, there are basically no data up there.
And, now, for a quick reality-check: As I said in my earlier posting, my
guess is that the St. Paul Island wood-pewee is, in fact, a Western, based
on both plumage and probability of occurrence. In other words, the present
proceedings, while amusing (to me, anyhow), may not really have a tremendous
amount of bearing on the ID of the St. Paul Island wood-pewee.
And one other dose of reality, if I may: Remember, I stated above that I
completely endorse Wayne's view that probability of occurrence is an
essential parameter in evaluating records of vagrants. Wouldn't want anybody
to think I'm quibbling with him, or anything...
Meanwhile...
>Based on geographic considerations alone, I would say that the likelihood
>of a wood-pewee on St. Paul being a Western would be at least 95%.
I can't begin to fathom how one might propose such a probability. I,
personally, was plenty uncomfortable writing, as I did, something wafflingly
qualitative like "I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the more
probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..." But "at least 95%"? Why, you'd need
N=20, just to get started. Okay, okay; I'm being pedantic about Wayne's 95%.
Still, I maintain that it is misleading to say stuff like--and I hear this
all the time--"I am 99% percent sure I saw a jaeger of some sort" or "I am
about 90% sure it was not a Pink-footed". That sort of language annoys me,
because it implies a quantitative assessment that almost assuredly was not
performed. "90%" or "99%" (and I even hear stuff like "92%"!) actually means
something, like "P8 emarginate" or "culmen 13.8 mm".
But let's say we *do* have good empirical support for such a statement--as
in California, where you can actually get away with saying something like
"Yellow-throated Warbler is ~2.4 times more likely than Grace's Warbler to
be detected as a vagrant in the state." In a sense, that's just the
beginning of your troubles. When you're dealing with two different
"outcomes", as the statisticians say, that have two different probabilities
of occurrence, all sorts of strange and counter-intuitive things start to
happen. Again: For all the disturbing, mind-altering, and life-changing
details, check out:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
>Whether or not you agree with my judgment in this case, a legitimate
>question is-- how certain do we have to be? If it were a first or even
>second state record, I would probably want to be 99% sure that the
>identification is correct.
Argh! That conviction, which, in Wayne's defense, is widely held by BRC
members, drives me nutty. The following is elementary, but it has
nonetheless apparently eluded most BRCs: If you set your Type I error rate
(i.e., your tolerance for false positives) too low, then your Type II error
rate (i.e., false negatives) becomes too high. That is to say, you start
making errors. *It is just as much an error* to reject a valid record as it
is to accept an erroneous record. And it amazes me that BRCs, in general, do
not grasp that fundamental truth. In this day and age of increasing reliance
on "citizen-science" datasets by managers and policymakers, false negatives
are, if anything, *worse* than false positives. A conservation biologist or
climate modeler needs to know *where the birds are*; that need is arguably
more important than knowing *where the birds are not*. In any event,
scientists and decision makers need accurate data. Yet I have had BRC
members confide to me that their personal standard is 99.99% certainty. That
"certainty" translates into an overall accuracy rate of somewhere in the
neighborhood of 0.0001. (Statistical aside: The expected accuracy rate would
depend on the sampling distribution, but it is safe to say that it would be
somewhere in the general vicinity of 0.0001.) Any way you slice it, a
standard of 99.99% certainty (i.e., beta=0.0001) is going to generate a
result that is, for many purposes, useless to the scientific and management
communities.
But I digress...
>However, this is a record that will likely never be judged by a records
>committee, because it is a species
>that is already widespread and of regular occurrence
>in Alaska.
Yes, that is the approach of the California Bird Records Committee, last
time I checked; but increasingly, other states (and provinces?) are applying
a region-by-region approach to the review process. Some examples that come
to mind include Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. A west-slope Eastern
Screech-Owl would get reviewed in Colorado, a Crawford County Great
Cormorant would get reviewed in Pennsylvania, and a Mojave Desert
White-headed Woodpecker would get reviewed in Nevada.
>I'm not sure how the Alaska state records committee (assuming there is one)
>operates, but a good argument
>could be raised for evaluating vagrant records differently
>in different parts of this huge and far-flung state.
Right on. (California, are you listening?)
>[...] I would be on the verge of calling this bird a Western Wood-Pewee and
>being done with it--admitting that there's a slight chance I might be
>wrong.
And that's a pity, if you ask me. A wood-pewee on St. Paul Island is
notable, regardless. If some sort of official designation is desired (but
why?), then call it "wood-pewee, sp." Next, go into some detail: "Western
more likely for reasons X, Y, and Z." Finally, and most important: Archive
the record, and make it available for public inspection and discussion.
Which reminds me. Right now, at the end of the year, is as good a time as
any for me to say the following: Many thanks to Will Russell for running the
F-ID list, and to all of the many participants for contributing to the
process of archiving records and making them available for public inspection
and discussion. I've learned a great deal here.
One last thing:
>It's too bad that this bird apparently was not heard vocalizing. This would
>have settled the problem right off the bat, and made all of this theorizing
>and second-
>guessing unnecessary!
Just to open up one other can of worms: In my observations of wood-pewees
(including confirmed or suspected vagrants) these past few years, I've
noticed an awful lot of, well, suspicious vocalizing by both species. Yes,
the "classic" songs of the two wood-pewees are surely good for interspecific
separation. But I hear a lot of other sounds that get me wondering. But I've
said enough about wood-pewees for a while, I suspect.
Thanks, if you've made it this far.
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd AT aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee ID
From: sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 28 Dec 2006 9:10am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
Sorry that I've not been fully attendant to this discussion. A couple points on
vagrancy.
Ted is dead on. We have NO IDEA what the real vagrancy patterns of either pewee
species is. They are to tough to sort out in the field, especially outside of
spring/summer, and the vast majority of vagrant pewees likely pass un-identified
or misidentified. So, while it is interesting to note vagrant records that have
been detected, how much bearing they have on the St Paul bird is very limited.
Furthermore, I don't know if the St Paul bird was seen in spring or fall, but I
suspect that 180 degree misorientation or even spring overshoot trajectories
could easily bring E Wood Pewee to St Paul. When a bird is that far off course,
I am not sure that the closer range of WWPE vs EWPE make much difference. Ted's
example of Summer Tanagers in CA desert oases is an excellent example of how
using "closest" range might be misleading in discerning what is most likely to
occur in vagrancy.
So, I'd throw "probability" based on anything but field marks out the window.
And as for field marks..... I don't know that there is anything we've discerned
that is truly diagnostic.
Best Wishes
Steven Mlodinow
-----Original Message-----
From: tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Hello, birders.
Many thanks to Wayne Weber for his stimulating remarks about vagrancy vis-a-vis
the St. Paul Island wood-pewee. Although I disagree with various of Wayne's
specific points (see below), I am completely on board with Wayne's most general
point, namely, that probability of occurrence is a critical parameter in the
evaluation of records of problematic vagrants. I would further state that making
sense of probability of occurrence requires a fair bit of statistical
sophistication. Indeed, I said so, about two-and-a-half years ago, here on F-ID:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3. But I
suspect nearly nobody read my posting--perhaps because it was a smidgeon
mathematical, the kiss of death, no doubt. Well, I got only one response; then
again, that single respondent told me that my posting changed his life!
Anyhow:
>However, I believe that your discussion of distributional patterns is
>seriously flawed, and that you have greatly overestimated the likelihood of >an
Eastern Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea.
Huh?
First, I noted that "large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much* closer to
western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees." Then, I posed
a cautionary question (just a question, not an assertion): "[But] is Eastern,
in general, more prone to vagrancy than Western?" Next, I cited as an example
the potentially relevant case of Summer Tanager ("late-season Summer Tanagers at
the desert oases [in California] are actually more likely to be eastern -rubra-
than western -cooperi-"). But then I concluded with the following: "Still, I am
tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the more probable vagrant to St. Paul
Island..."
I am absolutely certain that I did not estimate the likelihood of an Eastern
Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea region.
>I will preface my remarks by noting that flycatchers in
>general are noted for long-distance vagrancy, and that almost nothing is
>impossible when it comes to out-of-range
>birds. However, both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than >most
flycatchers,
There's a somewhat subtle problem here of detectability. Both of the wood-pewees
have pretty much completely vacated North America by mid-autumn. Conversely,
other largely long-distance migrant flycatcher genera, e.g., Tyrannus,
Myiarchus, Empidonax, etc., *do* show a well-documented pattern of late-season
vagrancy throughout the continent. What I'm getting at is the following:
Vagrants in those other genera have a reasonably good shot at detection, because
of the fact that they vagrate at a time of year during which pretty much *any*
long-distance migrant flycatcher is notable in much of North America. So if you
find a Tyrannus in Oregon in October, or a Myiarchus in New York in November, or
an Empidonax in Indiana in December, it is a great find, period. You pay
attention. And even if it is "just" a late Western Kingbird in Oregon, or "just"
a late Great Crested Flycatcher in New York, or "just" a late Yellow-bellied
Flycatcher in Michigan, well, it is still a very good rec
ord--all things considered, perhaps a "better" record than, say, Tropical
Kingbird (Oregon), Ash-throated Flycatcher (New York), or Hammond's Flycatcher
(Michigan).
But how many of us take a second look at the genera Myiarchus, Tyrannus, and
Empidonax *at those times of year at which they are expected*? In other words,
how many vagrants represented by those genera go undetected during
ordinary/expected periods of occurrence for the genera? For sure, I agree with
Wayne that "both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than most
flycatchers", but I would add the following significant qualifier: "from
mid-autumn into early spring". The date of this St. Paul Island wood-pewee was
28 May, a date on which I hypothesize that wood-pewees might be as likely to
vagrate as any other sort of flycatcher.
Sorry; I think the preceding two paragraphs were a bit muddy. So I'll boil it
down to the following bottom line: From mid-spring to early autumn, wood-pewees
may be just as prone to vagrancy as other flycatchers.
>and the Eastern Wood-Pewee, so far as I can determine,
>has never been previously documented in the vast area north of the Lower 48
>and west of southern Saskatchewan.
Vast, yes; but massively under-birded. More on that in a moment.
>"The West", I'm afraid, means more than California and/or Colorado.
Let's not dismiss California and Colorado quite yet; again, more in a moment.
>Here's what I have able to find out about accepted records of Eastern
>Wood-Pewee in the Pacific Coast States, western
>Canada, and Alaska:
>
>California-- only 9 accepted records through 2003
(Actually, 10 accepted records for California through 2003; See Western Birds,
vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 98 & 106.)
>Oregon-- one record only (Malheur NWR, May 1994)
>Washington-- no records
>British Columbia-- no records
>Alberta-- no records
>Northwest Territories-- no records
>Yukon-- no records
>Alaska-- no records
And Colorado, by the way: 17 accepted records through 2004, with at least 6
more, pending review, in 2005 & 2006.
I posit that California and Colorado *are* suitable bellwethers for ascertaining
the status of vagrant Eastern Wood-Pewees in the West. Bear with me here for
just a sec. First, let's compare California and New York, two coastal states
with extensive and sophisticated birding communities; California has 10 records
of Eastern Wood-Pewee; New York has 0 records through 2006 of Western
Wood-Pewee. Next, let's compare Colorado and Missouri, two fly-over states with
solid birding communities and that are a good 100+ miles away from the nearest
breeding by the "other" wood-pewee; Colorado has 17 Eastern Wood-Pewees;
Missouri has 0 records through 2005 of Western Wood-Pewee. Maybe that's not a
fair comparison, though?--because Missouri is somewhat farther from Western
Wood-Pewees than Colorado is from Eastern? Well, then how about
Minnesota?--which gets at least as close to breeding Western Wood-Pewees as
Colorado does to breeding Eastern Wood-Pewees. Same result: 0 Minnesota records
of Western Wood-Pewee through 2005. (For the record, several of Colorado's
Eastern Wood-Pewees have been west-slope birds, and quite a number have been
from the Front Range region, so it's not just strays barely penetrating the
eastern-tier counties along the Kansas border.)
I am not yet ready to reject the hypothesis that Eastern Wood-Pewee is more
prone to westward vagrancy than Western Wood-Pewee is to eastward vagrancy. In
well-birded states and provinces west of the range of Eastern Wood-Pewee
(California, Colorado, etc.), birders are, in fact, finding Eastern Wood-Pewees.
Conversely, in well-birded states and provinces east of the range of Western
Wood-Pewee (New York, Missouri, Minnesota, etc.), birders are not, in general,
finding Western Wood-Pewees. It is a little misleading to cite data from Yukon
and the Northwest Territories; that would rather be like citing the number of
Western Wood-Pewee records from Labrador and Greenland. That is to say, there
are basically no data up there.
And, now, for a quick reality-check: As I said in my earlier posting, my guess
is that the St. Paul Island wood-pewee is, in fact, a Western, based on both
plumage and probability of occurrence. In other words, the present proceedings,
while amusing (to me, anyhow), may not really have a tremendous amount of
bearing on the ID of the St. Paul Island wood-pewee.
And one other dose of reality, if I may: Remember, I stated above that I
completely endorse Wayne's view that probability of occurrence is an essential
parameter in evaluating records of vagrants. Wouldn't want anybody to think I'm
quibbling with him, or anything...
Meanwhile...
>Based on geographic considerations alone, I would say that the likelihood >of a
wood-pewee on St. Paul being a Western would be at least 95%.
I can't begin to fathom how one might propose such a probability. I, personally,
was plenty uncomfortable writing, as I did, something wafflingly qualitative
like "I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the more probable vagrant
to St. Paul Island..." But "at least 95%"? Why, you'd need N=20, just to get
started. Okay, okay; I'm being pedantic about Wayne's 95%. Still, I maintain
that it is misleading to say stuff like--and I hear this all the time--"I am 99%
percent sure I saw a jaeger of some sort" or "I am about 90% sure it was not a
Pink-footed". That sort of language annoys me, because it implies a quantitative
assessment that almost assuredly was not performed. "90%" or "99%" (and I even
hear stuff like "92%"!) actually means something, like "P8 emarginate" or
"culmen 13.8 mm".
But let's say we *do* have good empirical support for such a statement--as in
California, where you can actually get away with saying something like
"Yellow-throated Warbler is ~2.4 times more likely than Grace's Warbler to be
detected as a vagrant in the state." In a sense, that's just the beginning of
your troubles. When you're dealing with two different "outcomes", as the
statisticians say, that have two different probabilities of occurrence, all
sorts of strange and counter-intuitive things start to happen. Again: For all
the disturbing, mind-altering, and life-changing details, check out:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
>Whether or not you agree with my judgment in this case, a legitimate >question
is-- how certain do we have to be? If it were a first or even >second state
record, I would probably want to be 99% sure that the >identification is
correct.
Argh! That conviction, which, in Wayne's defense, is widely held by BRC members,
drives me nutty. The following is elementary, but it has nonetheless apparently
eluded most BRCs: If you set your Type I error rate (i.e., your tolerance for
false positives) too low, then your Type II error rate (i.e., false negatives)
becomes too high. That is to say, you start making errors. *It is just as much
an error* to reject a valid record as it is to accept an erroneous record. And
it amazes me that BRCs, in general, do not grasp that fundamental truth. In this
day and age of increasing reliance on "citizen-science" datasets by managers
and policymakers, false negatives are, if anything, *worse* than false
positives. A conservation biologist or climate modeler needs to know *where the
birds are*; that need is arguably more important than knowing *where the birds
are not*. In any event, scientists and decision makers need accurate data. Yet I
have had BRC members confide to me that their
personal standard is 99.99% certainty. That "certainty" translates into an
overall accuracy rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.0001. (Statistical
aside: The expected accuracy rate would depend on the sampling distribution, but
it is safe to say that it would be somewhere in the general vicinity of
0.0001.) Any way you slice it, a standard of 99.99% certainty (i.e.,
beta=0.0001) is going to generate a result that is, for many purposes, useless
to the scientific and management communities.
But I digress...
>However, this is a record that will likely never be judged by a records
>committee, because it is a species
>that is already widespread and of regular occurrence
>in Alaska.
Yes, that is the approach of the California Bird Records Committee, last time I
checked; but increasingly, other states (and provinces?) are applying a
region-by-region approach to the review process. Some examples that come to mind
include Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. A west-slope Eastern Screech-Owl
would get reviewed in Colorado, a Crawford County Great Cormorant would get
reviewed in Pennsylvania, and a Mojave Desert White-headed Woodpecker would get
reviewed in Nevada.
>I'm not sure how the Alaska state records committee (assuming there is one)
>operates, but a good argument
>could be raised for evaluating vagrant records differently
>in different parts of this huge and far-flung state.
Right on. (California, are you listening?)
>[...] I would be on the verge of calling this bird a Western Wood-Pewee and
>being done with it--admitting that there's a slight chance I might be >wrong.
And that's a pity, if you ask me. A wood-pewee on St. Paul Island is notable,
regardless. If some sort of official designation is desired (but why?), then
call it "wood-pewee, sp." Next, go into some detail: "Western more likely for
reasons X, Y, and Z." Finally, and most important: Archive the record, and make
it available for public inspection and discussion.
Which reminds me. Right now, at the end of the year, is as good a time as any
for me to say the following: Many thanks to Will Russell for running the F-ID
list, and to all of the many participants for contributing to the process of
archiving records and making them available for public inspection and
discussion. I've learned a great deal here.
One last thing:
>It's too bad that this bird apparently was not heard vocalizing. This would
>have settled the problem right off the bat, and made all of this theorizing
>and second-
>guessing unnecessary!
Just to open up one other can of worms: In my observations of wood-pewees
(including confirmed or suspected vagrants) these past few years, I've noticed
an awful lot of, well, suspicious vocalizing by both species. Yes, the "classic"
songs of the two wood-pewees are surely good for interspecific separation. But
I hear a lot of other sounds that get me wondering. But I've said enough about
wood-pewees for a while, I suspect.
Thanks, if you've made it this far.
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd AT aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.
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: Wood Pewee ID
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 2006 9:43am
I will offer a comment on the Ted-and-Wayne show, since I know and respect
both observers and think this thread is very helpful.
First, 99, er, many of these issues go away if the bird is collected. I
can't think of any good argument not to collect a pewee in offshore Alaska,
other than making sure that collecting is legal at the location. On St.
Paul it probably, oops, can't use that word, it may not be legal because
unless I am mistaken the island is entirely native land, which often has
prohibitions on non-native takings.
Also, although I can't disagree with Ted's point that failure to accept a
good record is as bad as accepting a bad record (partly because I wouldn't
know a standard deviation if I found one in my bathtub), his analysis is
based on the idea that a records committee exists to be an omnidirectional
truth filter. Most committees that I know of were originally established
with a narrower one-way screening function: to make sure that the baseline
bird data for the jurisdiction was not polluted with dubious sight records
that, over time, acquired an obscuring gloss of truth owing to fading of
anecdotal knowledge of the observer and the circumstances.
A screening committee is not quite the same thing as a truth committee. One
cannot, after all, vote on truth (though Congress tries it now and then - a
couple of years back they voted that a procedure was "never medically
necessary"). One CAN vote on acceptability according to a set of standards,
though the standards are often poorly set forth. Today, at least in the
northwest, the trickle of dubious sight records has become a torrent, partly
because the sheer volume of bird reports has gone up expon...well, it has
gone up a lot.
Finally, Ted's point about off-season records of birds not always being what
you expect is so very true and so little honored by sloppy observers.
Including me. About 25 years ago I found a kingbird on the central coast of
Oregon in mid-October, which was about to be my life Tropical as it perched
en scope at a distance. There are no Westerns there at any season, and there
are certainly no Westerns in w. Oregon in mid-October.
There was at least one. My proto-Tropical had the ill grace to fly close by
me, twisting and flycatching so that its white outer tail feathers and every
other Western feature were displayed to my great disgruntlement.
BUT I have now seen half a dozen Tropicals on the outer coast of Oregon in
mid- to late fall. I have NEVER seen another Western, which was in fact the
rarer bird at that time and place and the more ornithologically interesting
because it was not part of a known pattern.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
> From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 06:11:03 -0800
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
>
> Hello, birders.
>
> Many thanks to Wayne Weber for his stimulating remarks about vagrancy
> vis-a-vis the St. Paul Island wood-pewee. Although I disagree with various
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee ID
From: "Wayne C. Weber" <contopus(AT)TELUS.NET>
Date: 28 Dec 2006 9:56am
Sorry, Steve, we have a very good idea of the vagrancy patterns of
wood-pewees, based on SPECIMENS COLLECTED over many
decades. Yes, it's true that not nearly as many bird specimens
are collected these days as were collected prior to about 1960.
However, it is noteworthy that in British Columbia, for instance,
where many thousands of flycatchers have been collected, we
have specimens of such vagrant flycatchers as ACADIAN
FLYCATCHER, THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD, TROPICAL KINGBIRD,
and even GRAY KINGBIRD, but no specimen of EASTERN
WOOD-PEWEE.
Like many modern birders, you seem to overrate the value of field
identifications based on criteria that are so obscure that even
many trained observers cannot use them reliably, and underrate
the value of good old-fashioned specimens.
Yes, the difficulty of identifying Wood-Pewees makes it harder to
determine the true vagrancy patterns. However, in my opinion, your
broad-brush statement that we have "no idea" of the vagrancy patterns
is hogwash.
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus(AT)telus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Greetings All
Sorry that I've not been fully attendant to this discussion. A couple points
on vagrancy.
Ted is dead on. We have NO IDEA what the real vagrancy patterns of either
pewee species is. They are to tough to sort out in the field, especially
outside of spring/summer, and the vast majority of vagrant pewees likely
pass un-identified or misidentified. So, while it is interesting to note
vagrant records that have been detected, how much bearing they have on the
St Paul bird is very limited.
Furthermore, I don't know if the St Paul bird was seen in spring or fall,
but I suspect that 180 degree misorientation or even spring overshoot
trajectories could easily bring E Wood Pewee to St Paul. When a bird is that
far off course, I am not sure that the closer range of WWPE vs EWPE make
much difference. Ted's example of Summer Tanagers in CA desert oases is an
excellent example of how using "closest" range might be misleading in
discerning what is most likely to occur in vagrancy.
So, I'd throw "probability" based on anything but field marks out the
window. And as for field marks..... I don't know that there is anything
we've discerned that is truly diagnostic.
Best Wishes
Steven Mlodinow
-----Original Message-----
From: tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Hello, birders.
Many thanks to Wayne Weber for his stimulating remarks about vagrancy
vis-a-vis the St. Paul Island wood-pewee. Although I disagree with various
of Wayne's specific points (see below), I am completely on board with
Wayne's most general point, namely, that probability of occurrence is a
critical parameter in the evaluation of records of problematic vagrants. I
would further state that making sense of probability of occurrence requires
a fair bit of statistical sophistication. Indeed, I said so, about
two-and-a-half years ago, here on F-ID:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
But I suspect nearly nobody read my posting--perhaps because it was a
smidgeon mathematical, the kiss of death, no doubt. Well, I got only one
response; then again, that single respondent told me that my posting changed
his life!
Anyhow:
>However, I believe that your discussion of distributional patterns is
>seriously flawed, and that you have greatly overestimated the likelihood of
>an Eastern Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea.
Huh?
First, I noted that "large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much* closer
to western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees." Then,
I posed a cautionary question (just a question, not an assertion): "[But] is
Eastern, in general, more prone to vagrancy than Western?" Next, I cited as
an example the potentially relevant case of Summer Tanager ("late-season
Summer Tanagers at the desert oases [in California] are actually more likely
to be eastern -rubra- than western -cooperi-"). But then I concluded with
the following: "Still, I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the
more probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..."
I am absolutely certain that I did not estimate the likelihood of an Eastern
Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea region.
>I will preface my remarks by noting that flycatchers in
>general are noted for long-distance vagrancy, and that almost nothing is
>impossible when it comes to out-of-range
>birds. However, both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
>most flycatchers,
There's a somewhat subtle problem here of detectability. Both of the
wood-pewees have pretty much completely vacated North America by mid-autumn.
Conversely, other largely long-distance migrant flycatcher genera, e.g.,
Tyrannus, Myiarchus, Empidonax, etc., *do* show a well-documented pattern of
late-season vagrancy throughout the continent. What I'm getting at is the
following: Vagrants in those other genera have a reasonably good shot at
detection, because of the fact that they vagrate at a time of year during
which pretty much *any* long-distance migrant flycatcher is notable in much
of North America. So if you find a Tyrannus in Oregon in October, or a
Myiarchus in New York in November, or an Empidonax in Indiana in December,
it is a great find, period. You pay attention. And even if it is "just" a
late Western Kingbird in Oregon, or "just" a late Great Crested Flycatcher
in New York, or "just" a late Yellow-bellied Flycatcher in Michigan, well,
it is still a very good rec
ord--all things considered, perhaps a "better" record than, say, Tropical
Kingbird (Oregon), Ash-throated Flycatcher (New York), or Hammond's
Flycatcher (Michigan).
But how many of us take a second look at the genera Myiarchus, Tyrannus, and
Empidonax *at those times of year at which they are expected*? In other
words, how many vagrants represented by those genera go undetected during
ordinary/expected periods of occurrence for the genera? For sure, I agree
with Wayne that "both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
most flycatchers", but I would add the following significant qualifier:
"from mid-autumn into early spring". The date of this St. Paul Island
wood-pewee was 28 May, a date on which I hypothesize that wood-pewees might
be as likely to vagrate as any other sort of flycatcher.
Sorry; I think the preceding two paragraphs were a bit muddy. So I'll boil
it down to the following bottom line: From mid-spring to early autumn,
wood-pewees may be just as prone to vagrancy as other flycatchers.
>and the Eastern Wood-Pewee, so far as I can determine,
>has never been previously documented in the vast area north of the Lower 48
>and west of southern Saskatchewan.
Vast, yes; but massively under-birded. More on that in a moment.
>"The West", I'm afraid, means more than California and/or Colorado.
Let's not dismiss California and Colorado quite yet; again, more in a
moment.
>Here's what I have able to find out about accepted records of Eastern
>Wood-Pewee in the Pacific Coast States, western
>Canada, and Alaska:
>
>California-- only 9 accepted records through 2003
(Actually, 10 accepted records for California through 2003; See Western
Birds, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 98 & 106.)
>Oregon-- one record only (Malheur NWR, May 1994)
>Washington-- no records
>British Columbia-- no records
>Alberta-- no records
>Northwest Territories-- no records
>Yukon-- no records
>Alaska-- no records
And Colorado, by the way: 17 accepted records through 2004, with at least 6
more, pending review, in 2005 & 2006.
I posit that California and Colorado *are* suitable bellwethers for
ascertaining the status of vagrant Eastern Wood-Pewees in the West. Bear
with me here for just a sec. First, let's compare California and New York,
two coastal states with extensive and sophisticated birding communities;
California has 10 records of Eastern Wood-Pewee; New York has 0 records
through 2006 of Western Wood-Pewee. Next, let's compare Colorado and
Missouri, two fly-over states with solid birding communities and that are a
good 100+ miles away from the nearest breeding by the "other" wood-pewee;
Colorado has 17 Eastern Wood-Pewees; Missouri has 0 records through 2005 of
Western Wood-Pewee. Maybe that's not a fair comparison, though?--because
Missouri is somewhat farther from Western Wood-Pewees than Colorado is from
Eastern? Well, then how about Minnesota?--which gets at least as close to
breeding Western Wood-Pewees as Colorado does to breeding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Same result: 0 Minnesota records
of Western Wood-Pewee through 2005. (For the record, several of Colorado's
Eastern Wood-Pewees have been west-slope birds, and quite a number have been
from the Front Range region, so it's not just strays barely penetrating the
eastern-tier counties along the Kansas border.)
I am not yet ready to reject the hypothesis that Eastern Wood-Pewee is more
prone to westward vagrancy than Western Wood-Pewee is to eastward vagrancy.
In well-birded states and provinces west of the range of Eastern Wood-Pewee
(California, Colorado, etc.), birders are, in fact, finding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Conversely, in well-birded states and provinces east of the
range of Western Wood-Pewee (New York, Missouri, Minnesota, etc.), birders
are not, in general, finding Western Wood-Pewees. It is a little misleading
to cite data from Yukon and the Northwest Territories; that would rather be
like citing the number of Western Wood-Pewee records from Labrador and
Greenland. That is to say, there are basically no data up there.
And, now, for a quick reality-check: As I said in my earlier posting, my
guess is that the St. Paul Island wood-pewee is, in fact, a Western, based
on both plumage and probability of occurrence. In other words, the present
proceedings, while amusing (to me, anyhow), may not really have a tremendous
amount of bearing on the ID of the St. Paul Island wood-pewee.
And one other dose of reality, if I may: Remember, I stated above that I
completely endorse Wayne's view that probability of occurrence is an
essential parameter in evaluating records of vagrants. Wouldn't want anybody
to think I'm quibbling with him, or anything...
Meanwhile...
>Based on geographic considerations alone, I would say that the likelihood
>of a wood-pewee on St. Paul being a Western would be at least 95%.
I can't begin to fathom how one might propose such a probability. I,
personally, was plenty uncomfortable writing, as I did, something wafflingly
qualitative like "I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the more
probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..." But "at least 95%"? Why, you'd need
N=20, just to get started. Okay, okay; I'm being pedantic about Wayne's 95%.
Still, I maintain that it is misleading to say stuff like--and I hear this
all the time--"I am 99% percent sure I saw a jaeger of some sort" or "I am
about 90% sure it was not a Pink-footed". That sort of language annoys me,
because it implies a quantitative assessment that almost assuredly was not
performed. "90%" or "99%" (and I even hear stuff like "92%"!) actually means
something, like "P8 emarginate" or "culmen 13.8 mm".
But let's say we *do* have good empirical support for such a statement--as
in California, where you can actually get away with saying something like
"Yellow-throated Warbler is ~2.4 times more likely than Grace's Warbler to
be detected as a vagrant in the state." In a sense, that's just the
beginning of your troubles. When you're dealing with two different
"outcomes", as the statisticians say, that have two different probabilities
of occurrence, all sorts of strange and counter-intuitive things start to
happen. Again: For all the disturbing, mind-altering, and life-changing
details, check out:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
>Whether or not you agree with my judgment in this case, a legitimate
>question is-- how certain do we have to be? If it were a first or even
>second state record, I would probably want to be 99% sure that the
>identification is correct.
Argh! That conviction, which, in Wayne's defense, is widely held by BRC
members, drives me nutty. The following is elementary, but it has
nonetheless apparently eluded most BRCs: If you set your Type I error rate
(i.e., your tolerance for false positives) too low, then your Type II error
rate (i.e., false negatives) becomes too high. That is to say, you start
making errors. *It is just as much an error* to reject a valid record as it
is to accept an erroneous record. And it amazes me that BRCs, in general, do
not grasp that fundamental truth. In this day and age of increasing reliance
on "citizen-science" datasets by managers and policymakers, false negatives
are, if anything, *worse* than false positives. A conservation biologist or
climate modeler needs to know *where the birds are*; that need is arguably
more important than knowing *where the birds are not*. In any event,
scientists and decision makers need accurate data. Yet I have had BRC
members confide to me that their
personal standard is 99.99% certainty. That "certainty" translates into an
overall accuracy rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.0001.
(Statistical aside: The expected accuracy rate would depend on the sampling
distribution, but it is safe to say that it would be somewhere in the
general vicinity of 0.0001.) Any way you slice it, a standard of 99.99%
certainty (i.e., beta=0.0001) is going to generate a result that is, for
many purposes, useless to the scientific and management communities.
But I digress...
>However, this is a record that will likely never be judged by a records
>committee, because it is a species
>that is already widespread and of regular occurrence
>in Alaska.
Yes, that is the approach of the California Bird Records Committee, last
time I checked; but increasingly, other states (and provinces?) are applying
a region-by-region approach to the review process. Some examples that come
to mind include Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. A west-slope Eastern
Screech-Owl would get reviewed in Colorado, a Crawford County Great
Cormorant would get reviewed in Pennsylvania, and a Mojave Desert
White-headed Woodpecker would get reviewed in Nevada.
>I'm not sure how the Alaska state records committee (assuming there is one)
>operates, but a good argument
>could be raised for evaluating vagrant records differently
>in different parts of this huge and far-flung state.
Right on. (California, are you listening?)
>[...] I would be on the verge of calling this bird a Western Wood-Pewee and
>being done with it--admitting that there's a slight chance I might be
>wrong.
And that's a pity, if you ask me. A wood-pewee on St. Paul Island is
notable, regardless. If some sort of official designation is desired (but
why?), then call it "wood-pewee, sp." Next, go into some detail: "Western
more likely for reasons X, Y, and Z." Finally, and most important: Archive
the record, and make it available for public inspection and discussion.
Which reminds me. Right now, at the end of the year, is as good a time as
any for me to say the following: Many thanks to Will Russell for running the
F-ID list, and to all of the many participants for contributing to the
process of archiving records and making them available for public inspection
and discussion. I've learned a great deal here.
One last thing:
>It's too bad that this bird apparently was not heard vocalizing. This would
>have settled the problem right off the bat, and made all of this theorizing
>and second-
>guessing unnecessary!
Just to open up one other can of worms: In my observations of wood-pewees
(including confirmed or suspected vagrants) these past few years, I've
noticed an awful lot of, well, suspicious vocalizing by both species. Yes,
the "classic" songs of the two wood-pewees are surely good for interspecific
separation. But I hear a lot of other sounds that get me wondering. But I've
said enough about wood-pewees for a while, I suspect.
Thanks, if you've made it this far.
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd AT aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
free AOL Mail and more.
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Western Wood-Pewee - Vagrancy
From: Alan Wormington <wormington(AT)JUNO.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 2006 10:22am
Everyone,
A couple records of Western Wood-Pewee that are of interest . . .
ONTARIO -- our only record is of a male (collected) that was at North
Point (southern James Bay) on June 18-20, 1984. There is still no record
of Eastern Wood-Pewee for the Ontario portion of James Bay (and
presumably the Quebec side also), even though this would clearly be the
expected species at this location!
MINNESOTA -- someone mentioned that there was no record for Minnesota.
However, I distinctly remember that Kim Eckert once had a calling
(singing?) bird in his backyard at Duluth on Lake Superior. But I do not
know the status of that record.
Cheers,
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: Wood Pewee ID
From: sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 28 Dec 2006 10:44am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hello Wayne
I love specimen collections. Use them often. Indeed there are two birds labelled
as E Wood Pewee in UW Burke Museum that I was just made aware of that we will
check out.
To say that specimen collections provide a good picture of vagrancy patterns is,
however, delusional. I'd like to see a single example of a continental wide
vagrancy pattern well demonstrated by specimens from museums.
First of all, among the specimens you recount, how many were found in the field,
identified as vagrants, and THEN COLLECTED BECAUSE THEY WERE VAGRANTS. That
used to be the standard of the day, but directed collecting would provide a
skewed estimate of percentage of (for example) Tryrannus flycatchers that are
vagrants.
Additionally, how many specimens of North American birds are there for the last
century. One million? 500,000. A lot of birds. But the number of field
observations of individual birds probably is one billion or more for North
America as a whole in the last century. In any case, it is several orders of
magnitude larger.
So, to say that the relatively few specimens gives us a good idea of vagrancy
patterns is very much stretching it.
Additionally, for birds like WWPE and EWPE, I'd venture to say that many
collectors labelled them to species soley based on where they were collected. In
my rummaging through some of North America's finer museum collections, I've
found several examples of birds that were misidentified almost certaintly due to
"geographic assumptions."
Steven Mlodinow
-----Original Message-----
From: contopus(AT)telus.net
To: sgmlod(AT)aol.com
Cc: birdwg01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Sorry, Steve, we have a very good idea of the vagrancy patterns of
wood-pewees, based on SPECIMENS COLLECTED over many
decades. Yes, it's true that not nearly as many bird specimens
are collected these days as were collected prior to about 1960.
However, it is noteworthy that in British Columbia, for instance,
where many thousands of flycatchers have been collected, we
have specimens of such vagrant flycatchers as ACADIAN
FLYCATCHER, THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD, TROPICAL KINGBIRD,
and even GRAY KINGBIRD, but no specimen of EASTERN
WOOD-PEWEE.
Like many modern birders, you seem to overrate the value of field
identifications based on criteria that are so obscure that even
many trained observers cannot use them reliably, and underrate
the value of good old-fashioned specimens.
Yes, the difficulty of identifying Wood-Pewees makes it harder to
determine the true vagrancy patterns. However, in my opinion, your
broad-brush statement that we have "no idea" of the vagrancy patterns
is hogwash.
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus(AT)telus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Greetings All
Sorry that I've not been fully attendant to this discussion. A couple points
on vagrancy.
Ted is dead on. We have NO IDEA what the real vagrancy patterns of either
pewee species is. They are to tough to sort out in the field, especially
outside of spring/summer, and the vast majority of vagrant pewees likely
pass un-identified or misidentified. So, while it is interesting to note
vagrant records that have been detected, how much bearing they have on the
St Paul bird is very limited.
Furthermore, I don't know if the St Paul bird was seen in spring or fall,
but I suspect that 180 degree misorientation or even spring overshoot
trajectories could easily bring E Wood Pewee to St Paul. When a bird is that
far off course, I am not sure that the closer range of WWPE vs EWPE make
much difference. Ted's example of Summer Tanagers in CA desert oases is an
excellent example of how using "closest" range might be misleading in
discerning what is most likely to occur in vagrancy.
So, I'd throw "probability" based on anything but field marks out the
window. And as for field marks..... I don't know that there is anything
we've discerned that is truly diagnostic.
Best Wishes
Steven Mlodinow
-----Original Message-----
From: tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Hello, birders.
Many thanks to Wayne Weber for his stimulating remarks about vagrancy
vis-a-vis the St. Paul Island wood-pewee. Although I disagree with various
of Wayne's specific points (see below), I am completely on board with
Wayne's most general point, namely, that probability of occurrence is a
critical parameter in the evaluation of records of problematic vagrants. I
would further state that making sense of probability of occurrence requires
a fair bit of statistical sophistication. Indeed, I said so, about
two-and-a-half years ago, here on F-ID:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
But I suspect nearly nobody read my posting--perhaps because it was a
smidgeon mathematical, the kiss of death, no doubt. Well, I got only one
response; then again, that single respondent told me that my posting changed
his life!
Anyhow:
>However, I believe that your discussion of distributional patterns is
>seriously flawed, and that you have greatly overestimated the likelihood of
>an Eastern Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea.
Huh?
First, I noted that "large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much* closer
to western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees." Then,
I posed a cautionary question (just a question, not an assertion): "[But] is
Eastern, in general, more prone to vagrancy than Western?" Next, I cited as
an example the potentially relevant case of Summer Tanager ("late-season
Summer Tanagers at the desert oases [in California] are actually more likely
to be eastern -rubra- than western -cooperi-"). But then I concluded with
the following: "Still, I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the
more probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..."
I am absolutely certain that I did not estimate the likelihood of an Eastern
Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea region.
>I will preface my remarks by noting that flycatchers in
>general are noted for long-distance vagrancy, and that almost nothing is
>impossible when it comes to out-of-range
>birds. However, both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
>most flycatchers,
There's a somewhat subtle problem here of detectability. Both of the
wood-pewees have pretty much completely vacated North America by mid-autumn.
Conversely, other largely long-distance migrant flycatcher genera, e.g.,
Tyrannus, Myiarchus, Empidonax, etc., *do* show a well-documented pattern of
late-season vagrancy throughout the continent. What I'm getting at is the
following: Vagrants in those other genera have a reasonably good shot at
detection, because of the fact that they vagrate at a time of year during
which pretty much *any* long-distance migrant flycatcher is notable in much
of North America. So if you find a Tyrannus in Oregon in October, or a
Myiarchus in New York in November, or an Empidonax in Indiana in December,
it is a great find, period. You pay attention. And even if it is "just" a
late Western Kingbird in Oregon, or "just" a late Great Crested Flycatcher
in New York, or "just" a late Yellow-bellied Flycatcher in Michigan, well,
it is still a very good rec
ord--all things considered, perhaps a "better" record than, say, Tropical
Kingbird (Oregon), Ash-throated Flycatcher (New York), or Hammond's
Flycatcher (Michigan).
But how many of us take a second look at the genera Myiarchus, Tyrannus, and
Empidonax *at those times of year at which they are expected*? In other
words, how many vagrants represented by those genera go undetected during
ordinary/expected periods of occurrence for the genera? For sure, I agree
with Wayne that "both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
most flycatchers", but I would add the following significant qualifier:
"from mid-autumn into early spring". The date of this St. Paul Island
wood-pewee was 28 May, a date on which I hypothesize that wood-pewees might
be as likely to vagrate as any other sort of flycatcher.
Sorry; I think the preceding two paragraphs were a bit muddy. So I'll boil
it down to the following bottom line: From mid-spring to early autumn,
wood-pewees may be just as prone to vagrancy as other flycatchers.
>and the Eastern Wood-Pewee, so far as I can determine,
>has never been previously documented in the vast area north of the Lower 48
>and west of southern Saskatchewan.
Vast, yes; but massively under-birded. More on that in a moment.
>"The West", I'm afraid, means more than California and/or Colorado.
Let's not dismiss California and Colorado quite yet; again, more in a
moment.
>Here's what I have able to find out about accepted records of Eastern
>Wood-Pewee in the Pacific Coast States, western
>Canada, and Alaska:
>
>California-- only 9 accepted records through 2003
(Actually, 10 accepted records for California through 2003; See Western
Birds, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 98 & 106.)
>Oregon-- one record only (Malheur NWR, May 1994)
>Washington-- no records
>British Columbia-- no records
>Alberta-- no records
>Northwest Territories-- no records
>Yukon-- no records
>Alaska-- no records
And Colorado, by the way: 17 accepted records through 2004, with at least 6
more, pending review, in 2005 & 2006.
I posit that California and Colorado *are* suitable bellwethers for
ascertaining the status of vagrant Eastern Wood-Pewees in the West. Bear
with me here for just a sec. First, let's compare California and New York,
two coastal states with extensive and sophisticated birding communities;
California has 10 records of Eastern Wood-Pewee; New York has 0 records
through 2006 of Western Wood-Pewee. Next, let's compare Colorado and
Missouri, two fly-over states with solid birding communities and that are a
good 100+ miles away from the nearest breeding by the "other" wood-pewee;
Colorado has 17 Eastern Wood-Pewees; Missouri has 0 records through 2005 of
Western Wood-Pewee. Maybe that's not a fair comparison, though?--because
Missouri is somewhat farther from Western Wood-Pewees than Colorado is from
Eastern? Well, then how about Minnesota?--which gets at least as close to
breeding Western Wood-Pewees as Colorado does to breeding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Same result: 0 Minnesota records
of Western Wood-Pewee through 2005. (For the record, several of Colorado's
Eastern Wood-Pewees have been west-slope birds, and quite a number have been
from the Front Range region, so it's not just strays barely penetrating the
eastern-tier counties along the Kansas border.)
I am not yet ready to reject the hypothesis that Eastern Wood-Pewee is more
prone to westward vagrancy than Western Wood-Pewee is to eastward vagrancy.
In well-birded states and provinces west of the range of Eastern Wood-Pewee
(California, Colorado, etc.), birders are, in fact, finding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Conversely, in well-birded states and provinces east of the
range of Western Wood-Pewee (New York, Missouri, Minnesota, etc.), birders
are not, in general, finding Western Wood-Pewees. It is a little misleading
to cite data from Yukon and the Northwest Territories; that would rather be
like citing the number of Western Wood-Pewee records from Labrador and
Greenland. That is to say, there are basically no data up there.
And, now, for a quick reality-check: As I said in my earlier posting, my
guess is that the St. Paul Island wood-pewee is, in fact, a Western, based
on both plumage and probability of occurrence. In other words, the present
proceedings, while amusing (to me, anyhow), may not really have a tremendous
amount of bearing on the ID of the St. Paul Island wood-pewee.
And one other dose of reality, if I may: Remember, I stated above that I
completely endorse Wayne's view that probability of occurrence is an
essential parameter in evaluating records of vagrants. Wouldn't want anybody
to think I'm quibbling with him, or anything...
Meanwhile...
>Based on geographic considerations alone, I would say that the likelihood
>of a wood-pewee on St. Paul being a Western would be at least 95%.
I can't begin to fathom how one might propose such a probability. I,
personally, was plenty uncomfortable writing, as I did, something wafflingly
qualitative like "I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the more
probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..." But "at least 95%"? Why, you'd need
N=20, just to get started. Okay, okay; I'm being pedantic about Wayne's 95%.
Still, I maintain that it is misleading to say stuff like--and I hear this
all the time--"I am 99% percent sure I saw a jaeger of some sort" or "I am
about 90% sure it was not a Pink-footed". That sort of language annoys me,
because it implies a quantitative assessment that almost assuredly was not
performed. "90%" or "99%" (and I even hear stuff like "92%"!) actually means
something, like "P8 emarginate" or "culmen 13.8 mm".
But let's say we *do* have good empirical support for such a statement--as
in California, where you can actually get away with saying something like
"Yellow-throated Warbler is ~2.4 times more likely than Grace's Warbler to
be detected as a vagrant in the state." In a sense, that's just the
beginning of your troubles. When you're dealing with two different
"outcomes", as the statisticians say, that have two different probabilities
of occurrence, all sorts of strange and counter-intuitive things start to
happen. Again: For all the disturbing, mind-altering, and life-changing
details, check out:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
>Whether or not you agree with my judgment in this case, a legitimate
>question is-- how certain do we have to be? If it were a first or even
>second state record, I would probably want to be 99% sure that the
>identification is correct.
Argh! That conviction, which, in Wayne's defense, is widely held by BRC
members, drives me nutty. The following is elementary, but it has
nonetheless apparently eluded most BRCs: If you set your Type I error rate
(i.e., your tolerance for false positives) too low, then your Type II error
rate (i.e., false negatives) becomes too high. That is to say, you start
making errors. *It is just as much an error* to reject a valid record as it
is to accept an erroneous record. And it amazes me that BRCs, in general, do
not grasp that fundamental truth. In this day and age of increasing reliance
on "citizen-science" datasets by managers and policymakers, false negatives
are, if anything, *worse* than false positives. A conservation biologist or
climate modeler needs to know *where the birds are*; that need is arguably
more important than knowing *where the birds are not*. In any event,
scientists and decision makers need accurate data. Yet I have had BRC
members confide to me that their
personal standard is 99.99% certainty. That "certainty" translates into an
overall accuracy rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.0001.
(Statistical aside: The expected accuracy rate would depend on the sampling
distribution, but it is safe to say that it would be somewhere in the
general vicinity of 0.0001.) Any way you slice it, a standard of 99.99%
certainty (i.e., beta=0.0001) is going to generate a result that is, for
many purposes, useless to the scientific and management communities.
But I digress...
>However, this is a record that will likely never be judged by a records
>committee, because it is a species
>that is already widespread and of regular occurrence
>in Alaska.
Yes, that is the approach of the California Bird Records Committee, last
time I checked; but increasingly, other states (and provinces?) are applying
a region-by-region approach to the review process. Some examples that come
to mind include Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. A west-slope Eastern
Screech-Owl would get reviewed in Colorado, a Crawford County Great
Cormorant would get reviewed in Pennsylvania, and a Mojave Desert
White-headed Woodpecker would get reviewed in Nevada.
>I'm not sure how the Alaska state records committee (assuming there is one)
>operates, but a good argument
>could be raised for evaluating vagrant records differently
>in different parts of this huge and far-flung state.
Right on. (California, are you listening?)
>[...] I would be on the verge of calling this bird a Western Wood-Pewee and
>being done with it--admitting that there's a slight chance I might be
>wrong.
And that's a pity, if you ask me. A wood-pewee on St. Paul Island is
notable, regardless. If some sort of official designation is desired (but
why?), then call it "wood-pewee, sp." Next, go into some detail: "Western
more likely for reasons X, Y, and Z." Finally, and most important: Archive
the record, and make it available for public inspection and discussion.
Which reminds me. Right now, at the end of the year, is as good a time as
any for me to say the following: Many thanks to Will Russell for running the
F-ID list, and to all of the many participants for contributing to the
process of archiving records and making them available for public inspection
and discussion. I've learned a great deal here.
One last thing:
>It's too bad that this bird apparently was not heard vocalizing. This would
>have settled the problem right off the bat, and made all of this theorizing
>and second-
>guessing unnecessary!
Just to open up one other can of worms: In my observations of wood-pewees
(including confirmed or suspected vagrants) these past few years, I've
noticed an awful lot of, well, suspicious vocalizing by both species. Yes,
the "classic" songs of the two wood-pewees are surely good for interspecific
separation. But I hear a lot of other sounds that get me wondering. But I've
said enough about wood-pewees for a while, I suspect.
Thanks, if you've made it this far.
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd AT aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
free AOL Mail and more.
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.
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: Wood Pewee ID
From: sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 28 Dec 2006 10:52am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hello Again
Wayne said:
for instance, where many thousands of flycatchers have been collected, we
have specimens of such vagrant flycatchers as ACADIAN
FLYCATCHER, THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD, TROPICAL KINGBIRD,
and even GRAY KINGBIRD, but no specimen of EASTERN
WOOD-PEWEE.
I'd like to re-emphasize that I'd bet that a number of these were collected
because they were vagrants. Since a vagrant E WoodPewee would likely not be
identified in the field, it would not be collected. Sample bias strikes again.
Also, the presence of a single specimen of a vagrant in a museum hardly defines
"a pattern."
A pattern is based on a set of records.
Cheers
Steve Mlodinow
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.
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: Wood Pewee ID
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 28 Dec 2006 11:31am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Folks
This is oldie but a goodie. It details identification of pewees from
specimens, using skeletal data as well as wing and tail length data. The
skeletal data is much more useful, and they note a great deal of uncertainty
in identifying a traditional skin (without skeleton preserved) of a
Wood-Pewee. Sex differences in size and shape are greater than species level
differences, so it helps to know the sex of the bird. Bottom line is listen
to pewees, and support your local museum collection.
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v082n03/p0301-p0308.pdf
BTW, a vagrant Eastern from Newfoundland is used in this study.
Alvaro
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, California
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
www.fieldguides.com
_____
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:44 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Hello Wayne
I love specimen collections. Use them often. Indeed there are two birds
labelled as E Wood Pewee in UW Burke Museum that I was just made aware of
that we will check out.
To say that specimen collections provide a good picture of vagrancy patterns
is, however, delusional. I'd like to see a single example of a continental
wide vagrancy pattern well demonstrated by specimens from museums.
First of all, among the specimens you recount, how many were found in the
field, identified as vagrants, and THEN COLLECTED BECAUSE THEY WERE
VAGRANTS. That used to be the standard of the day, but directed collecting
would provide a skewed estimate of percentage of (for example) Tryrannus
flycatchers that are vagrants.
Additionally, how many specimens of North American birds are there for the
last century. One million? 500,000. A lot of birds. But the number of field
observations of individual birds probably is one billion or more for North
America as a whole in the last century. In any case, it is several orders of
magnitude larger.
So, to say that the relatively few specimens gives us a good idea of
vagrancy patterns is very much stretching it.
Additionally, for birds like WWPE and EWPE, I'd venture to say that many
collectors labelled them to species soley based on where they were
collected. In my rummaging through some of North America's finer museum
collections, I've found several examples of birds that were misidentified
almost certaintly due to "geographic assumptions."
Steven Mlodinow
-----Original Message-----
From: contopus(AT)telus.net
To: sgmlod(AT)aol.com
Cc: birdwg01(AT)listserv.arizona.edu
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Sorry, Steve, we have a very good idea of the vagrancy patterns of
wood-pewees, based on SPECIMENS COLLECTED over many
decades. Yes, it's true that not nearly as many bird specimens
are collected these days as were collected prior to about 1960.
However, it is noteworthy that in British Columbia, for instance,
where many thousands of flycatchers have been collected, we
have specimens of such vagrant flycatchers as ACADIAN
FLYCATCHER, THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD, TROPICAL KINGBIRD,
and even GRAY KINGBIRD, but no specimen of EASTERN
WOOD-PEWEE.
Like many modern birders, you seem to overrate the value of field
identifications based on criteria that are so obscure that even
many trained observers cannot use them reliably, and underrate
the value of good old-fashioned specimens.
Yes, the difficulty of identifying Wood-Pewees makes it harder to
determine the true vagrancy patterns. However, in my opinion, your
broad-brush statement that we have "no idea" of the vagrancy patterns
is hogwash.
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus(AT)telus.net <mailto:contopus%40telus.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM <mailto:sgmlod%40AOL.COM> >
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU <mailto:BIRDWG01%40LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Greetings All
Sorry that I've not been fully attendant to this discussion. A couple points
on vagrancy.
Ted is dead on. We have NO IDEA what the real vagrancy patterns of either
pewee species is. They are to tough to sort out in the field, especially
outside of spring/summer, and the vast majority of vagrant pewees likely
pass un-identified or misidentified. So, while it is interesting to note
vagrant records that have been detected, how much bearing they have on the
St Paul bird is very limited.
Furthermore, I don't know if the St Paul bird was seen in spring or fall,
but I suspect that 180 degree misorientation or even spring overshoot
trajectories could easily bring E Wood Pewee to St Paul. When a bird is that
far off course, I am not sure that the closer range of WWPE vs EWPE make
much difference. Ted's example of Summer Tanagers in CA desert oases is an
excellent example of how using "closest" range might be misleading in
discerning what is most likely to occur in vagrancy.
So, I'd throw "probability" based on anything but field marks out the
window. And as for field marks..... I don't know that there is anything
we've discerned that is truly diagnostic.
Best Wishes
Steven Mlodinow
-----Original Message-----
From: tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM <mailto:tedfloyd57%40HOTMAIL.COM>
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU <mailto:BIRDWG01%40LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Wood Pewee ID
Hello, birders.
Many thanks to Wayne Weber for his stimulating remarks about vagrancy
vis-a-vis the St. Paul Island wood-pewee. Although I disagree with various
of Wayne's specific points (see below), I am completely on board with
Wayne's most general point, namely, that probability of occurrence is a
critical parameter in the evaluation of records of problematic vagrants. I
would further state that making sense of probability of occurrence requires
a fair bit of statistical sophistication. Indeed, I said so, about
two-and-a-half years ago, here on F-ID:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B
<http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3>
&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
But I suspect nearly nobody read my posting--perhaps because it was a
smidgeon mathematical, the kiss of death, no doubt. Well, I got only one
response; then again, that single respondent told me that my posting changed
his life!
Anyhow:
>However, I believe that your discussion of distributional patterns is
>seriously flawed, and that you have greatly overestimated the likelihood of
>an Eastern Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea.
Huh?
First, I noted that "large numbers of Western Wood-Pewees get *much* closer
to western Alaska than do comparable numbers of Eastern Wood-Pewees." Then,
I posed a cautionary question (just a question, not an assertion): "[But] is
Eastern, in general, more prone to vagrancy than Western?" Next, I cited as
an example the potentially relevant case of Summer Tanager ("late-season
Summer Tanagers at the desert oases [in California] are actually more likely
to be eastern -rubra- than western -cooperi-"). But then I concluded with
the following: "Still, I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the
more probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..."
I am absolutely certain that I did not estimate the likelihood of an Eastern
Wood-Pewee showing up in the Bering Sea region.
>I will preface my remarks by noting that flycatchers in
>general are noted for long-distance vagrancy, and that almost nothing is
>impossible when it comes to out-of-range
>birds. However, both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
>most flycatchers,
There's a somewhat subtle problem here of detectability. Both of the
wood-pewees have pretty much completely vacated North America by mid-autumn.
Conversely, other largely long-distance migrant flycatcher genera, e.g.,
Tyrannus, Myiarchus, Empidonax, etc., *do* show a well-documented pattern of
late-season vagrancy throughout the continent. What I'm getting at is the
following: Vagrants in those other genera have a reasonably good shot at
detection, because of the fact that they vagrate at a time of year during
which pretty much *any* long-distance migrant flycatcher is notable in much
of North America. So if you find a Tyrannus in Oregon in October, or a
Myiarchus in New York in November, or an Empidonax in Indiana in December,
it is a great find, period. You pay attention. And even if it is "just" a
late Western Kingbird in Oregon, or "just" a late Great Crested Flycatcher
in New York, or "just" a late Yellow-bellied Flycatcher in Michigan, well,
it is still a very good rec
ord--all things considered, perhaps a "better" record than, say, Tropical
Kingbird (Oregon), Ash-throated Flycatcher (New York), or Hammond's
Flycatcher (Michigan).
But how many of us take a second look at the genera Myiarchus, Tyrannus, and
Empidonax *at those times of year at which they are expected*? In other
words, how many vagrants represented by those genera go undetected during
ordinary/expected periods of occurrence for the genera? For sure, I agree
with Wayne that "both wood-pewees seem to occur out of range far less than
most flycatchers", but I would add the following significant qualifier:
"from mid-autumn into early spring". The date of this St. Paul Island
wood-pewee was 28 May, a date on which I hypothesize that wood-pewees might
be as likely to vagrate as any other sort of flycatcher.
Sorry; I think the preceding two paragraphs were a bit muddy. So I'll boil
it down to the following bottom line: From mid-spring to early autumn,
wood-pewees may be just as prone to vagrancy as other flycatchers.
>and the Eastern Wood-Pewee, so far as I can determine,
>has never been previously documented in the vast area north of the Lower 48
>and west of southern Saskatchewan.
Vast, yes; but massively under-birded. More on that in a moment.
>"The West", I'm afraid, means more than California and/or Colorado.
Let's not dismiss California and Colorado quite yet; again, more in a
moment.
>Here's what I have able to find out about accepted records of Eastern
>Wood-Pewee in the Pacific Coast States, western
>Canada, and Alaska:
>
>California-- only 9 accepted records through 2003
(Actually, 10 accepted records for California through 2003; See Western
Birds, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 98 & 106.)
>Oregon-- one record only (Malheur NWR, May 1994)
>Washington-- no records
>British Columbia-- no records
>Alberta-- no records
>Northwest Territories-- no records
>Yukon-- no records
>Alaska-- no records
And Colorado, by the way: 17 accepted records through 2004, with at least 6
more, pending review, in 2005 & 2006.
I posit that California and Colorado *are* suitable bellwethers for
ascertaining the status of vagrant Eastern Wood-Pewees in the West. Bear
with me here for just a sec. First, let's compare California and New York,
two coastal states with extensive and sophisticated birding communities;
California has 10 records of Eastern Wood-Pewee; New York has 0 records
through 2006 of Western Wood-Pewee. Next, let's compare Colorado and
Missouri, two fly-over states with solid birding communities and that are a
good 100+ miles away from the nearest breeding by the "other" wood-pewee;
Colorado has 17 Eastern Wood-Pewees; Missouri has 0 records through 2005 of
Western Wood-Pewee. Maybe that's not a fair comparison, though?--because
Missouri is somewhat farther from Western Wood-Pewees than Colorado is from
Eastern? Well, then how about Minnesota?--which gets at least as close to
breeding Western Wood-Pewees as Colorado does to breeding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Same result: 0 Minnesota records
of Western Wood-Pewee through 2005. (For the record, several of Colorado's
Eastern Wood-Pewees have been west-slope birds, and quite a number have been
from the Front Range region, so it's not just strays barely penetrating the
eastern-tier counties along the Kansas border.)
I am not yet ready to reject the hypothesis that Eastern Wood-Pewee is more
prone to westward vagrancy than Western Wood-Pewee is to eastward vagrancy.
In well-birded states and provinces west of the range of Eastern Wood-Pewee
(California, Colorado, etc.), birders are, in fact, finding Eastern
Wood-Pewees. Conversely, in well-birded states and provinces east of the
range of Western Wood-Pewee (New York, Missouri, Minnesota, etc.), birders
are not, in general, finding Western Wood-Pewees. It is a little misleading
to cite data from Yukon and the Northwest Territories; that would rather be
like citing the number of Western Wood-Pewee records from Labrador and
Greenland. That is to say, there are basically no data up there.
And, now, for a quick reality-check: As I said in my earlier posting, my
guess is that the St. Paul Island wood-pewee is, in fact, a Western, based
on both plumage and probability of occurrence. In other words, the present
proceedings, while amusing (to me, anyhow), may not really have a tremendous
amount of bearing on the ID of the St. Paul Island wood-pewee.
And one other dose of reality, if I may: Remember, I stated above that I
completely endorse Wayne's view that probability of occurrence is an
essential parameter in evaluating records of vagrants. Wouldn't want anybody
to think I'm quibbling with him, or anything...
Meanwhile...
>Based on geographic considerations alone, I would say that the likelihood
>of a wood-pewee on St. Paul being a Western would be at least 95%.
I can't begin to fathom how one might propose such a probability. I,
personally, was plenty uncomfortable writing, as I did, something wafflingly
qualitative like "I am tempted to say that Western Wood-Pewee is the more
probable vagrant to St. Paul Island..." But "at least 95%"? Why, you'd need
N=20, just to get started. Okay, okay; I'm being pedantic about Wayne's 95%.
Still, I maintain that it is misleading to say stuff like--and I hear this
all the time--"I am 99% percent sure I saw a jaeger of some sort" or "I am
about 90% sure it was not a Pink-footed". That sort of language annoys me,
because it implies a quantitative assessment that almost assuredly was not
performed. "90%" or "99%" (and I even hear stuff like "92%"!) actually means
something, like "P8 emarginate" or "culmen 13.8 mm".
But let's say we *do* have good empirical support for such a statement--as
in California, where you can actually get away with saying something like
"Yellow-throated Warbler is ~2.4 times more likely than Grace's Warbler to
be detected as a vagrant in the state." In a sense, that's just the
beginning of your troubles. When you're dealing with two different
"outcomes", as the statisticians say, that have two different probabilities
of occurrence, all sorts of strange and counter-intuitive things start to
happen. Again: For all the disturbing, mind-altering, and life-changing
details, check out:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B
<http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407B&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3>
&L=BIRDWG01&P=R75&I=-3.
>Whether or not you agree with my judgment in this case, a legitimate
>question is-- how certain do we have to be? If it were a first or even
>second state record, I would probably want to be 99% sure that the
>identification is correct.
Argh! That conviction, which, in Wayne's defense, is widely held by BRC
members, drives me nutty. The following is elementary, but it has
nonetheless apparently eluded most BRCs: If you set your Type I error rate
(i.e., your tolerance for false positives) too low, then your Type II error
rate (i.e., false negatives) becomes too high. That is to say, you start
making errors. *It is just as much an error* to reject a valid record as it
is to accept an erroneous record. And it amazes me that BRCs, in general, do
not grasp that fundamental truth. In this day and age of increasing reliance
on "citizen-science" datasets by managers and policymakers, false negatives
are, if anything, *worse* than false positives. A conservation biologist or
climate modeler needs to know *where the birds are*; that need is arguably
more important than knowing *where the birds are not*. In any event,
scientists and decision makers need accurate data. Yet I have had BRC
members confide to me that their
personal standard is 99.99% certainty. That "certainty" translates into an
overall accuracy rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.0001.
(Statistical aside: The expected accuracy rate would depend on the sampling
distribution, but it is safe to say that it would be somewhere in the
general vicinity of 0.0001.) Any way you slice it, a standard of 99.99%
certainty (i.e., beta=0.0001) is going to generate a result that is, for
many purposes, useless to the scientific and management communities.
But I digress...
>However, this is a record that will likely never be judged by a records
>committee, because it is a species
>that is already widespread and of regular occurrence
>in Alaska.
Yes, that is the approach of the California Bird Records Committee, last
time I checked; but increasingly, other states (and provinces?) are applying
a region-by-region approach to the review process. Some examples that come
to mind include Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. A west-slope Eastern
Screech-Owl would get reviewed in Colorado, a Crawford County Great
Cormorant would get reviewed in Pennsylvania, and a Mojave Desert
White-headed Woodpecker would get reviewed in Nevada.
>I'm not sure how the Alaska state records committee (assuming there is one)
>operates, but a good argument
>could be raised for evaluating vagrant records differently
>in different parts of this huge and far-flung state.
Right on. (California, are you listening?)
>[...] I would be on the verge of calling this bird a Western Wood-Pewee and
>being done with it--admitting that there's a slight chance I might be
>wrong.
And that's a pity, if you ask me. A wood-pewee on St. Paul Island is
notable, regardless. If some sort of official designation is desired (but
why?), then call it "wood-pewee, sp." Next, go into some detail: "Western
more likely for reasons X, Y, and Z." Finally, and most important: Archive
the record, and make it available for public inspection and discussion.
Which reminds me. Right now, at the end of the year, is as good a time as
any for me to say the following: Many thanks to Will Russell for running the
F-ID list, and to all of the many participants for contributing to the
process of archiving records and making them available for public inspection
and discussion. I've learned a great deal here.
One last thing:
>It's too bad that this bird apparently was not heard vocalizing. This would
>have settled the problem right off the bat, and made all of this theorizing
>and second-
>guessing unnecessary!
Just to open up one other can of worms: In my observations of wood-pewees
(including confirmed or suspected vagrants) these past few years, I've
noticed an awful lot of, well, suspicious vocalizing by both species. Yes,
the "classic" songs of the two wood-pewees are surely good for interspecific
separation. But I hear a lot of other sounds that get me wondering. But I've
said enough about wood-pewees for a while, I suspect.
Thanks, if you've made it this far.
-------------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
American Birding Association
P. O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd AT aba.org
Please visit the web site of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org <http://www.americanbirding.org/>
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football
<http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701>
&icid=T001MSN30A0701
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
free AOL Mail and more.
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht
tp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> Check out the new AOL. Most
comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions
of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
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: Pewees and specimens
From: Cameron Cox <cameron_cox(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 1:11am
Greetings,
While museums do many excellent things, correctly archiving difficult to
identify species may not be what they do best.
To illustrate this point, I was in one of the largest, most respected
eastern museums recently when a staff member brought me a skin of an unknown
raptor. There had been some debate among the staff as whether it was a juv
Goshawk or juv Red-tailed and they had decided to put in the collection as a
Goshawk. The bird was a typical juv Broad-winged Hawk. The staff member
immediately agreed and stated that he had not considered the idea of a
Broad-winged as the bird had been collected in early November. Later he
brought me another juv raptor skin, this one had been put into the
collection as a Red-tailed Hawk. It was another typical juv Broad-winged
Hawk. Museum staffers tend to be very busy and often do not have time to
puzzle over something like an unusual pewee.
Many museums specimens are prepared by volunteers who have been trained to
skin, but have little background in bird identification. With many museums
under staffed and under funded, how many institutions have individuals with
the skill and the time to carefully evaluate every pewee that comes through
their doors? My guess is very few. How many of the pewee specimens
currently sitting in collections have been critically examined?
While the specimens of vagrant pewees that have currently been recognized do
give us some very basic data, given the problem of recognition along with a
whole host of other potential bias, the specimen data seems to be shaky
ground to build a strong argument on. Bottom line: Support your local
museum, and record/shoot/photograph-the-heck-out-of any suspect vagrant
pewee and maybe in 50-100 years there will be better data to work with.
Cameron Cox
Seattle, Washington
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pewees and specimens
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 7:50am
Good comments from Cameron Cox. I was recently doing some work in the small
collection at the U of Oregon, which has not really had a curator for
decades, and came across a "Fox Sparrow" that was really a female Cassin's
Finch. Fortunately they allowed me to add a second label. For those
interested in museum collections, I funded the computerization of the UO
collection a few years ago, and we are now working to create a unified
portal for access to basic databases for all Oregon collections. Ours are
mostly small, but collectively a good resource. A number of them are
computerized, at least in a basic Excel format, but unless you know where to
ask you can't find the data.
Museums also have pleasant surprises - a small Oregon museum with a
well-curated collection turns out to have a Trumpeter Swan from Tule Lake,
California, killed in 1930 and confiscated by the game warden. It's not in
Grinnell & Miller and we are arranging for photos for the Cal committee.
Fortunately Ralph Browning lives nearby and knows his way around the
collection.
In a small state like Oregon, with a lot of small, decent collections housed
at various universities (and one collection at a county historical society),
what we really need is a circuit-rider to do curation. No one facility has
space to centralize the collection even if the various colleges wanted to
(they don't). One of my projects for the coming years is to figure out how
to fund such a project.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
> From: Cameron Cox <cameron_cox(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: Cameron Cox <cameron_cox(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:01:00 -0600
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] Pewees and specimens
>
> Greetings,
>
> While museums do many excellent things, correctly archiving difficult to
> identify species may not be what they do best.
>
> To illustrate this point, I was in one of the largest, most respected
> eastern museums recently when a staff member brought me a skin of an unknown
> raptor. There had been some debate among the staff as whether it was a juv
> Goshawk or juv Red-tailed and they had decided to put in the collection as a
> Goshawk. The bird was a typical juv Broad-winged Hawk. The staff member
> immediately agreed and stated that he had not considered the idea of a
> Broad-winged as the bird had been collected in early November. Later he
> brought me another juv raptor skin, this one had been put into the
> collection as a Red-tailed Hawk. It was another typical juv Broad-winged
> Hawk. Museum staffers tend to be very busy and often do not have time to
> puzzle over something like an unusual pewee.
>
> Many museums specimens are prepared by volunteers who have been trained to
> skin, but have little background in bird identification. With many museums
> under staffed and under funded, how many institutions have individuals with
> the skill and the time to carefully evaluate every pewee that comes through
> their doors? My guess is very few. How many of the pewee specimens
> currently sitting in collections have been critically examined?
>
> While the specimens of vagrant pewees that have currently been recognized do
> give us some very basic data, given the problem of recognition along with a
> whole host of other potential bias, the specimen data seems to be shaky
> ground to build a strong argument on. Bottom line: Support your local
> museum, and record/shoot/photograph-the-heck-out-of any suspect vagrant
> pewee and maybe in 50-100 years there will be better data to work with.
>
> Cameron Cox
> Seattle, Washington
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pewees and specimens
From: Christopher Vogel <glaucidium(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 7:56am
--- Cameron Cox <cameron_cox(AT)HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> While museums do many excellent things, correctly
> archiving difficult to
> identify species may not be what they do best.
Cameron-
were I a large and ovuncular android, and I'd read the
above assertion, I'd flail my arms about wildly and
holler "Danger!". Archiving species, difficult to
identify and otherwise, is the very function of
collections.
However, the difficulty involved with identifying
non-vocalizing peweees has less to do with musuem
collections and more to do with the fact that the
birds are sometimes just plain impossible to identify.
I have collected boreal migrant Wood-Pewees in extreme
north-western Bolivia in mid November. Upon getting
skins from 2800m in La Paz home to NY, comparison with
the birds in the Range at the AMNH, and a look at the
literature quickly revealed that what I really needed,
and had not obtained from birds only found in nets,
were recordings. This had a lot less to do with the
fact that the tyrannid trays need of a bit of curation
than the fact that the two small nearctic Contopus can
be just about identical, and may overlap in nearly all
characters, if I am not mistaken.
>
> Many museums specimens are prepared by volunteers
> who have been trained to
> skin, but have little background in bird
> identification. With many museums
> under staffed and under funded, how many
> institutions have individuals with
> the skill and the time to carefully evaluate every
> pewee that comes through
> their doors? My guess is very few. How many of the
> pewee specimens
> currently sitting in collections have been
> critically examined?
Having worked in both the Mammal and Bird Collections
at AMNH,as both technician and researcher and managed
the interdepartmental preparation lab there for a
time, I would privately gladly address the ins and
outs of volunteer preparation, and just how and why
trays get organised and disorganised by visiting
researchers and staff, etc etc. Some of your points
are valid, and others, well, not so much. But since
that is not necessarily germane to actual issues of
bird identification, I'll leave it there.
but I will say that that mis-labeled pewee specimens
in trays are only ancillary to the fact that
non-vocalizing Wood-Pewees are often just plain
unidentifiable-even in the hand.
Cheers & best for the new year
CJV
Cape May, NJ
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pewees and specimens
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 8:54am
All:
I think in this case, the situation shouldn't be so impossible if you
have a series of specimens. For example, W. Wood-pewees very rarely show
an entirely orange lower mandible whereas Easterns commonly do for
example. While this feature is not reliable for identifying a single
bird out of range, if you have several birds that are all showing
fieldmarks more consistent with one species and not the other, I think
you can make a reliable id. This assumes that more southerly races of
Western don't change the id criteria. Of course if you have both species
in the area and only a few specimens, it would be very difficult.
Nick Lethaby
DSP/BIOS Product Manager
Software Development Systems
Texas Instruments
805 562 5106
nlethaby(AT)ti.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Vogel
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:57 AM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pewees and specimens
--- Cameron Cox <cameron_cox(AT)HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> While museums do many excellent things, correctly
> archiving difficult to
> identify species may not be what they do best.
Cameron-
were I a large and ovuncular android, and I'd read the
above assertion, I'd flail my arms about wildly and
holler "Danger!". Archiving species, difficult to
identify and otherwise, is the very function of
collections.
However, the difficulty involved with identifying
non-vocalizing peweees has less to do with musuem
collections and more to do with the fact that the
birds are sometimes just plain impossible to identify.
I have collected boreal migrant Wood-Pewees in extreme
north-western Bolivia in mid November. Upon getting
skins from 2800m in La Paz home to NY, comparison with
the birds in the Range at the AMNH, and a look at the
literature quickly revealed that what I really needed,
and had not obtained from birds only found in nets,
were recordings. This had a lot less to do with the
fact that the tyrannid trays need of a bit of curation
than the fact that the two small nearctic Contopus can
be just about identical, and may overlap in nearly all
characters, if I am not mistaken.
>
> Many museums specimens are prepared by volunteers
> who have been trained to
> skin, but have little background in bird
> identification. With many museums
> under staffed and under funded, how many
> institutions have individuals with
> the skill and the time to carefully evaluate every
> pewee that comes through
> their doors? My guess is very few. How many of the
> pewee specimens
> currently sitting in collections have been
> critically examined?
Having worked in both the Mammal and Bird Collections
at AMNH,as both technician and researcher and managed
the interdepartmental preparation lab there for a
time, I would privately gladly address the ins and
outs of volunteer preparation, and just how and why
trays get organised and disorganised by visiting
researchers and staff, etc etc. Some of your points
are valid, and others, well, not so much. But since
that is not necessarily germane to actual issues of
bird identification, I'll leave it there.
but I will say that that mis-labeled pewee specimens
in trays are only ancillary to the fact that
non-vocalizing Wood-Pewees are often just plain
unidentifiable-even in the hand.
Cheers & best for the new year
CJV
Cape May, NJ
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Museum Collections
From: sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 29 Dec 2006 12:26pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
Assuming any of you actually care....
I just want to make my opinion clear on this.
Museum collections, especially ones like the Field Museum of Natural History,
the UW Burke Museum, and even the smaller but excellent UPS Slater Museum are
fabulous resources.
They are great for studying ID.
They are great for studying molt.
Every once in a while, one will find a specimen of a vagrant that was
previously unknown to the world at large.
They are good for discerning the range of races not often looked at by birders.
They are not perfect. But what is?
Most of the erroneously labelled specimens I've found were quite old. As the
manager of one collection said after I'd found a Laz Bunt labelled as a Varied
Bunt in their collection -- "It has been a long time since someone critically
has gone through that tray." The bird had been collected in the 1920s in
Mexico, if I remember correctly. Anyway, though I've found several such
erroneously labelled, most were collected a long time ago, and they represent a
tiny fraction of total birds looked at.
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.
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: Utah Thayer's or Kumliens
From: Tim Avery <tanager(AT)TIMAVERYBIRDING.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 5:12pm
On the same afternoon Colby Neuman and I discovered the Western Gull I also
photographed what appeared to be an extremely pale Thayer's Gull. However,
upon the recomendation of several respected "gullers" I am posting these shots
to this forum to try to shake out an ID. I know the complexity of the
Kumlien's/Iceland/Thayer's complex, and am not trying to get into the "who
really knows" argmument.
The question here is, is this a Kumlien's?
http://timaverybirding.com/icgu/icgu.html
Cheers,
Tim
Indianapolis, IN and Salt Lake City, UT
tanager(AT)timaverybirding.com
http://www.timaverybirding.com
http://www.birdtography.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's
From: Bruce Mactavish <bruce.mactavish1(AT)NF.SYMPATICO.CA>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 6:24pm
While this bird probably wouldn't be called a Thayer's anywhere in the
east, it does look a bit odd for a Kumlien's. The high contrast heavily
barred scapulars, wing coverts and tertials and broad pale frosting to
quite dark centered primaries are all just a little off the beaten track
for Kumlien's. Given this in Utah such a bird might be best left as a
Limbo Gull; i.e. a Thayer's x Kumlien's hybrid, an extreme end Thayer's
or a slightly unusual Kumlien's. I suspect a flight shot would show
some kind of secondary bar and a significant tail band that would tip
the scales away from a good Kumlien's.
Bruce
Bruce Mactavish
St. John's, Newfoundland
Canada
bruce.mactavish1(AT)nf.sympatico.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Avery
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:43 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Utah Thayer's or Kumliens
On the same afternoon Colby Neuman and I discovered the Western Gull I
also
photographed what appeared to be an extremely pale Thayer's Gull.
However,
upon the recomendation of several respected "gullers" I am posting these
shots
to this forum to try to shake out an ID. I know the complexity of the
Kumlien's/Iceland/Thayer's complex, and am not trying to get into the
"who
really knows" argmument.
The question here is, is this a Kumlien's?
http://timaverybirding.com/icgu/icgu.html
Cheers,
Tim
Indianapolis, IN and Salt Lake City, UT
tanager(AT)timaverybirding.com
http://www.timaverybirding.com
http://www.birdtography.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's
From: Nick Komar <quetzal65(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 6:37pm
Tim et al,
I observed an almost identical individual this month in Colorado. I had the
same questions as Tim, and came to the same conclusion as Bruce. The
Colorado bird (and some analysis) can be viewed at
http://www.pbase.com/quetzal/palegull12142006.
Nick Komar
Fort Collins CO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:43 PM
> To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] Utah Thayer's or Kumliens
>
> [snip]...
> The question here is, is this a Kumlien's?
>
> http://timaverybirding.com/icgu/icgu.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee ID
From: Phil Davis <pdavis(AT)IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 6:57pm
Birdwg01:
The Maryland/DC Records Committee can attest to the difficulties
involved in trying to identify Wood-Pewees from museum specimens.
Our committee has struggled with two specimens in the Smithsonian
collection labeled as Western Wood-Pewees but which didn't quite key
out when we applied the mensural criteria from Pyle (Identification
Guide to North American Birds, Slate Creek Press, 1997) or Hubbard
(Eastern Wood-Pewee Specimens from New Mexico, Plus a Reevaluation of
Mensural Criteria for Identifying This Taxon, Occasional Papers
Southwest Biology 9, 1-13, 2002). The Wingtip and
Tailclear-minus-Wingtip criteria indicated Eastern for both
specimens, but the Tailclear measure indicated Western for one and
indeterminate for the other. So we asked a Smithsonian biologist to
do a DNA analysis for us. The results left us in a deeper state of
confusion. The specimen with the Western-type Tailclear clustered
with Eastern DNA sequences. The one with the indeterminate Tailclear
was most closely related to Western but differed enough to suggest
that it was not of the California subspecies whose sequences are
represented in GenBank.
Al is right; listen to the songs.
Phil
===================================================
Phil Davis, Secretary
MD/DC Records Committee
2549 Vale Court
Davidsonville, Maryland 21035 USA
301-261-0184
mailto:PDavis(AT)ix.netcom.com
MD/DCRC Web site: http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html
===================================================
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 7:14pm
Having seen a load of standard west coast Thayer's and never seen an Iceland
of any kind (I should sign up for a tour with Bruce), my reaction was that
the bird looked basically like a very pale Thayer's except that the tertials
were exceptionally light and barred with no real dark centers, which I
understand (only from books, not experience) to be a more kumlieni
character.
My impression from local Thayer's is that the tertials are sometimes the
darkest part of the plumage, just as dark as the primaries, with dark
centers and only barred - scalloped really - on the edges. The Utah bird
looks like it has fairly pale tertials that are barred most of the way
across.
So I'd be surprised if it is a "pure" Thayer's, if there is any such thing.
The Colorado bird looks almost identical although it seems to have a smaller
bill.
I'll send the two principal observers a couple of my Oregon Thayer's photos.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
> From: Bruce Mactavish <bruce.mactavish1(AT)NF.SYMPATICO.CA>
> Reply-To: Bruce Mactavish <bruce.mactavish1(AT)NF.SYMPATICO.CA>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:54:39 -0330
> To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Utah Thayer's or Kumlien's
>
> While this bird probably wouldn't be called a Thayer's anywhere in the
> east, it does look a bit odd for a Kumlien's. The high contrast heavily
> barred scapulars, wing coverts and tertials and broad pale frosting to
> quite dark centered primaries are all just a little off the beaten track
> for Kumlien's. Given this in Utah such a bird might be best left as a
> Limbo Gull; i.e. a Thayer's x Kumlien's hybrid, an extreme end Thayer's
> or a slightly unusual Kumlien's. I suspect a flight shot would show
> some kind of secondary bar and a significant tail band that would tip
> the scales away from a good Kumlien's.
>
> Bruce
>
> Bruce Mactavish
> St. John's, Newfoundland
> Canada
> bruce.mactavish1(AT)nf.sympatico.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
> [mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Avery
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:43 PM
> To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] Utah Thayer's or Kumliens
>
> On the same afternoon Colby Neuman and I discovered the Western Gull I
> also
> photographed what appeared to be an extremely pale Thayer's Gull.
> However,
> upon the recomendation of several respected "gullers" I am posting these
> shots
> to this forum to try to shake out an ID. I know the complexity of the
> Kumlien's/Iceland/Thayer's complex, and am not trying to get into the
> "who
> really knows" argmument.
>
> The question here is, is this a Kumlien's?
>
> http://timaverybirding.com/icgu/icgu.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
> Indianapolis, IN and Salt Lake City, UT
> tanager(AT)timaverybirding.com
> http://www.timaverybirding.com
> http://www.birdtography.com
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Museum Collections
From: Andrew Engilis <aengilisjr(AT)UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 8:14pm
All -- I would also like to chime in on the museum issue. As curator of a
modest museum at the University of California, Davis (30,000 specimens), I
strive to ensure determinations are made on all material going into the
collection, and we have the professionals to do so; as do most research
museums. Although it is correct to say that the lab preparation may be
completed by a volunteer or in our case a student, these preparators do
not render id's on the specimens they prepare. All specimens are fully
determined by myself or other ornithologists affiliated with the museum
before being installed into the collection. I know many other museums
have similar quality control. In addition, we systematically move through
species drawers, as time allows, to review older specimens (as Steve M.
mentioned this is where we find most erroneous id's) to ensure
identifications are correct. I have also worked in numerous collections
around the world and must say that the percentage of misidentified birds
in all collections is very, very small. The reported misidentification of
one or two hawks is inconsequential. More important are the thousands of
hawk specimens that are identified correctly in very large collections.
Having experts come into our collection to review our identifications is
welcome as it helps us refine certain taxa.
Museum specimens still provide THE primary material for which all species
are described and named, and provide substantiated information on species
characters, molt, age and sexing information. All field guide, even the
most sophisticated in the world today still relay on museum skins to
present correct details.
Andy Engilis
Curator
Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology
University of California, Davis
> Greetings All
>
> Assuming any of you actually care....
>
> I just want to make my opinion clear on this.
>
> Museum collections, especially ones like the Field Museum of Natural
> History,
> the UW Burke Museum, and even the smaller but excellent UPS Slater Museum
> are
> fabulous resources.
>
>
> They are great for studying ID.
> They are great for studying molt.
> Every once in a while, one will find a specimen of a vagrant that was
> previously unknown to the world at large.
>
> They are good for discerning the range of races not often looked at by
> birders.
>
> They are not perfect. But what is?
> Most of the erroneously labelled specimens I've found were quite old. As
> the
> manager of one collection said after I'd found a Laz Bunt labelled as a
> Varied
> Bunt in their collection -- "It has been a long time since someone
> critically
> has gone through that tray." The bird had been collected in the 1920s in
> Mexico, if I remember correctly. Anyway, though I've found several such
> erroneously labelled, most were collected a long time ago, and they
> represent a
> tiny fraction of total birds looked at.
>
>
> Cheers
> Steven Mlodinow
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security
> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Wood Pewee id
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 8:20pm
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:59:08 -0800, "Ted Floyd" <tedfloyd57(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:
>Hello, birders. Since nobody else has chimed in on this one, I guess I'll
>give it a go.
>
>>Hi Nick,
>>Was wondering if you might like to look at some images of a Pewee from May
>>28, 2006 on Saint Paul Island. Do you have any thoughs as to the identity
>>of this individual?
>>Feel free to forward these on to anyone who you think might be interested,
>>just ask them to send comments to me.
.....
I have been reading this thread with considerable interest. However, I
have not seen the photos of the contentious Saint Paul Pewee, nor have I
seen a URL where they may be viewed.
If possible, I'd be very interested in seeing the photos. Did I miss a
message somewhere that included this information?
Thanks.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu
Birding Classes start Feb 6 in SF http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Utah Thayer's or Kumliens
From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse <CliffandLisa(AT)OCTOBERSETTERS.COM>
Date: 29 Dec 2006 9:23pm
I haven't seen any comments on the tail of this individual.
Maybe it's the photo but in the bottom photo at
http://timaverybirding.com/icgu/icgu.html
it appears to have a white tail with dark bars and no solid
tail band. Is this not bad for Thayer's? Hopefully flight
shots
will be obtained.
Cliff Weisse
cliffandlisa(AT)octobersetters.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Redpoll ID challenge
From: Mark Brown <markb249(AT)excite.com>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 12:35am
Birders,
There is a redpoll that has been photographed in central Iowa recently that
seems to have features of both Common and Hoary. Click on the following link:
http://www.iowabirds.org/photo-gallery/
Under the "ID Help Needed" are 4 Redpoll photos that I took on Christmas Eve,
and under the "Rare Birds" folder are two more photos that Ann Johnson took of
the same bird on December 29. We're very intersted in any opinions. Thank you!
Mark Brown
Iowa City
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pewees and specimens
From: Cameron Cox <cameron_cox(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 12:54am
It seems that I did not articulate points on this subject well.
Is the primary purpose of collection to serve as an avian archive? Yes, that
would be my understanding of one of their primary functions.
Are the vast majority of birds in collections correctly identified?
Absolutely, there is no question this is the case.
Do collections serve a useful purpose for those who are interested in bird
identification and distribution? Again, absolutely. With every visit I
have made to a collection I have left having gained valuable information.
My point was two-fold. First, that even at excellent museums, occasionally
some things do fall through the cracks. (Incidentally, the museum in
question is a fantastic institution, one of my favorites to visit. Last
time I was there I was thrilled to find a specimen collected by Louis
Agassiz Fuertes, along with specimens of several other prominent
ornithologist, still perfectly preserved.)
Secondly, if you accept that errors are sometimes made even with relatively
simple identifications, then it seems very likely that in the case of a
virtually impossible to identify species, such as wood-pewees, a vagrant
specimen might easily be misidentified as whichever is the most expected
species for the area unless there was a specific reason for the specimen to
receive special attention. For that reason as well as several others, it
would seem reasonable to question the ability of specimen records to
establish anything more than an extremely murky picture of vagrancy patterns
in the case of these extremely similar species.
This is not to suggest that live records of vagrant pewees provide more
insight than specimen records. I believe even when specimen and live
records are pooled the data set is still too insignificant to give much more
than a crude understanding of the true vagrancy patterns of these two
species. The one advantage of looking at an interesting pewee in the field
vs. as a specimen is there is always the chance that a live bird may call,
while specimens are notorious for their silence.
Cameron Cox
Seattle, WA
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Redpoll ID pictures
From: Mark Brown <markb249(AT)excite.com>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 9:36am
Birders,
The pictures of our challenging redpoll have all moved to same folder now; it's
the first one labeled "ID Help Needed" and there are a total of eight pictures
now. Here's that link again:
http://www.iowabirds.org/photo-gallery/
Thanks!
Mark Brown
Iowa City, IA
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Pewees and specimens
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 9:47am
Cameron Cox notes that specimens are notorious for their silence, but they
sometimes perform astonishing feats. While engaged in scanning the 1948 AFN
field notes for the west coast (the entire run will eventually become
available in a searchable Word format) I came across this stunning example
of what truly inspired specimens can do:
łA pair of western flycatchers at the Santa Barbara Museum raised 3 broods
for a new record.˛
Love conquers all. One wonders what the old record was. If we could get the
Eskimo Curlew and Great Auk specimens to do as well, we'd see the dawn of a
new era in conservation.
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Redpoll ID challenge
From: Mike Kirch <asioflammeus(AT)NEW.RR.COM>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 10:03am
This is an interesting bird. I think one should look at the overall shape of
the bird in determining Common and Hoary Redpoll species. Redpolls are
notorious for their plumage variability and the first thing I try to look at
when seeing a lightly marked Redpoll is bill size and shape. Pics one and
three seem to show the overall longer bill of Common versus the stubby bill
of a Hoary. The head seems stretched out from the body, ie. there appears to
be some length to the neck. Hoary strikes me as thick-necked without much
elongation.
The overall plumage is indeed light, however the lack of light coloration on
the scapulars is troubling for Hoary. I've seen quite a few otherwise good
Common Redpolls that are similar to this bird in overall plumage, in
particular the light amount of pink on the breast and the light streaking on
the sides. The UNTACS are very lightly marked but this is the only feature I
see in favor of Hoary. I believe the most important plumage feature to
consider is the lightness of the scapulars, not necessarily the amount of
pink or flank streaking as this is so variable. This bird shows scapulars in
the range of Common.
Here's an interesting article from SORA about plumage variability in
Redpolls from Manitoba.
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/search.php
I believe this bird is a lightly marked Common Redpoll based on bill size
and shape, elongated head and neck and darker scapular feathers.
Mike Kirch
Appleton WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Brown" <markb249(AT)EXCITE.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Redpoll ID challenge
> Birders,
>
> There is a redpoll that has been photographed in central Iowa recently
> that seems to have features of both Common and Hoary. Click on the
> following link:
>
> http://www.iowabirds.org/photo-gallery/
>
> Under the "ID Help Needed" are 4 Redpoll photos that I took on Christmas
> Eve, and under the "Rare Birds" folder are two more photos that Ann
> Johnson took of the same bird on December 29. We're very intersted in any
> opinions. Thank you!
>
> Mark Brown
> Iowa City
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Provincetown, MA juvenile Thayer's photos
From: "James H. Barton" <redwingatfp1986(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 10:10am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hello. Our discussion of the Utah gull might benefit from photos =
appearing on the website below, taken by James P. Smith in Provinctown, =
MA, at the tip of Cape Cod. =20
I have omitted the text of Smith's posting to Massbird, in which he =
included the following URLs--
http://keenbirding.com/NEFall06/thayer281206.html
http://keenbirding.com/NEFall06/thayer281206.html
Particularly evident to me on the Provincetown bird is the strong =
contrast between the pale body and the darker tertials and the dark =
primaries on the standing and floating bird. This evident contrast =
appears to be lacking on the Utah gull, But I still opine that it's a =
Thayer's, and like another correspondent, I would like to see a flight =
shot which would show the tail and the primaries. In several shots, the =
primaries do appear dark. Dark primaries contrasting with the inner =
wing would, in my opinion, make an ID of Kumlien's difficult if not =
impossible. =20
Subscribers to this list include several experienced MA observers =
who are well familiar with (East Coast) Thayer's and with Kumlien's =
Icleland I invite them to contribute to discussion of the Utah bird. =
So far, most of our correspondents have had to offer the disclaimer that =
they have never seen a Kumlien's Iceland. =20
To my way of thinking, the feather centers of the Utah bird are far =
too dark for Kumlien's Iceland (presuming that the young birds we see =
all are Kumlien's rather than nominate glaucoides.). Compare the photos =
recently posted by Martin Reid at
www.martinreid.com/Gull%20website/icgup05.html
Martin's neat photos also show the pale primaries and overall lack =
of contrast expected of Kumlien's Iceland. =20
Yours,
Jim Barton
Cambridge, MA
U.S. Coordinator, Proact
defending birds and their habitats
before it's too late
www.proact-campaings.net=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
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: Pewees and specimens - searchable AFN series
From: Phil Davis <pdavis(AT)IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 12:13pm
Hey Alan:
Wow ... this is a long awaited and much anticipated project!!! Can
you tell us more ... for example, is this just for the west coast or
for all regions; and when this searchable AFN/AB/NAB/ series will be
ready. Will the search capabilities have any built-in logic, for
example, by region and species?
Thanks!
Phil
At 11:45 12/30/2006, Alan Contreras wrote:
>While engaged in scanning the 1948 AFN
>field notes for the west coast (the entire run will eventually become
>available in a searchable Word format)
==================================
Phil Davis Davidsonville, Maryland USA
mailto:PDavis(AT)ix.netcom.com
==================================
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: The Utah small gull, plus a few of my own
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 1:14pm
Dear all,
I lack the kumlieni experience to enter the debate on the the ID of
the small pale bird in Utah, but I will share with you that a Google
search turned up the following links that show kumlienis that are
more or less similar to the Utah bird. Perhaps some of these birds
are not kumlieni, but all are from its normal range, and some from
its core range... - ?
http://www.birdinfo.com/A_Images_I/IcelandGull_0014.html
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/cayugabirdclub/Earlyspring2004.htm
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/cayugabirdclub/winter0405.html#Ice
http://www.pbase.com/jpkln/kumliens_2
http://www.ctbirding.org/photos_rap_cuc.htm - scroll down 2/3rds
http://keenbirding.com/Gulls/paleuidgull1.html
Also, I managed to find a few gulls of interest (to me anyway) in recent days:
http://www.martinreid.com/Gull%20website/gullsp160.html - this may be
a big dark 1C LBBG, but it might not...
http://www.martinreid.com/Gull%20website/gullsp161.html - I find it
hard to believe this is a 1C LBBG; maybe a YGLU or hybrid? (of what?).
http://www.martinreid.com/Gull%20website/gullsp162.html - suggestive
of a 2C Atlantic YLGU, or a hybrid.
http://www.martinreid.com/Gull%20website/gullsp163.html - The tail,
tertials, and chest combine to form an Old World feel for this HERG.
As usual, feedback is appreciated, either in this forum or privately - 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
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: searchable AFN series
From: Alan Contreras <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 8:55pm
I have been asked to provide the group with some additional detail about the
project to make a complete set of west coast field notes from AFN (1947)
through the present available in a searchable form.
I began discussing this issue a year back with NAS, which owns the copyright
for most of the the issues, and ABA, which has the recent ones. Everyone
agreed that the field notes are so hard to use (in large blocks) that the
data tends to get overlooked or underused.
I own a complete set of AFN-NAB to date (a very special thanks to Lloyd Kiff
of Idaho for providing the last few I did not have), a scanner and OCR
software, and began scanning all of the west coast field notes a couple of
months ago. I am doing this at no charge in my spare time, so it will take
maybe a year and a half to get done. I scan some every week, then have to
proof them and do a little cleanup. The first three years are done so far.
As five-year blocks are done, I will provide them as Word documents to the
current regional editors for the affected regions. These may then be
adapted to the needs of the editors. There are discussions underway about
how the material can be made available to a larger public. That hasn't been
figured out yet but both NAS and ABA think it's a good idea. One issue is
how large a "buffer" to retain from current issues. We don't want to divot
current subscriptions to NAB, which is a super journal. Right now we're
planning a five-year buffer.
I am doing all field notes for Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon,
probably California (depending on the outcome of an unconsummated but
promising liaison with WFO) and those portions of adjacent states that were
incorporated into multistate regions with any of the units above during the
years of that incorporation. Thus there will be 20+ years of Idaho and some
fair chunks of other parts of the interior west, mainly Utah, Nevada and
Colorado. I don't have the time or inclination to do the whole continent
This is not difficult to do, it just takes time. You also find great new
species. Strangest translations so far, with proposed taxonomic commentary
(I need to run these by Ralph Browning, whose sense of humor is better/worse
than mine):
Anna's bummer [no, no, NO, it's NOT a Costa's.]
Canvashacks [most of the modern artists currently on display in Portland]
Rhinoceros Anklet [a little surprise for the boyfriend who just can't keep
his hands where they belong]
Howard Cockswallow [a former regional editor in California, great guy, hope
he's not reading this]
Mourning Clove [French cigarette used by closet Royalists on Bastille Day]
Hand-tailed Pigeon [Quite rare, looks kind of like a Drongo]
Lazuli Hunting [Saw this in the jewelry store the other day]
Sing-necked duck [has special fluted openings where a Brant's neck markings
are, and actually calls through those]
--
Alan Contreras
EUGENE, OREGON
acontrer(AT)mindspring.com
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: A couple of odd Herring Gulls. I guess.
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 10:46pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Gull watchers
Here are photos of two Herring type gulls which caught my attention
recently. Vega came to mind, but for both there were troubling issues in
making that identification.
http://www.coastside.net/chucao/gulls/Herring-like.htm
Alvaro
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, California
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
www.fieldguides.com
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: searchable AFN series
From: Dick Newell <dick.newell(AT)ZEN.CO.UK>
Date: 31 Dec 2006 2:55am
Hi Alan,
I am posting this publicly, as, if anyone else is trying to do this, I would
like to know how they did it - after this I will communicate privately.
I embarked on a similar exercise for all of the annual reports of the
Cambridge Bird Club from 1928. I looked into scanning, and decided it would
just take too long. Also the complete set of reports that I had were tightly
bound, so it was impossible to lay them flat on the scanner. So I built a
photographic box with carefully designed lighting so that I only need to
open the bound volumes 90 degrees. I then used my Canon 20D to photograph
every page. It took me about 5 seconds per page, so at 4000 pages it should
have taken me about 7 hours, but with some false starts, it probably took me
3 times that (next time ....).
Having got high resolution (over 300dpi) images, I then set about using the
OCR facilities in Adobe Acrobat Professional to make it text searchable.
Three problems I failed to overcome:
1. The OCR was very error prone.
2. Even if I wanted to, I could not figure out how to proof read and correct
the OCR. But this would have been a huge effort anyway.
3. The OCR'd document was huge - I wanted to get the whole thing on a CD
So, for the moment, I have produced the CD, reducing the pages to 1024
pixels high, but not text searchable. Visually, it looks good.
So, if you know how to turn 4024 scanned pages @ 300dpi into searchable text
at reasonable effort or cost, I would very much like to know how you do it.
Otherwise, I may construct a manual index of just species names - which,
with the help of some friends, may be doable.
Regards
Dick Newell
Cambridge, UK
On 31/12/06 03:48, "Alan Contreras" <acontrer(AT)MINDSPRING.COM> wrote:
> I have been asked to provide the group with some additional detail about the
> project to make a complete set of west coast field notes from AFN (1947)
> through the present available in a searchable form.
>
> I began discussing this issue a year back with NAS, which owns the copyright
> for most of the the issues, and ABA, which has the recent ones. Everyone
> agreed that the field notes are so hard to use (in large blocks) that the
> data tends to get overlooked or underused.
>
> I own a complete set of AFN-NAB to date (a very special thanks to Lloyd Kiff
> of Idaho for providing the last few I did not have), a scanner and OCR
> software, and began scanning all of the west coast field notes a couple of
> months ago. I am doing this at no charge in my spare time, so it will take
> maybe a year and a half to get done. I scan some every week, then have to
> proof them and do a little cleanup. The first three years are done so far.
>
> As five-year blocks are done, I will provide them as Word documents to the
> current regional editors for the affected regions. These may then be
> adapted to the needs of the editors. There are discussions underway about
> how the material can be made available to a larger public. That hasn't been
> figured out yet but both NAS and ABA think it's a good idea. One issue is
> how large a "buffer" to retain from current issues. We don't want to divot
> current subscriptions to NAB, which is a super journal. Right now we're
> planning a five-year buffer.
>
> I am doing all field notes for Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon,
> probably California (depending on the outcome of an unconsummated but
> promising liaison with WFO) and those portions of adjacent states that were
> incorporated into multistate regions with any of the units above during the
> years of that incorporation. Thus there will be 20+ years of Idaho and some
> fair chunks of other parts of the interior west, mainly Utah, Nevada and
> Colorado. I don't have the time or inclination to do the whole continent
>
> This is not difficult to do, it just takes time. You also find great new
> species. Strangest translations so far, with proposed taxonomic commentary
> (I need to run these by Ralph Browning, whose sense of humor is better/worse
> than mine):
>
> Anna's bummer [no, no, NO, it's NOT a Costa's.]
>
> Canvashacks [most of the modern artists currently on display in Portland]
>
> Rhinoceros Anklet [a little surprise for the boyfriend who just can't keep
> his hands where they belong]
>
> Howard Cockswallow [a former regional editor in California, great guy, hope
> he's not reading this]
>
> Mourning Clove [French cigarette used by closet Royalists on Bastille Day]
>
> Hand-tailed Pigeon [Quite rare, looks kind of like a Drongo]
>
> Lazuli Hunting [Saw this in the jewelry store the other day]
>
> Sing-necked duck [has special fluted openings where a Brant's neck markings
> are, and actually calls through those]
>
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