Birdingonthe.Net

Recent Postings from
Frontiers of Identification

> Home > Mail
> Alerts

Updated on Sunday, March 26 at 03:09 AM EST
The most recently received Mail is at the top.


Heermans Gull,©Shawneen Finnegan

26 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Michael O'Keeffe ]
24 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Hugh McGuinness ]
21 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Jeff Gilligan ]
24 Mar Response Protocol? [Bates Estabrooks ]
21 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Jeff Gilligan ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida ["Lethaby, Nick" ]
24 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Steve Hampton ]
24 Mar Florida grebe [KEVIN karlson ]
21 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Kevin McLaughlin ]
24 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Jon Ruddy ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Jon Ruddy ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [David Irons ]
21 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Steve Hampton ]
25 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Glenn d'Entremont ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [KEVIN karlson ]
24 Mar Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Bill Pranty ]
25 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II [Joseph Morlan ]
22 Mar Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Bill Pranty ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Wayne Hoffman ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Jason Rogers ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [David Irons ]
22 Mar Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida [Jason Rogers ]
10 Mar Re: seeking input on a "white-winged" junco from Ontario [Shaibal Mitra ]
10 Mar seeking input on a "white-winged" junco from Ontario [Mike Burrell ]
27 Feb Re: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes [Brent Bomkamp ]
27 Feb Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes [Brent Bomkamp ]
26 Feb Re: Fwd: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance ["Lethaby, Nick" ]
26 Feb Lesser Black-backed Gull leg color ["Lethaby, Nick" ]
25 Feb Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Jeff Davis ]
25 Feb Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [BRUCE DEUEL ]
25 Feb Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance [Brian Sullivan ]
22 Feb Wren ID [Ross Silcock ]
11 Feb Re: Interested gull reported from Florida [Phil Davis ]
11 Feb Re: Interested gull reported from Florida [Suzanne Sullivan ]
10 Feb Interested gull reported from Florida [Mike Patterson ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Mike Patterson ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons ]
2 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Mike Patterson ]
2 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Mark Szantyr ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Bates Estabrooks ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Mike Patterson ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [David Irons ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Andrew Sewell ]
2 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins ]
3 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Michael Collins ]
2 Feb Re: IBWO evidence published [Phil Jeffrey ]
1 Feb Help With Goose ID [Bates Estabrooks ]
31 Jan Re: Help With Goose ID [BRUCE DEUEL ]
29 Jan Unusual Anas duck with ESPD characteristics [Joseph Miller ]
19 Jan Re: male Gadwall plumage [Wayne Hoffman ]
19 Jan Re: male Gadwall plumage [Wayne Hoffman ]
18 Jan male Gadwall plumage [KEVIN karlson ]
17 Jan San Diego County Larus sp. [James Pawlicki ]
10 Jan California x Ring-billed Gull? [Peter Pyle ]
8 Jan Re: strange bird from Nevada reported… [Jeff Gilligan ]
8 Jan Re: strange bird from Nevada reported… [Christopher Hill ]
8 Jan Re: strange bird from Nevada reported… [Jeff Gilligan ]
7 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [KEVIN karlson ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [David Irons ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [Cathy Sheeter ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [Martin Reid ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [Michael Todd ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [Cathy Sheeter ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [Deborah Allen ]
6 Jan Re: Mystery Duck [The HH75 ]
6 Jan Mystery Duck [Bates Estabrooks ]
5 Jan Re: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age [Peter Pyle ]
2 Jan Re: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age [Ashli Gorbet ]
2 Jan Re: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age [Shaibal Mitra ]
2 Jan Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age [Hugh McGuinness ]
2 Jan RFI: Rock Sandpiper Soft Parts Coloration [Jeremy Gatten ]
30 Dec Re: A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow [Peter Pyle ]
30 Dec Re: A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow [Steve Hampton ]
30 Dec Re: A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow [Jason Rogers ]

Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Michael O'Keeffe <okeeffeml AT EIRCOM.NET>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 08:57:31 +0100
Hi,

The better images at http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092 confirm 
its a Horned (Slavonian) Grebe. Unfortunate that all images to date appear more 
or less in silhouette. But even in spite of that, overall structure fits 
Horned, especially the flat crown. The bill shape can be a little hard to 
discern due to back lighting but fits Horned, with no indication of an upturn 
(eg. ML52135671 and ML52135681). And, it clearly has a pale tip as others have 
pointed out. Also others have commented the breeding plumage pattern coming 
through on the head fits Horned perfectly, including the golden feathering 
above and behind the eye, extending clearly onto the lores (eg. ML52135741). I 
note Glenn d'Entremont's comments re reddish colour on the lower neck but Eared 
(Black-necked) can also show this before attaining it's full, black breeding 
plumage. I don't think there is any reason to suspect a hybrid. 


Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn d'Entremont" 
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Sunday, 26 March, 2017 00:59:26
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part 
II 


This bird looks shaped like a Horned IMO with low sleeked back and an elongated 
crown with no peak. 



Is it my monitor, but in images ML52135681 and ML52135781 does it appear to 
show a reddish color near the lower neck? This also appears in the reflection 
in the water on ....681. This is only on the right side I do not get that from 
with the bird facing left. 



Anyone else getting this impression/color?


Glenn


Glenn d'Entremont: gdentremont1 AT comcast.net Stoughton, MA


> 
>     On March 24, 2017 at 3:27 AM Bill Pranty  wrote:
> 
>     Good morning,
> 
> Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the 
Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was farther 
offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of the 
confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity may 
never be settled). 

> 
>     My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:
> 
>     http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092
> 
> As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to occasionally 
common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been 
documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be an Eared 
Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County. 

> 
>     Thanks to all who have already commented.
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Bill
> 
>     --
> 
>     Bill Pranty
> 
>     Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
> 
>     Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Hugh McGuinness <hdmcguinness AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:51:28 -0400
A fast giss-based mark I use to look for Eared Grebe in the east requires
imagining the grebe head shape to be a triangle. In Horned Grebe the head
is an isosceles triangle with the apex being pointed horizontally through
the bill. In Eared Grebe, the head shape is an equilateral triangle with
one apex pointing vertically. The Florida bird shows, in almost all photos,
the head shape of a Horned Grebe IMHO. I don't know if others can see what
I am talking about, but this way of thinking about it has allowed me to
find several Eared Grebes in the east.

Hugh

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Steve Hampton 
wrote:

> I agree and change my vote to a ratty Horned Grebe.  The new photos show a
> pale tip to the bill, an offset white check, and lower head and back
> profile, and a bright red line to the eye (barely).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Joseph Morlan  wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I believe the new photos indicate Horned Grebe.  Some helpful characters
> > are essayed by Jehl in Western Birds "Additional Notes on Leucistic Eared
> > Grebes at Mono Lake" (Western Birds 38:289-292, 2007) available at:
> >
> > https://sora.unm.edu/node/137208
> >
> > One feature not previously mentioned is the relatively broad red gape
> line
> > between the eye and the bill evident in the new photos.  In Eared Grebe,
> > this line is normally dark, much narrower, shorter, more strongly angled
> > and less distinct.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:27:42 +0000, Bill Pranty 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Good morning,
> > >
> > >
> > >Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the
> > Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was
> farther
> > offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of
> the
> > confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity
> may
> > never be settled).
> > >
> > >
> > >My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:
> > >
> > >
> > >http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092
> > >
> > >
> > >As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to
> occasionally
> > common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been
> > documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be an
> > Eared Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County.
> > >
> > >
> > >Thanks to all who have already commented.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill
> > --
> > Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Hampton
> Davis, CA
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Hugh McGuinness
Washington, D.C.

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Jeff Gilligan <jeffgilligan10 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:52:39 -0700
Dave

Here is a link to a winter Eared Grebe with a pale, whitish bill: 
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Eared_Grebe/id 
 


Jeff


> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, David Irons  wrote:
> 
> In all photos the bill tip
> appears to be pale and whitish, which
> is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 

> 
> Dave Irons
> Portland, Oregon
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:
>> 
>> Good evening,
>> 
>> 
>> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

>> 
>> 
>> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>> 
>> 
>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>> 
>> 
>> Comments requested.
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> 
>> Bill Pranty
>> 
>> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>> 
>> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Response Protocol?
From: Bates Estabrooks <wgpu AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:12:42 +0000
A curiosity.


On this forum, is there an understood protocol about responding to folks' ID 
requests "on list" vs. "off list"? 



I noticed in Bill Pranty's latest eBird checklist (today) re. the Pasco County 
(FL) grebe, that his 7/7 tally is based on feedback he received on the list 
and, it appears, privately. I'm wondering if responders could be encouraged to 
respond "on list" so that their, likely helpful, input could be considered by 
everyone? Perhaps though, there is some consideration I'm missing. 



Thanks.


Bates Estabrooks

Anderson County, Tennessee

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Jeff Gilligan <jeffgilligan10 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:04:39 -0700
I agree.  
Jeff Gilligan (Oregon)

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Steve Hampton  wrote:
> 
> The bill shape, skinny neck, and other posture aspects strongly suggest
> Eared Grebe to me.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:
> 
>> Good evening,
>> 
>> 
>> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has
>> generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and
>> to date has not been photographed under ideal conditions
>> (lighting/distance).
>> 
>> 
>> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>> 
>> 
>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>> 
>> 
>> Comments requested.
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> 
>> Bill Pranty
>> 
>> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>> 
>> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve Hampton
> Davis, CA
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby AT TI.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:44:48 +0000
I think the quality of the photos combined with the worn plumage state make it 
difficult to be sure about this bird. While I agree that a pale bill tip is a 
good feature for Horned Grebe, I only see it in some of the pictures and with 
so-so photos, it might be an artifact. The thin-necked appearance could be a 
result of worn feathering. Quite a few Horned Grebes can show a bill shape like 
this. From what I can see of the face pattern, it looks better for Horned. 
Overall, I think I lean towards Horned, but wouldn't wager a lot of money on 
it. 


-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
[mailto:BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Hoffman 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 2:03 PM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida

Hi - 

I can see why this bird is causing confusion. I would like to point out another 
character I find often useful, which is the appearance of the bird's rear end. 
 Horned Grebes usually show a continuous curve to the back, ending with the 
wingtips near the waterline at the rear, and everything in the back tapering 
somewhat smoothly to one terminal point.  Eared Grebes often show the curve of 
the back rising to a high point 2 cm or so forward of the stern, and then a 
fluffy, steeply-sloped back end down to a very rounded stern.   


I think this difference is a consequence of Eared Grebes having shorter wings 
relative to body length, such that the folded wings end short of the upper-tail 
coverts.  The latter, not compressed under the folded wings, can fluff up and 
give a very different shape to the back end. 


These photos are not ideal for judging this character, but I get a sense of 
longer wings from them, thus suggesting Horned. 


Wayne
On 3/21/2017 8:52:59 PM, Jeff Gilligan  wrote:
Dave

Here is a link to a winter Eared Grebe with a pale, whitish bill: 
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Eared_Grebe/id 


Jeff


> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, David Irons wrote:
>
> In all photos the bill tip
> appears to be pale and whitish, which
> is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 

>
> Dave Irons
> Portland, Oregon
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty wrote:
>>
>> Good evening,
>>
>>
>> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

>>
>>
>> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>>
>>
>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>>
>>
>> Comments requested.
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> Bill Pranty
>>
>> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>>
>> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Steve Hampton <stevechampton AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:34:51 -0700
I agree and change my vote to a ratty Horned Grebe.  The new photos show a
pale tip to the bill, an offset white check, and lower head and back
profile, and a bright red line to the eye (barely).



On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Joseph Morlan  wrote:

> Bill,
>
> I believe the new photos indicate Horned Grebe.  Some helpful characters
> are essayed by Jehl in Western Birds "Additional Notes on Leucistic Eared
> Grebes at Mono Lake" (Western Birds 38:289-292, 2007) available at:
>
> https://sora.unm.edu/node/137208
>
> One feature not previously mentioned is the relatively broad red gape line
> between the eye and the bill evident in the new photos.  In Eared Grebe,
> this line is normally dark, much narrower, shorter, more strongly angled
> and less distinct.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:27:42 +0000, Bill Pranty 
> wrote:
>
> >Good morning,
> >
> >
> >Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the
> Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was farther
> offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of the
> confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity may
> never be settled).
> >
> >
> >My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:
> >
> >
> >http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092
> >
> >
> >As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to occasionally
> common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been
> documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be an
> Eared Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County.
> >
> >
> >Thanks to all who have already commented.
> >
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> >Bill
> --
> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Steve Hampton
Davis, CA

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Florida grebe
From: KEVIN karlson <karlson3 AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:15:48 -0400
After seeing Bill's new photos, I must say that the head shape appears 
better for Horned Grebe, as does the incoming plumage features. The body also 
seems to be riding quite low in the water, similar to Horned Grebe, and the 
rear body does not seem to be elevated, like in Eared Grebe. However, I cannot 
come to grips with the bill shape, which is completely Eared Grebe in size and 
shape, and with the very thin neck. I have to side with Tony Leukering's 
comments on a possible hybrid, although I have nothing to fall back on with 
respect to this combination. Interesting bird. Good luck with this one, Bill. 
Kevin Karlson 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Kevin McLaughlin <kevinmclaughlin05 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:24:46 -0400
This grebe is tough to judge in terms of overall structure due to molt
giving it a rough aspect and creating a somewhat misleading impression of
true head and body shape.The lighting was not the best either. One feature
however is quite visible in seven or eight of the photos and this is the
contrastingly pale tip to the bill. This is a clear Horned Grebe character
and I have no recollection of seeing Eared Grebe with this.

Kevin McLaughlin
Hamilton, Ontario.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Jeff Gilligan 
wrote:

> I agree.
> Jeff Gilligan (Oregon)
>
> > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Steve Hampton 
> wrote:
> >
> > The bill shape, skinny neck, and other posture aspects strongly suggest
> > Eared Grebe to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Good evening,
> >>
> >>
> >> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has
> >> generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting
> and
> >> to date has not been photographed under ideal conditions
> >> (lighting/distance).
> >>
> >>
> >> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
> >>
> >>
> >> Comments requested.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bill Pranty
> >>
> >> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
> >>
> >> billpranty AT hotmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Hampton
> > Davis, CA
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Jon Ruddy <accipitriformes AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:50:33 -0400
Hi there,

In reviewing Bill's improved photographs of the bird, I'm increasing my
confidence level regarding this bird as a transitional HOGR. In all of
Bill's photos, the low, gently-rising forehead and long, flat crown show
through. Not seeing the sharp rise to the forehead, and puffy, peaked crown
as in EAGR; there's "a lot of head" above the eye in EAGR...not so in this
bird. Even if feathers are to do with this impression, I imagine the skull
shape itself differs. In each of these new photos, the bird is riding quite
low in the water, and the rear of its back tapers into the waterline
(though this look is lost in ML52135681 as it appears the bird is riding
the crest of a small wave below it). The pale tip to the bill is seen
fairly well in ML52135631 and well in ML52135641. Though I think it's
difficult to assess its true shape from these photos, the bill...esp. near
the tip, just doesn't look narrow and sharp enough to my eye, especially
considering the distance to the subject and the quality of the photo.  The
fact that I can discern and follow the contour of the bill tip with my
naked eye leads me to believe it’s more blunt-ended. Final point, I believe
the apparent thinness of the neck is strictly a result of posture/alertness
and I would caution against giving this feature a large degree of "weight"
during analysis.

Regards,

Jon Ruddy

Ottawa, Ontario

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Tony Leukering <
000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu> wrote:

> All:
>
> I think that this bird is simply odd.  To me, the shape of the bill is
> like that of Eared (EAGR), though the bird does seem to sport the white tip
> of Horned (HOGR).  Also, EAGR usually shows (in front view) the head being
> the same width as the neck.  The Anclote bird's head is slightly wider than
> the neck, but not as wide as typical of HOGR.  Though the head seems to be
> molting, thus exhibiting an odd shape, the shape seems to be intermediate
> between the two species.  The absolute thickness of the neck seems like the
> thin-necked look of EAGR.
>
> The above suggests a hybrid to me, and I have thought so since Bill posted
> the first checklist to this venue, though I've been hesitant to say such,
> as some already think that I am too hybrid-happy.  However, Michael O'Brien
> chimed in privately to me with the same opinion.  So, now that I'm in some
> fairly august company, I'll step out on that thin limb.
>
> Tony
>
> Tony Leukering
> Largo, FL
> www.aba.org/photoquiz/
> www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering
> http://cowyebird.blogspot.com
>
> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 09:34, Steve Hampton 
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree and change my vote to a ratty Horned Grebe.  The new photos show
> a
> > pale tip to the bill, an offset white check, and lower head and back
> > profile, and a bright red line to the eye (barely).
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Joseph Morlan 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> I believe the new photos indicate Horned Grebe.  Some helpful characters
> >> are essayed by Jehl in Western Birds "Additional Notes on Leucistic
> Eared
> >> Grebes at Mono Lake" (Western Birds 38:289-292, 2007) available at:
> >>
> >> https://sora.unm.edu/node/137208
> >>
> >> One feature not previously mentioned is the relatively broad red gape
> line
> >> between the eye and the bill evident in the new photos.  In Eared Grebe,
> >> this line is normally dark, much narrower, shorter, more strongly angled
> >> and less distinct.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:27:42 +0000, Bill Pranty  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Good morning,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the
> >> Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was
> farther
> >> offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of
> the
> >> confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity
> may
> >> never be settled).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to
> occasionally
> >> common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been
> >> documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be
> an
> >> Eared Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to all who have already commented.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >> --
> >> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA
> >>
> >> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Hampton
> > Davis, CA
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Eastern Ontario Birding
eontbird.ca

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Jon Ruddy <accipitriformes AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:48:58 -0400
Hi there,

It's very difficult to critically assess this bird given the quality of the
photos, but this in fact provides an important consideration: I'd expect
the tip of the bill to be sharper and finer on a similarly photographed
Eared Grebe. In photo ML51385511, the bill is not particularly
sharp-tipped, rather it is blunt-tipped. Every photo I see, I see the same
detail; taking into account the distance from the subject and the quality
of the photo...the bill appears to be too thick and blunt-tipped for Eared.
In photo ML51385481, I believe the contrasting pale tip to the bill may be
showing through naturally (vs. an artifact of lighting); its position on
the bill and its apparent color "fit the bill", in my opinion. In photo
ML51385521, it is very difficult to erase the overall impression of Eared
here, but I believe it's impression is due postural "shape-shifting."

A tentative vote for Horned Grebe.

Regards,

Jon Ruddy
Ottawa, Ontario
eontbird.ca

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Bill Pranty 
wrote:

> Good evening,
>
>
> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has
> generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and
> to date has not been photographed under ideal conditions
> (lighting/distance).
>
>
> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>
>
> Comments requested.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> Bill Pranty
>
> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>
> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Eastern Ontario Birding
eontbird.ca

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: David Irons <llsdirons AT MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:09:41 +0000
It's not really a color Jason. The tip of a Horned Grebe's bill is slightly 
translucent and ivory-colored. In this set of photos the tip looks consistently 
glared out, which is typical when you have backlit photos of Horned Grebes. I 
would recommend looking at a bunch of photos of Horned Grebes paying particular 
attention to the very tip of the bill. 


I learned this field mark several years ago from a mystery bird quiz that Joe 
Morlan used to do. Ever since then I have studied Horned and Eared Grebes. I've 
yet to find a Horned Grebe that lacked this distinctive whitish tip and I have 
never seen an Eared Grebe that showed a conspicuous pale tip to the bill. 


I would add that the last image (with the bird facing the camera) strikes me as 
showing a pretty typical head shape and pattern for Horned Grebe. 


Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Jason Rogers  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps it's just my screen, but with the harsh light, glare, and background 
in these photos, I'm not sure how anyone is discerning the colour of the bill 
let alone the colour of the tip. 

> 
> 
> Jason Rogers
> 
> Calgary, AB
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of Jeff Gilligan 
 

> Sent: March 22, 2017 4:18 AM
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
> 
> I am back-tracking. Looking at the photos again I can see the bill tip is 
pale even in the photos where the rest of the bill is otherwise dark. 

> 
> Jeff gilligan. (Oregon)
> 
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, David Irons  wrote:
>> 
>> In all photos the bill tip
>> appears to be pale and whitish, which
>> is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 

>> 
>> Dave Irons
>> Portland, Oregon
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Good evening,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

>>> 
>>> 
>>> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Comments requested.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bill Pranty
>>> 
>>> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>>> 
>>> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Steve Hampton <stevechampton AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:33:58 -0700
The bill shape, skinny neck, and other posture aspects strongly suggest
Eared Grebe to me.



On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:

> Good evening,
>
>
> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has
> generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and
> to date has not been photographed under ideal conditions
> (lighting/distance).
>
>
> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>
>
> Comments requested.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> Bill Pranty
>
> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>
> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Steve Hampton
Davis, CA

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Glenn d'Entremont <gdentremont1 AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:59:26 -0400
This bird looks shaped like a Horned IMO with low sleeked back and an elongated 
crown with no peak. 



Is it my monitor, but in images ML52135681 and ML52135781 does it appear to 
show a reddish color near the lower neck? This also appears in the reflection 
in the water on ....681. This is only on the right side I do not get that from 
with the bird facing left. 



Anyone else getting this impression/color?


Glenn


Glenn d'Entremont: gdentremont1 AT comcast.net Stoughton, MA


> 
>     On March 24, 2017 at 3:27 AM Bill Pranty  wrote:
> 
>     Good morning,
> 
> Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the 
Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was farther 
offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of the 
confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity may 
never be settled). 

> 
>     My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:
> 
>     http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092
> 
> As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to occasionally 
common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been 
documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be an Eared 
Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County. 

> 
>     Thanks to all who have already commented.
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Bill
> 
>     --
> 
>     Bill Pranty
> 
>     Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
> 
>     Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: KEVIN karlson <karlson3 AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:59:08 -0400
All: it is never a good idea to place all your eggs in one basket based on a 
single field mark, such as a pale bill tip, when so many other features are 
visible to help with this ID. The bill shape of this bird is perfect Eared 
Grebe, with its deeper base and very slender, pointed bill that narrows 
dramatically from the middle to a very pointed tip. Horned Grebe has a fairly 
thick bill from base to tip, with the tip being somewhat blunt. They also show 
a pale tip to the bill in the handful of my photos that I looked at, including 
this comparison photo that I used in my book Birding by Impression, which 
compares nonbreeding Horned, Eared and Red-necked Grebes. You can clearly see 
the pale tip on the Horned Grebe in this image, which is much better lit that 
the Bill's photos. Link: 
http://kevinkarlsonphotography.com/gallery/v/Loons/Figure+33+-+Comparison+of+nonbreeding+Horned_+Eared+and+Red-necked+Grebes+2.jpg.html 


Another feature for Eared Grebe is the proportionally long, slender neck 
compared to Horned Grebe's fairly short, thick neck, which only appears thin 
when they extend it fully. The head is also quite small compared to the larger, 
blocky, flat-topped head of Horned Grebe, which shows no peak to the crown. 
Another point for Eared is the way that they ride on top of the water with 
their rear end elevated as if it was pumped up with air. Only a few photos show 
the water calm enough to see this feature, but Horned Grebe rides in the water 
like a partially submerged submarine. The flanks on Horned Grebe when it is 
floating are somewhat proportionally visible from front to back as well, with 
Eared Grebe showing more of the rear flank above the water line. I also 
attached a link to a breeding Horned Grebe on my website that also shows a pale 
bill tip. This features is not a separative field mark for these two species. 
http://kevinkarlsonphotography.com/gallery/v/Loons/Horned+Grebe_+breeding_ 

 +Churchill_+June.jpg.html


Kevin Karlson

> 
>     On March 22, 2017 at 12:29 AM Jason Rogers  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps it's just my screen, but with the harsh light, glare, and background 
in these photos, I'm not sure how anyone is discerning the colour of the bill 
let alone the colour of the tip. 

> 
>     Jason Rogers
> 
>     Calgary, AB
> 
>     ________________________________
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of Jeff Gilligan 
 

>     Sent: March 22, 2017 4:18 AM
>     To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>     Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
> 
> I am back-tracking. Looking at the photos again I can see the bill tip is 
pale even in the photos where the rest of the bill is otherwise dark. 

> 
>     Jeff gilligan. (Oregon)
> 
>         > > 
> >         On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, David Irons  wrote:
> > 
> >         In all photos the bill tip
> >         appears to be pale and whitish, which
> > is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 

> > 
> >         Dave Irons
> >         Portland, Oregon
> > 
> >         Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> >             > > > 
> > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote: 

> > > 
> > >             Good evening,
> > > 
> > > A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

> > > 
> > >             My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
> > > 
> > >             http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
> > > 
> > >             Comments requested.
> > > 
> > >             Thank you.
> > > 
> > >             Best regards.
> > > 
> > >             Bill Pranty
> > > 
> > >             Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
> > > 
> > >             billpranty AT hotmail.com
> > > 
> > >             Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> > > 
> > >         > > 
> >         Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> > 
> >     > 
>     Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
>     Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Bill Pranty <billpranty AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:27:42 +0000
Good morning,


Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the 
Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was farther 
offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of the 
confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity may 
never be settled). 



My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092


As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to occasionally 
common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been 
documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be an Eared 
Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County. 



Thanks to all who have already commented.



Best regards,


Bill

--

Bill Pranty

Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida, Part II
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 01:35:30 -0700
I was unaware that Horned and Eared Grebes are known to hybridize so I did
a brief literature search and came up with this:

Dennis, R. H. 1973. Possible interbreeding of Slavonian Grebe and
Black-necked Grebe in Scotland. Scott. Birds no. 7:307-308. 

The text is online at...

http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42642239

http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42642240

That's all I could find so far. 


On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:23:30 -0500, Tony Leukering
<000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU> wrote:

>All:
>
>I think that this bird is simply odd. To me, the shape of the bill is like 
that of Eared (EAGR), though the bird does seem to sport the white tip of 
Horned (HOGR). Also, EAGR usually shows (in front view) the head being the same 
width as the neck. The Anclote bird's head is slightly wider than the neck, but 
not as wide as typical of HOGR. Though the head seems to be molting, thus 
exhibiting an odd shape, the shape seems to be intermediate between the two 
species. The absolute thickness of the neck seems like the thin-necked look of 
EAGR. 

>
>The above suggests a hybrid to me, and I have thought so since Bill posted the 
first checklist to this venue, though I've been hesitant to say such, as some 
already think that I am too hybrid-happy. However, Michael O'Brien chimed in 
privately to me with the same opinion. So, now that I'm in some fairly august 
company, I'll step out on that thin limb. 

>
>Tony
>
>Tony Leukering
>Largo, FL
>www.aba.org/photoquiz/
>www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering
>http://cowyebird.blogspot.com
>
>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 09:34, Steve Hampton  wrote:
>> 
>> I agree and change my vote to a ratty Horned Grebe.  The new photos show a
>> pale tip to the bill, an offset white check, and lower head and back
>> profile, and a bright red line to the eye (barely).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Joseph Morlan  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bill,
>>> 
>>> I believe the new photos indicate Horned Grebe.  Some helpful characters
>>> are essayed by Jehl in Western Birds "Additional Notes on Leucistic Eared
>>> Grebes at Mono Lake" (Western Birds 38:289-292, 2007) available at:
>>> 
>>> https://sora.unm.edu/node/137208
>>> 
>>> One feature not previously mentioned is the relatively broad red gape line
>>> between the eye and the bill evident in the new photos.  In Eared Grebe,
>>> this line is normally dark, much narrower, shorter, more strongly angled
>>> and less distinct.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:27:42 +0000, Bill Pranty 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Good morning,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yesterday I revisited Anclote River Park and again photographed the
>>> Horned/Eared grebe. The lighting was much better but the grebe was farther
>>> offshore. Nonetheless, I hope that the new images will clarify some of the
>>> confusion regarding the grebe's ID (although I accept that its identity may
>>> never be settled).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> My new eBIrd checklist with 10 new images is here:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35379092
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As an FYI, while Horned Grebe is a regular, fairly common to occasionally
>>> common migrant and winter resident locally, eared Grebe has never been
>>> documented via photographic proof. So, if this grebe is accepted to be an
>>> Eared Grebe, then we will have a new bird for Pasco County.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to all who have already commented.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>> --
>>> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Steve Hampton
>> Davis, CA
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
>Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Bill Pranty <billpranty AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:26:08 +0000
Good evening,


A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has generated 
debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to date has 
not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 



My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610


Comments requested.


Thank you.



Best regards.


Bill Pranty

Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida

billpranty AT hotmail.com




Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Wayne Hoffman <whoffman AT PEAK.ORG>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:03:09 -0700
Hi - 

I can see why this bird is causing confusion. I would like to point out another 
character I find often useful, which is the appearance of the bird's rear end. 
 Horned Grebes usually show a continuous curve to the back, ending with the 
wingtips near the waterline at the rear, and everything in the back tapering 
somewhat smoothly to one terminal point.  Eared Grebes often show the curve of 
the back rising to a high point 2 cm or so forward of the stern, and then a 
fluffy, steeply-sloped back end down to a very rounded stern.   


I think this difference is a consequence of Eared Grebes having shorter wings 
relative to body length, such that the folded wings end short of the upper-tail 
coverts.  The latter, not compressed under the folded wings, can fluff up and 
give a very different shape to the back end. 


These photos are not ideal for judging this character, but I get a sense of 
longer wings from them, thus suggesting Horned. 


Wayne
On 3/21/2017 8:52:59 PM, Jeff Gilligan  wrote:
Dave

Here is a link to a winter Eared Grebe with a pale, whitish bill: 
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Eared_Grebe/id 


Jeff


> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, David Irons wrote:
>
> In all photos the bill tip
> appears to be pale and whitish, which
> is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 

>
> Dave Irons
> Portland, Oregon
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty wrote:
>>
>> Good evening,
>>
>>
>> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

>>
>>
>> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>>
>>
>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>>
>>
>> Comments requested.
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> Bill Pranty
>>
>> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>>
>> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Jason Rogers <hawkowl AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:02:41 +0000
I agree - Eared.


Jason Rogers

Calgary, AB


________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of Steve Hampton 
 

Sent: March 22, 2017 2:33 AM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida

The bill shape, skinny neck, and other posture aspects strongly suggest
Eared Grebe to me.



On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:

> Good evening,
>
>
> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has
> generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and
> to date has not been photographed under ideal conditions
> (lighting/distance).
>
>
> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>
>
> Comments requested.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> Bill Pranty
>
> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>
> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



--
Steve Hampton
Davis, CA

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: David Irons <llsdirons AT MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:30:41 +0000
In all photos the bill tip
appears to be pale and whitish, which
is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 


Dave Irons
Portland, Oregon

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:
> 
> Good evening,
> 
> 
> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

> 
> 
> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
> 
> 
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
> 
> 
> Comments requested.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> 
> Bill Pranty
> 
> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
> 
> billpranty AT hotmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida
From: Jason Rogers <hawkowl AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:29:52 +0000
Perhaps it's just my screen, but with the harsh light, glare, and background in 
these photos, I'm not sure how anyone is discerning the colour of the bill let 
alone the colour of the tip. 



Jason Rogers

Calgary, AB



________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of Jeff Gilligan 
 

Sent: March 22, 2017 4:18 AM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Comments requested on a Podiceps grebe in Florida

I am back-tracking. Looking at the photos again I can see the bill tip is pale 
even in the photos where the rest of the bill is otherwise dark. 


Jeff gilligan. (Oregon)


> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, David Irons  wrote:
>
> In all photos the bill tip
> appears to be pale and whitish, which
> is to my understanding diagnostic for Horned Grebe. My extensive field 
experience with Eared and Horned Grebes has convinced me that this is a highly 
reliable fieldmark. 

>
> Dave Irons
> Portland, Oregon
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Bill Pranty  wrote:
>>
>> Good evening,
>>
>>
>> A _Podiceps_ grebe in Pasco County, Florida (central Gulf coast) has 
generated debate locally as to its identification. The grebe is molting and to 
date has not been photographed under ideal conditions (lighting/distance). 

>>
>>
>> My "best" 10 photographs are uploaded to my eBird checklist:
>>
>>
>> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S35225610
>>
>>
>> Comments requested.
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> Bill Pranty
>>
>> Bayonet Point (Pasco County), Florida
>>
>> billpranty AT hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: seeking input on a "white-winged" junco from Ontario
From: Shaibal Mitra <Shaibal.Mitra AT CSI.CUNY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 23:59:18 +0000
I agree with Tony completely.

Although I don't have a lot of experience with White-winged Junco, I have 
extensive experience with Slate-colored Juncos, including close study of 
multiple individuals with white wingbars. Birds of this appearance that I've 
banded in the coastal northeastern USA have resembled SCJU in the other plumage 
features mentioned by Tony, and in terms of measurements and tail pattern. In 
other words, SCJU can look like this. 


Best,
Shai
________________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIER.S Frontiers of Field Identification 
[BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] on behalf of Tony Leukering 
[000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] 

Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:57 PM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] seeking input on a "white-winged" junco from Ontario

Mike et al.:


Having extensive experience with White-winged Junco (WWJU) on the winter 
grounds (and a little bit on breeding grounds), I feel quite comfortable in 
identifying the Ontario junco as an aberrant Slate-colored (SCJU). The bill is 
small, the color of the gray plumage is too dark, and the lores do not contrast 
strongly enough (partly because the basic color of the bird is too dark). The 
observer does not mention any size difference -- and that difference is 
typically obvious to me in the field, nor does the observer note any difference 
in call note. As the three pictures provided do not show a spread tail, it is 
impossible to determine the extent of white in the tail. Additionally, if one 
is familiar with SCJUs (and particularly if such are present for direct 
comparison), the large amount of white visible in the tail when a WWJU leaves 
the ground is strikingly obvious; it is not something that one has to think 
about. 



I hope that this helps.


Enjoy,


Tony


Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Burrell 
To: BIRDWG01 
Sent: Fri, Mar 10, 2017 4:33 pm
Subject: [BIRDWG01] seeking input on a "white-winged" junco from Ontario

Hi there,

The Ontario Bird Records Committee received this report of a Dark-eyed
"white-winged" Junco from last fall in northwestern Ontario. The OBRC has
never accepted a report of this subspecies in the province.

The documentation for this record is found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0c8egkg9o719jv1/AADtuEZfHeEPd04jCWY5al6Fa?dl=0

Would you be willing to provide your opinion on the bird based on your
experience with this subspecies? The OBRC is particularly interested in how
to separate that subspecies from slate-colored birds with white wing bars.

If you have any other suggestions for people with experience with this
subspecies, please let me know or pass this message along to them.

Thanks for your time,

Mike Burrell
OBRC Secretary
OBRCSecretary AT gmail.com

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html



Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: seeking input on a "white-winged" junco from Ontario
From: Mike Burrell <mike.burrell.on AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:21:54 -0500
Hi there,

The Ontario Bird Records Committee received this report of a Dark-eyed
"white-winged" Junco from last fall in northwestern Ontario. The OBRC has
never accepted a report of this subspecies in the province.

The documentation for this record is found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0c8egkg9o719jv1/AADtuEZfHeEPd04jCWY5al6Fa?dl=0

Would you be willing to provide your opinion on the bird based on your
experience with this subspecies? The OBRC is particularly interested in how
to separate that subspecies from slate-colored birds with white wing bars.

If you have any other suggestions for people with experience with this
subspecies, please let me know or pass this message along to them.

Thanks for your time,

Mike Burrell
OBRC Secretary
OBRCSecretary AT gmail.com

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes
From: Brent Bomkamp <bbomkamp AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:51:57 -0500
Apologies for flooding your inboxes, but to clarify the call recorded from
the Oswego grebe was similar to a WESTERN Grebe, not Clark's, as was
probably evident from the tone of the message and the calls.  Apologies for
any confusion.

The same questions still apply.

Thanks

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Brent Bomkamp  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I'm sure some are aware an apparent Clark's Grebe was discovered on
> Wednesday the 22nd in Oswego, NY, representing the first state record of
> the species.  Although all physical marks (bill color, neck dorsal stripe,
> back and flank coloration, and facial patterning) are strongly indicative
> of Clark's, the bird has been recorded making a call typical of Clark's
> Grebe.  Conditions on the lake and the distance of the bird make recording
> difficult, but recordings made by Greg Dashnau and Brad Walker, along with
> photos and descriptions, can be accessed below:
>
> https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S34656521
> https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S34657265
>
> It is worth noting that in at least one of the recordings the bird was
> induced to call using playback of Western Grebe.
>
> Recent discussion among New York birders has suggested that vocalizations
> in the genus are not necessarily a reliable indicator of either species.
> However, published sources such as Nuechterlein and Buitron 1998 (accessed
> here: beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/3/313.full.pdf) suggest that
> call types are determined genetically and are vital for the reproductive
> isolation
> of the two species.  This would seem to call into question the prior
> notion.
>
> I thought I would pose this question to observers familiar with the genus:
> Are vocalizations indeed not a reliable indicator as to species, especially
> in the context of playback?  Additionally, and more straightforward, would
> this individual provide you with concerns of hybridization when all factors
> are taken into account?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brent Bomkamp
> Eatons Neck, NY
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Vocalizations in Aechmophorus Grebes
From: Brent Bomkamp <bbomkamp AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:52:07 -0500
Hi all,

As I'm sure some are aware an apparent Clark's Grebe was discovered on
Wednesday the 22nd in Oswego, NY, representing the first state record of
the species.  Although all physical marks (bill color, neck dorsal stripe,
back and flank coloration, and facial patterning) are strongly indicative
of Clark's, the bird has been recorded making a call typical of Clark's
Grebe.  Conditions on the lake and the distance of the bird make recording
difficult, but recordings made by Greg Dashnau and Brad Walker, along with
photos and descriptions, can be accessed below:

https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S34656521
https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S34657265

It is worth noting that in at least one of the recordings the bird was
induced to call using playback of Western Grebe.

Recent discussion among New York birders has suggested that vocalizations
in the genus are not necessarily a reliable indicator of either species.
However, published sources such as Nuechterlein and Buitron 1998 (accessed
here: beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/3/313.full.pdf) suggest that call
types are determined genetically and are vital for the reproductive
isolation
of the two species.  This would seem to call into question the prior notion.

I thought I would pose this question to observers familiar with the genus:
Are vocalizations indeed not a reliable indicator as to species, especially
in the context of playback?  Additionally, and more straightforward, would
this individual provide you with concerns of hybridization when all factors
are taken into account?

Thanks!

Brent Bomkamp
Eatons Neck, NY

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Fwd: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby AT TI.COM>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:25:11 +0000
Based on my experience in Santa Barbara County in coastal S. California, I 
would say many of the birds we claim as Red-naped have the more extensive red 
shown by your problem birds. A further problem IMO is female RB Sapsuckers of 
the southern race, which seem to show extensive white in the face (assuming 
these are not hybrids too). I don't have a clear idea of the intra-specific 
variation shown by the these 'species'. It's quite likely that a highish % of 
coastal slope RN Sapsuckers in CA, may in fact be hybrids. I know I tend to 
just slap a name on the bird rather than have to call half the ones I see a 
hybrid and suspect quite a few others are similarly lax. I don't really regard 
this as a good split to be honest. 



-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
[mailto:BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Leukering 

Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 7:14 AM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Fwd: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker 
appearance 


Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Mlodinow 
To: greatgrayowl ; ebird-regional-editors 
 

Sent: Sun, Feb 26, 2017 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance


Greetings All


Okay, let me see if my sleepy brain is up to an intelligent conversation about 
this. 



The three birds from south of Colorado look pretty much within the RNSA group 
to me. 

I can not see most of the individuals in the list of 6 (towards bottom of 
Tony's note) well enough to comment, but ML 40202531 looks somewhat like 
Bruce's bird, and if seen in WA, most observers would consider this a hybrid 
w/o a second thought. 



I think the keys are within Bruce's comments: 
In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about 
the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside 
and within the black breast band. 



The Tehama bird, really, has more red on the head above the white "malar" 
stripe than black. To me, that would signify the presence of RBSA genes. 
Without genes, I guess we will never know. But anything more than a stray red 
feather in the "cheek" and "obvious" red within and below the black breast band 
are indications of RBSA heritage. 



My experience from 20 years in WA is such:
In e. WA, RNSAs are common breeders but are quite scarce in winter (anywhere in 
state). RBSAs are common year-round in w. WA and are scarce in winter e. of the 
Cascades. 



In WA, hybrid-like birds are virtually non-existent e. of the Cascades during 
breeding season, but they do occur occasionally during winter, presumably from 
the nearby narrow hybrid zone. Notably, more such presumed hybrids are found 
near the Cascades than farther east. Additionally, apparently pure RN 
Sapsuckers are rare in w. WA lowlands during migration and winter and are 
outnumbered by apparent mutts (which are scarce), some of which look much like 
the Tehama bird. I think this provides evidence for such birds being hybrids, 
not RNSA variants. 



As with all species-pairs that have a true hybrid-zone (vs sporadic 
hybridization), where to draw the line, phenotypically, between species A vs B 
is very difficult as discerning variation within either species from hybrid 
influence may be impossible. 



Best Wishes
Steve Mlodinow






-----Original Message-----
From: 'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors 
 

To: birdwg01 ; ebird-regional-editors 
 

Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 3:09 pm
Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance


Hi all:


First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of 
this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it 
has bearing on eBird review. 



I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker 
reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California: 



http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S34099834


My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." 
The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the 
crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape 
into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and 
quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). 
So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has 
such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture 
site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced 
(a minority is in Flickr). 



In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a 
fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly 
lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does 
not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia 
wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture: 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/32276691#_ga=1.231792733.334541348.1399337695 



The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, 
particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the 
black auriculars, such as on this bird: 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/46877561#_ga=1.190024809.334541348.1399337695 



The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on 
the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both 
vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado. 



Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar 
include these from south of Colorado: 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35614951#_ga=1.190024809.334541348.1399337695 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47277821#_ga=1.34899427.334541348.1399337695


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47857321#_ga=1.195807342.334541348.1399337695 



One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I 
had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked 
very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered 
flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first 
few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are 
similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. 
There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was 
pretty strong, so started writing this note. 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49016961#_ga=1.133859788.334541348.1399337695 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/44009461#_ga=1.29132286.334541348.1399337695


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/41763581#_ga=1.228837726.334541348.1399337695 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40487161#_ga=1.24814328.334541348.1399337695


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40202531#_ga=1.24814328.334541348.1399337695


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/39255901#_ga=1.33155580.334541348.1399337695


Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of 
the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal 
and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red 
nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds. 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49248991#_ga=1.223513945.334541348.1399337695 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/42356641#_ga=1.231784797.334541348.1399337695 





Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone 
between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge 
of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this 
sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC, 



https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35605691#_ga=1.28885630.334541348.1399337695


has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is 
a hybrid RBSA x RNSA. 



Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate 
west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with 
extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, 
there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is 
<250 miles (probably closer to 200 miles) from the known breeding range of the 
species. 



So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider 
acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch 
individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do not 
match my understanding of the species's appearance. 



Lit Cited


Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low levels 
of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of woodpeckers 
(Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898. 





Sincerely,


Tony


Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/

http://aba.org/photoquiz/


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"eBird Regional Editors" group. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com. 

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Lesser Black-backed Gull leg color
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby AT TI.COM>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:53:44 +0000
All,

I found an apparent adult Lesser Black-backed Gull on the California coast 
today. The leg color was rather putty-colored and much less bright than I would 
expect in an adult. I wanted to get some opinions from those who see a lot of 
Lesser Black-backed Gulls as to whether the leg color is OK or whether hybrids 
or "Taimyr Gull" should be considered. Photos are in the ebird checklist at: 
View this checklist online at http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S34815022 


Thanks,

Nick Lethaby
Office: 805 562 5106
Mobile: 805 284 6200
Email: nlethaby AT ti.com


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
From: Jeff Davis <jndavis AT UCSC.EDU>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:32:41 -0800
There was this bird in Fresno County recently too:

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33170685 
 


The continuous red on the head and nape and extension onto the face suggested 
hybrid to me. But I’d be interested in hearing if others think these features 
might be within the acceptable range for a pure Red-naped. 


Jeff Davis
Fresno, CA

> On Feb 25, 2017, at 3:09 PM, BRUCE DEUEL  wrote:
> 
> Hi Tony and all. 
> In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about 
the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside 
and within the black breast band. To what degree do these features influence 
the call on the nature of the Tehama bird? 

> 
> Bruce Deuel 
> Red Bluff, CA 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors" 
> 

> To: birdwg01 AT listserv.ksu.edu , 
ebird-regional-editors AT googlegroups.com 
 

> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM 
> Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance 
> 
> Hi all: 
> 
> First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies 
of this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it 
has bearing on eBird review. 

> 
> I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker 
reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California: 

> 
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S34099834 
> 
> My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." 
The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the 
crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape 
into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and 
quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). 
So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has 
such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture 
site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced 
(a minority is in Flickr). 

> 
> In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have 
a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly 
lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does 
not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia 
wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture: 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/32276691#_ga=1.231792733.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, 
particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the 
black auriculars, such as on this bird: 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/46877561#_ga=1.190024809.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on 
the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both 
vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado. 

> 
> Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am 
familar include these from south of Colorado: 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35614951#_ga=1.190024809.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47277821#_ga=1.34899427.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47857321#_ga=1.195807342.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I 
had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked 
very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered 
flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first 
few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are 
similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. 
There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was 
pretty strong, so started writing this note. 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49016961#_ga=1.133859788.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/44009461#_ga=1.29132286.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/41763581#_ga=1.228837726.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40487161#_ga=1.24814328.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40202531#_ga=1.24814328.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/39255901#_ga=1.33155580.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west 
of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same 
temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness 
of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds. 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49248991#_ga=1.223513945.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/42356641#_ga=1.231784797.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> 
> Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone 
between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge 
of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this 
sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC, 

> 
> 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35605691#_ga=1.28885630.334541348.1399337695 

> 
> has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it 
is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA. 

> 
> Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably 
migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers 
with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As 
example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of 
which is <250 miles (probably closer to 200 miles) from the known breeding 
range of the species. 

> 
> So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider 
acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch 
individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do not 
match my understanding of the species's appearance. 

> 
> Lit Cited 
> 
> Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low levels 
of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of woodpeckers 
(Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898. 

> 
> 
> Sincerely, 
> 
> Tony 
> 
> Tony Leukering 
> Largo, FL 
> http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/ 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/ 
> http://aba.org/photoquiz/ 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"eBird Regional Editors" group. 

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com 
 . 

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
 . 

> 
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html 
 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
From: BRUCE DEUEL <bdeuel AT WILDBLUE.NET>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 18:09:29 -0500
Hi Tony and all. 
In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned about 
the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red coloring beside 
and within the black breast band. To what degree do these features influence 
the call on the nature of the Tehama bird? 


Bruce Deuel 
Red Bluff, CA 

----- Original Message -----

From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors" 
 

To: birdwg01 AT listserv.ksu.edu, ebird-regional-editors AT googlegroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM 
Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance 

Hi all: 

First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple copies of 
this missive. However, though my message is a query about identification, it 
has bearing on eBird review. 


I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a sapsucker 
reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California: 


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S34099834 

My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's concern." 
The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly connects with the 
crown patch and almost completely obscures the white extending from the nape 
into the supercilium with which I am familiar from 14 years in Colorado (and 
quite a few of those actually conducting field work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). 
So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs. Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has 
such a large picture archive, I use that instead of my former go-to picture 
site, Flickr, with the main advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced 
(a minority is in Flickr). 


In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically have a 
fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females nearly 
lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That patch does 
not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white supercilia 
wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in this picture: 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/32276691#_ga=1.231792733.334541348.1399337695 


The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head, 
particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into the 
black auriculars, such as on this bird: 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/46877561#_ga=1.190024809.334541348.1399337695 


The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white feathering on 
the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more extensive, both 
vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado. 


Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am familar 
include these from south of Colorado: 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35614951#_ga=1.190024809.334541348.1399337695 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47277821#_ga=1.34899427.334541348.1399337695 

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47857321#_ga=1.195807342.334541348.1399337695 


One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was that I 
had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that looked 
very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and considered 
flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking through the first 
few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I found six that are 
similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape patch is extensive. 
There could well be more, but the trend in the six pictures that I did find was 
pretty strong, so started writing this note. 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49016961#_ga=1.133859788.334541348.1399337695 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/44009461#_ga=1.29132286.334541348.1399337695 

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/41763581#_ga=1.228837726.334541348.1399337695 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40487161#_ga=1.24814328.334541348.1399337695 

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40202531#_ga=1.24814328.334541348.1399337695 

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/39255901#_ga=1.33155580.334541348.1399337695 

Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all west of 
the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the same temporal 
and geographic parameters of those above, but that the extensiveness of the red 
nape patch is less certain due to the posture of the birds. 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49248991#_ga=1.223513945.334541348.1399337695 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/42356641#_ga=1.231784797.334541348.1399337695 



Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact zone 
between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the western edge 
of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC). Interestingly, this 
sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC, 


https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35605691#_ga=1.28885630.334541348.1399337695 

has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest that it is 
a hybrid RBSA x RNSA. 


Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably migrate 
west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of sapsuckers with 
extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the Rockies. As example, 
there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the northwestern corner of which is 
<250 miles (probably closer to 200 miles) from the known breeding range of the 
species. 


So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider 
acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch 
individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do not 
match my understanding of the species's appearance. 


Lit Cited 

Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low levels 
of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of woodpeckers 
(Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898. 



Sincerely, 

Tony 

Tony Leukering 
Largo, FL 
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/ 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/ 
http://aba.org/photoquiz/ 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"eBird Regional Editors" group. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com . 

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout . 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
From: Brian Sullivan <heraldpetrel AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 18:14:57 -0800
Like Jeff, I'd like opinions on this bird from Monterey recently. I thought
it was a hybrid in the field, but in checking with Sean Billerman on the
possibility, he wasn't too sure, and I'm certainly not either:

https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S34158527

Thanks

Brian

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Davis  wrote:

> There was this bird in Fresno County recently too:
>
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33170685 <
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33170685>
>
> The continuous red on the head and nape and extension onto the face
> suggested hybrid to me.  But I’d be interested in hearing if others think
> these features might be within the acceptable range for a pure Red-naped.
>
> Jeff Davis
> Fresno, CA
>
> > On Feb 25, 2017, at 3:09 PM, BRUCE DEUEL  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tony and all.
> > In addition to the large nape patch on the Tehama bird I was concerned
> about the large amount of red on the cheek area, and the obvious red
> coloring beside and within the black breast band. To what degree do these
> features influence the call on the nature of the Tehama bird?
> >
> > Bruce Deuel
> > Red Bluff, CA
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "'Tony Leukering' via eBird Regional Editors" <
> ebird-regional-editors AT googlegroups.com  editors AT googlegroups.com>>
> > To: birdwg01 AT listserv.ksu.edu ,
> ebird-regional-editors AT googlegroups.com  editors AT googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:09:02 PM
> > Subject: [eBird Regional Editors] Red-naped Sapsucker appearance
> >
> > Hi all:
> >
> > First, I apologize for cross posting and some of you getting multiple
> copies of this missive. However, though my message is a query about
> identification, it has bearing on eBird review.
> >
> > I was recently asked by Bruce Deuel my opinion of the identity of a
> sapsucker reported as a Red-naped (RNSA) from Tehama County, California:
> >
> > http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S34099834
> >
> > My first thought upon seeing the photos was, "I understand Bruce's
> concern." The pictured bird has an extensive red nape patch that nearly
> connects with the crown patch and almost completely obscures the white
> extending from the nape into the supercilium with which I am familiar from
> 14 years in Colorado (and quite a few of those actually conducting field
> work on Red-naped Sapsuckers). So, I went looking for pictures of RNSAs.
> Now that eBird/Macaulay Library has such a large picture archive, I use
> that instead of my former go-to picture site, Flickr, with the main
> advantage is that every picture is geo-referenced (a minority is in Flickr).
> >
> > In Colorado, definitive-plumaged and formative-plumaged RNSAs typically
> have a fairly small patch of red on the nape, with many immature females
> nearly lacking red there and with many nape patches NOT solidly red. That
> patch does not wrap around to the side of the head and it abuts the white
> supercilia wrapping around the head from the sides, such as the adult in
> this picture:
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/32276691#_ga=1.
> 231792733.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > The occasional RNSA in Colorado shows a bit of extra red on the head,
> particularly in the supercilium behind the eye, sometimes extending into
> the black auriculars, such as on this bird:
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/46877561#_ga=1.
> 190024809.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > The above picture also shows the typical bleed-through of white
> feathering on the nape patch, even though this bird's patch is more
> extensive, both vertically and laterally, than is typical in Colorado.
> >
> > Other birds exhibiting the appearance typical of RNSAs with which I am
> familar include these from south of Colorado:
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35614951#_ga=1.
> 190024809.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47277821#_ga=1.34899427.
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/47857321#_ga=1.
> 195807342.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > One of the more interesting facets of Bruce asking me his question was
> that I had just the day before run across a picture of a reported RNSA that
> looked very like the Tehama County bird (perhaps it was that bird) and
> considered flagging it for eBird review. However, I didn't. When looking
> through the first few hundred of the recently uploaded pictures of RNSA, I
> found six that are similar to the Tehama County bird in that the red nape
> patch is extensive. There could well be more, but the trend in the six
> pictures that I did find was pretty strong, so started writing this note.
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49016961#_ga=1.
> 133859788.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/44009461#_ga=1.29132286.
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/41763581#_ga=1.
> 228837726.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40487161#_ga=1.24814328.
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/40202531#_ga=1.24814328.
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/39255901#_ga=1.33155580.
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > Note that these six birds were all photographed in winter and were all
> west of the Rocky Mountains. Additionally, these next two birds meet the
> same temporal and geographic parameters of those above, but that the
> extensiveness of the red nape patch is less certain due to the posture of
> the birds.
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/49248991#_ga=1.
> 223513945.334541348.1399337695
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/42356641#_ga=1.
> 231784797.334541348.1399337695
> >
> >
> > Seneviratne et al. (2016, and references therein) noted that the contact
> zone between breeding Red-breasted Sapsucker (RBSA) and RNSA is in the
> western edge of the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (BC).
> Interestingly, this sapsucker, from the Okanagan area of southern BC,
> >
> > https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/35605691#_ga=1.28885630.
> 334541348.1399337695
> >
> > has an incredible amount of red on the head for a RNSA and I suggest
> that it is a hybrid RBSA x RNSA.
> >
> > Breeding sapsuckers from the contact zone and surrounding area probably
> migrate west of the Rocky Mountains, as there is little evidence of
> sapsuckers with extensive red on the head from the Rockies or east of the
> Rockies. As example, there are no records of RBSA from Montana, the
> northwestern corner of which is <250 miles (probably closer to 200 miles)
> from the known breeding range of the species.
> >
> > So, my question to you is, how large a red nape patch do you consider
> acceptable on RNSAs? Personally, if I had seen any of these large-patch
> individuals in Colorado, I would have reported them as hybrids, as they do
> not match my understanding of the species's appearance.
> >
> > Lit Cited
> >
> > Seneviratne, S. S., P. Davidson, K. Martin, and D. E. Irwin. 2016. Low
> levels of hybridization across two contact zones among three species of
> woodpeckers (Sphyrapicus sapsuckers). Journal of Avian Biology 47:887-898.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > Tony Leukering
> > Largo, FL
> > http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/
> > http://aba.org/photoquiz/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "eBird Regional Editors" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com  ebird-regional-editors+unsubscribe AT googlegroups.com> .
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <
> https://groups.google.com/d/optout> .
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html <
> https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
===========


*Brian L. SullivaneBird Project Leader *
www.ebird.org

*Photo Editor*
Birds of North America Online
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA
-------------------------------

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Wren ID
From: Ross Silcock <silcock AT ROSSSILCOCK.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:23:54 -0600
http://www.noubirds.org/Birds/Photos.aspx

At the above link, select photos by species (filed here 
under Bewick's Wren), and then only consider pics dated 15 
Dec 2012.

This wren was photographed in Scotts Bluff County, far
western Nebraska 15 Dec 2012.  For either Carolina or
Bewick's Wren, this is an extraordinary occurrence at that
location, and the identity of this bird has not been
ascertained.

We would very much appreciate comments of the ID.

Thank you,

Ross Silcock
Member,
Nebraska Ornithologists' Union
Records Committee 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Interested gull reported from Florida
From: Phil Davis <pdavis AT IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:02:36 -0500
However, true "Azores" gulls (L. azoricus by some authorities) from 
the Azores - not including the more southern atlantis form of YLGUs 
from Madiera and the Canaries, have streaked heads in the winter, and 
more sloped heads.

Not advocating, but just throwing that thought into the mix ...

Phil


At 07:43 AM 02/11/2017, Suzanne Sullivan wrote:
>Mike,
>Not sure what this is but a YLGU would have pure white head at this 
>time of year and without any open wing shots it would all be 
>speculation. An interesting bird though and HERGXLBBG does seem likely.
>Suzanne Sullivan
>
>On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Mike Patterson  wrote:
>
> > This bird popped up on iNaturalist.  If it's what some folks are 
> speculating it is, it might be a big deal...
> >
> > http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/4938662
> >

==================================
Phil Davis      Davidsonville, Maryland     USA
                 mailto:PDavis AT ix.netcom.com
================================== 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Interested gull reported from Florida
From: Suzanne Sullivan <swampy435 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:43:22 -0500
Mike,
Not sure what this is but a YLGU would have pure white head at this time of
year and without any open wing shots it would all be speculation. An
interesting bird though and HERGXLBBG does seem likely.
Suzanne Sullivan

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Mike Patterson  wrote:

> This bird popped up on iNaturalist.  If it's what some
> folks are speculating it is, it might be a big deal...
>
> http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/4938662
>
>
> --
> Mike Patterson
> Astoria, OR
> That question...
> http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Suzanne M. Sullivan
Wilmington, MA
swampy435 AT gmail.com

"The self evident vision of who we are as a free and caring nation, and the
ideal to fulfill this destiny is stronger than the division of those who's
only vision is of themselves. “ SMB

Be the Voice of the River
http://www.ipswichriver.org

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Interested gull reported from Florida
From: Mike Patterson <celata AT PACIFIER.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:54:12 -0800
This bird popped up on iNaturalist.  If it's what some
folks are speculating it is, it might be a big deal...

http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/4938662


-- 
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Mike Patterson <celata AT PACIFIER.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:05:08 -0800
Worth a look for those who've not seen it...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152399/

-- 
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: David Irons <LLSDIRONS AT MSN.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 20:03:00 +0000
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Dominik Mosur  wrote:
> 
> Technically, Mr. Irons, that would make patch birding insanity since we keep 
going to the same place expecting a new result. 

> 
> If an idea offends us let's discuss the idea. If this ibwo stuff is just 
nonsense, let's ignore it. No need to disparage the messenger. 

> 
> 
> Dominik Mosur
> A patch birder 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:20, David Irons  wrote:
>> 
>> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed 
in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion 
is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael 
Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no 
inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade 
without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy. 

>> 
>> Dave Irons
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual 
wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes 
the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became 
acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds 
under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are 
encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides 
the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as 
John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been 
many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I 
had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated 
area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight 
characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage 
of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO. 

>>>    From: Don Richardson 
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from 
Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of 
North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no 
trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find. 

>>> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published 
by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century 
until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call 
that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the 
impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them 
would also hear them. 

>>> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are 
more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird 
should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive 
evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson 

>>> Pearland Texas
>>> 
>>>     From: Michael O'Keeffe 
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> Michael,
>>> 
>>> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a 
couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am 
taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the 
references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's 
advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the 
other members of its genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of 
IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I 
remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all 
pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a subject in a new way. 

>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Mike O'Keeffe
>>> Ireland
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Michael L. P. Retter 
>>> To: Michael O'Keeffe 
>>> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> Hello.
>>> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus 
woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and 
bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter 

>>> --------------------------
>>> Editor, Birder's Guide
>>> American Birding Association
>>> www.aba.org/birdersguide
>>> ---------------------------
>>> 
>>>     From: Michael O'Keeffe 
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> Michael,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment 
I'll assume IBWO exists. 

>>> 
>>> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What 
approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test 
the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing 
of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments? 

>>> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable 
scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live 
Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally 
discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her 
ability to think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, 
including untried methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been 
tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience 
and tenacity may also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of 
Night Parrot in Australia is a good recent case in point. 

>>> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money 
translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark 
its value? 

>>> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll 
note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced 
with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should 
consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures 
and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers. 

>>> 
>>> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of 
probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed 
relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at 
the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to 
penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you 
are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever 
get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. 
Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far 
more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a 
good quality photograph using the current methodology. 

>>> 
>>> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it 
provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it 
makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for 
over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be 
just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being 
detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will 
rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I 
would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the 
case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other 
standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial 
Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and 
perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker 
species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of 
course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

>>> 
>>> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards 
your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and 
therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see 
how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of 
the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. 
Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or 
photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end. 

>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Mike O'Keeffe
>>> Ireland
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Michael Collins 
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who 
had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a 
clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, 
but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how 
vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. 
Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly 
these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During 
each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was 
just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any 
sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds 
still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in 
that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a 
promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's 
an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage 
obtained with this approach is available here: 

>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLarETXSiUV1MXFAmK4hDSPfPI_2Hf7dVa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     From: Michael O'Keeffe 
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of 
IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly 
because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I 
wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected 
in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New 
Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an 
open mind. 

>>> 
>>> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If 
detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining 
photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not 
make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these 
might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way 
of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective 
way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is 
difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up 
on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for 
argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large 
swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for 
the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all 
accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 
1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard 
timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they 
all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion. 

>>> 
>>> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various 
normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop 
recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- 
give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic 
level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly 
consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this 
playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. 
Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts. 

>>> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera 
trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good 
enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the 
playback source. 

>>> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a 
camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area 
one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider 
the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all 
traps at least once a month to download the evidence. 

>>> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly 
(different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different 
elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times 
between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, 
maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques). 

>>> 
>>> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' 
methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in 
a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your 
long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach 
might work? 

>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Mike O'Keeffe
>>> Ireland
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new 
observations here? 

>>> Dominic Mitchell 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing 
Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: 
Azores and more 

>>> 
>>>     From: Michael Collins 
>>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details 
publicly available and put their names to it. 

>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com 
>>>     From: Mark Szantyr 
>>> To: mike AT fishcrow.com 
>>> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>> 
>>> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted 
a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? 

>>> 
>>> Mark Szantyr
>>> 
>>> "He's not my President"
>>> Sic Semper Tyrannis. 
>>> Remove Trump and his Villains
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>>>> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
>>>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>>> 
>>>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
>>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
>>>> 
>>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: David Irons <LLSDIRONS AT MSN.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 20:01:58 +0000
Jeff,

Just to clear, I am not dismissing the Collins video out of hand. There are 
some intriguing aspects. The conclusions that he infers are based on somewhat 
speculative hypotheticals (as Mike has pointed out). Michael Collins is taking 
somewhat colloquial descriptions of past IBWO behavior and using that as though 
it is empirically tested data. His video is of exceedingly poor quality and 
distant, which in the opinion of many makes it useless in terms of drawing 
meaningful conclusions. 


Years ago I sent Collins a very congenial email suggesting that his belligerent 
approach to those who don't embrace his conclusions does not enhance his 
credibility as the "scientist" he claims to be. A true scientist would 
understand that his thesis has to stand up to the rigors of independent review 
and testing before it will be accepted as fact. Collins soldiers on in the 
one-man crusade despite the fact that almost no one else endorses his video as 
proof of the continuing existence of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. I admire his 
persistence and passion and I told him so privately, but his name-calling and 
persecuted victim mentality are unbecoming. No one is out to get him or 
discredit his efforts. 


Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Jeff Gilligan  wrote:
> 
> wow - there seems to be a lot of Oregonians opining about this….(all three 
of us on this post) 

> 
> I don't see the videos as being conclusive proof of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. 
That written, Mike Collin's analysis combined with the videos is intriguing and 
I can see everything that he refers to. I gives me some hope. 

> 
> I of course have no experience regarding how approachable or wary an 
Ivory-bulled Woodpecker would be, but living in Oregon I do see Pileateds. 
Their behavior in regard to people has always been a bit of an enigma to me. 
Occasionally I have walked right up to one, but other times they have been very 
furtive. Usually I see one or two flying high and direct over a ridge or across 
a canyon, going a considerable distance, or perched int eh distance calling and 
drumming. Most of the ones I see would be hard to photograph if I was inclined 
to do so. 

> 
> If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist, the rare sightings in the dense swamps 
might mostly be of the birds doing long direct flights, and the same birds may 
if found be very approachable when feeding or near a nest. 

> 
> Jeff Gilligan
> Portland and Depoe Bay, Oregon
> 
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Mike Patterson  wrote:
>> 
>> The burden of proof is on Mr Collins to provide evidence in support
>> of his hypothesis.  So far he has provided hypotheticals to support
>> his hypotheticals.
>> 
>> We will never be able to disprove an hypothesis. We can only demonstrate
>> that it is not the best among competing hypotheses.
>> 
>> Until Mr Collins can provide clear and uncontrovertible evidence that
>> can withstand the rigors of peer review, the best hypothesis is that
>> the Ivory-billed Woodpecker no longer exists except in our imaginations.
>> 
>> 
>> David Irons wrote:
>>> ...without far more conclusive proof than you have thus far provided.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dave Irons
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mike Patterson
>> Astoria, OR
>> That question...
>> http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Mike Patterson <celata AT PACIFIER.COM>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:22:45 -0800
It's just the annual February IBWO thing.

...but it never sees its shadow...

Mark Szantyr wrote:
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a 
few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? 

>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
>>
>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>
>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
>>
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
>
>

-- 
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Mark Szantyr <birddog55 AT CHARTER.NET>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:13:35 -0500
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a 
few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? 


Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis. 
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> 
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> 
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Bates Estabrooks <wgpu AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:26:06 +0000
Excellent points, Andy.

People should address the empirical data that Michael presents, and the 
conclusions that he comes to based on that data . 


Thanks.

Bates Estabrooks

Get Outlook for Android


From: Andrew Sewell
Sent: Friday, February 3, 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
To: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification

I am a passive observer on this list serve and joined mainly to learn more 
about the finer points of identification. I am not an ornithologist but do work 
in a scientific field, so my observations are based on what I have been 
perceiving in the rebuttals in this email chain. I have followed the 
IBWO/Collins controversy for a while. One thing that I have noticed is that 
Collins' arguments hinge on the physics of woodpecker flight, with the 
hypothesis he supports being that the flight mechanics of the birds in his 
videos are incompatible with Pileated Woodpecker but match historical 
descriptions of IBWO flight and the known physical characteristics of the bird. 
Surely if one is to disprove Mr. Collins hypothesis, one would concentrate on 
demonstrating that Pileated Woodpeckers can also exhibit the same flight 
characteristics. To my admittedly limited knowledge, it would appear no one has 
attempted this, or at least I am unaware of any such work (if such exists, it 
should have been addressed in Collins' paper; admittedly I may have missed the 
reference as I am working from memory of the paper's contents). Instead, 
rebuttals have mostly focused on Collins' statements about behavior and 
detectability. Rather than attack his paper around the edges, go right at the 
science he is using to support it. If it can be demonstrated that PIWO exhibit 
all the same flight behaviors that Collins appears to claim are strictly 
diagnostic for IBWO, then his hypothesis can be dismissed. If such studies of 
PIWO flight show that they cannot share the same flight styles as the birds in 
Collins' paper and video, then his work should not simply be shrugged off and 
explanations should be sought to explain what is seen in the videos. Anything 
else seems unhelpful. My two cents, Andy Sewell Columbus, Ohio On Feb 3, 2017 
10:20 AM, "David Irons" wrote: > We all know the definition of insanity. This 
ground seems to get re-plowed > in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. 
Without fail the same > conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. 
Debating or > disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago 
proven futile, > as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his 
own. I say > let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in 
the > intellectual eddy. > > Dave Irons > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 3, 
2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins wrote: > > > > The paper mentions historical 
accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the > unusual wariness of these birds and that 
the birds in the Singer Tract > (which includes the ones observed by Peterson 
as well as Pough, Christy, > and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence 
of humans at nest sites. > The behavior of those birds under those conditions 
is irrelevant to the > behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when 
there does not > exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, 
wariness has been > reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff 
Hill) during the > past several decades. There have been many modern reports 
that clearly have > nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of 
key field marks > during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five 
day period, > heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics 
that can > only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that 
can > only be explained in terms of IBWO. > > From: Don Richardson > > To: 
BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM > > 
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > I'd like to add to Mike 
O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from > Roger Tory Peterson in the 
National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of > North America." He refers to 
a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had > no trouble following the two" 
and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to > find. > > Arthur Cleveland Bent is 
always a delight to read. His accounts, > published by the government in 1939 
are actually collected from the late > 19th century until then. Those accounts 
of "Voice" describe a regular but > not very loud call that can be heard at a 
distance of 1/4 mile or less. > While soft, I get the impression that it is 
pretty regular and that one > close enough to photo them would also hear them. 
> > I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them > 
are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this > 
bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more > 
conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson > > Pearland 
Texas > > > > From: Michael O'Keeffe > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > 
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO 
evidence published > > > > Michael, > > > > My experience of Campephilus is 
limited to a handful of sighting of a > couple of the family members so you are 
right I am no authority on them. I > am taking references to the shyness of 
IBWO at face value here based on the > references referred to by Michael 
Collins in his paper. Playing devil's > advocate here how certain can you be 
that IBWO behaved the same way as the > other members of its genus. Could it be 
that a more reclusive > sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can 
throw up all sorts > of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we 
all need to be > prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to 
look at a > subject in a new way. > > > > Regards > > > > Mike O'Keeffe > > 
Ireland > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Michael 
L. P. Retter > > To: Michael O'Keeffe > > Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 
(GMT) > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Hello. > > I 
don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but > Campephilus 
woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, > conspicuous, 
and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael > L. P. Retter > > 
-------------------------- > > Editor, Birder's Guide > > American Birding 
Association > > www.aba.org/birdersguide > > --------------------------- > > > 
> From: Michael O'Keeffe > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, 
February 2, 2017 6:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > 
> > > Michael, > > > > I'd like to explore the various components of your last 
email. For a > moment I'll assume IBWO exists. > > > > (1) 'Various other 
approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What > approaches? Are any 
documented anywhere? What were the controls used to > test the efficacy of 
those various techniques, using say detection and > photographing of Pileated 
Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in > these experiments? > > (2) 
'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable > scientists 
tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a > live Giant 
Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection > was finally 
discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less > important than 
his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of > different 
techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful > to know what 
has been tried, how, when and where? Don't get me wrong. > Classic field craft, 
experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually. > The detection and 
photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good > recent case in point. > 
> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money > 
translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we > benchmark 
its value? > > (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to 
paraphrase). You'll > note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed 
technique. When > faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason 
I suggest one > should consider trying more automated detection methods. After 
deployment, > these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by 
themselves, in > all weathers. > > > > As you have identified in your paper 
this really comes down to a matter > of probability of success. The current 
standard method that has been > deployed relies heavily on luck. First you need 
to stumble upon an IBWO, > which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and 
hard to detect. The > terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected 
yourself by your > quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an 
IBWO > undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to 
> capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so > 
stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally > stumble 
upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph > using the 
current methodology. > > > > On the other hand, consider the lure and camera 
trap method. While it > provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak 
trip through the swamp, > it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - 
a hidden camera > deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single 
tree branch may > it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing 
through a swamp, > probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the 
time. The > camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact 
in the > probability stakes. In fact I would say it will all come down to the > 
quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid. The > efficacy 
of the method can be compared with other standard methods of > detection by 
using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or > similar control 
species. The method and lure can be worked on and > perfected scientifically by 
trialing different lures using different > Woodpecker species to see those 
which work, those which are the most > effective, and of course, above all, 
which will have the least detrimental > effect. > > > > I honestly admire your 
tenacity. However I am still on the fence as > regards your evidence. Even 
without personal experience of Pileated > Woodpecker and therefore the ability 
myself to challenge your specific > findings, I don't see how the quality of 
evidence as it stands could be > called 'definitive proof' of the continued 
survival of a species most > authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately 
I think it will still > require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit 
of evidence. I do > hope you or others get there in the end. > > > > Regards > 
> > > Mike O'Keeffe > > Ireland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
----- Original Message ----- > > From: Michael Collins > > To: 
BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT) > > 
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > Various approaches have 
been tried by extremely capable ornithologists > who had lots of resources at 
their disposal. None of them have managed to > obtain a clear photo. Ideas are 
always welcome, and I'm certainly not > criticizing yours, but I would 
recommend spending a few weeks in the > habitat of this bird. See how vast it 
is, the limited visibility, and the > impediments to searching in it. Even 
better, stick around long enough to > have a sighting and see how quickly these 
birds vanish into cover. I > returned to the Pearl River recently. During each 
of my visits in recent > years, I have looked back and realized that I was just 
plain lucky to find > those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings 
during my final > five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still 
use that part of > the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that 
basin, or even if > they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a 
promising approach > last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's 
an amazingly > stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage 
obtained with > this approach is available here: > > 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLarETXSiUV1MXFAmK4hDSPfPI_2Hf7dVa > > > 
> > > > > > > From: Michael O'Keeffe > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > 
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO 
evidence published > > > > Hi, > > > > I'll start by admitting I remain 
skeptical about the ongoing existence > of IBWO, as I have indicated before in 
this seemingly perennial debate, > mainly because the evidence presented hasn't 
been compelling enough. But > then I wouldn't have believed a species like 
Pincoya Storm-petrel would go > undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto 
Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 > or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from 
the dead' as it did. So > I try to keep an open mind. > > > > I have a genuine 
question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If > detection levels are 
likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining > photographic documentation 
using current methods are miniscule, would it > not make sense to focus on the 
methods of detection being deployed and how > these might be improved upon? A 
kayak may be an efficient and somewhat > stealthy way of penetrating the 
swampland habitat but it cant be a > particularly effective way to find or 
photograph a swamp-dwelling > woodpecker. The angle of view is difficult and is 
always set. The ability > to change one's position and creep up on a subject 
must be frustratingly > difficult, the say the least. Lets for argument's sake 
say we all agree > IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp. The 
next question > becomes how do we estimate the population density for the 
purpose of > conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all 
accounts is so > quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 
1st hand > accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard 
timed > tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they 
all > rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion. > > > > Step 1 - 
Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing > various normal 
things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital > loop recording 
made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 > minutes +/- give for 5 
minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a > reasonably realistic level. Mount 
the tape on a tree in a section of swamp > which is fairly consistent with the 
overall habitat diversity and density. > Move away from this playback source to 
a distance where it is just about > audible to the human ear. Double that 
distance and that becomes the > distance between monitoring outposts. > > Step 
2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a > camera trap 
opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to > capture a good 
enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree > beside the 
playback source. > > Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a 
playback tape and a > camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on 
resources how big an > area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at 
one's disposal. > Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would 
probably want to > visit all traps at least once a month to download the 
evidence. > > Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly 
> (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different > 
elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, > times 
between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each > point, 
maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different > techniques). 
> > > > For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' > 
methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' > 
in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based > on 
your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of > 
approach might work? > > > > Regards > > > > Mike O'Keeffe > > Ireland > > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: 
0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > To: 
BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48 > > 
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > > > > To repeat Mark 
Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of > new observations 
here? > > Dominic Mitchell > > 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing > 
Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the > Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | > Bird tours: 
Azores and more > > > > From: Michael Collins > > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48 > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO 
evidence published > > > > If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they 
should make the > details publicly available and put their names to it. > > 
Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com > > From: Mark Szantyr > > 
To: mike AT fishcrow.com > > Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, 
February 2, 2017 11:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published > 
> > > Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully > 
refuted a few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? > > > 
> Mark Szantyr > > > > "He's not my President" > > Sic Semper Tyrannis. > > 
Remove Trump and his Villains > > > > > > > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, 
Michael Collins wrote: > >> > >> The links didn't work. The paper may be 
accessed here: > >> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/ > >> Videos from the 
Alaska sea trip may be accessed here: > >> > >> 
http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html > >> Mike CollinsAlexandria, 
Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com > >> > >> Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > > > > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > > > > > > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > Archives: 
https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Mike Patterson <celata AT PACIFIER.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:24:47 -0800
The burden of proof is on Mr Collins to provide evidence in support
of his hypothesis.  So far he has provided hypotheticals to support
his hypotheticals.

We will never be able to disprove an hypothesis. We can only demonstrate
that it is not the best among competing hypotheses.

Until Mr Collins can provide clear and uncontrovertible evidence that
can withstand the rigors of peer review, the best hypothesis is that
the Ivory-billed Woodpecker no longer exists except in our imaginations.


David Irons wrote:
> ...without far more conclusive proof than you have thus far provided.
>
>
> Dave Irons
>

-- 
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
That question...
http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: David Irons <llsdirons AT MSN.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:10:55 +0000
I have no agenda other than to avoid trying to derive conclusions from snippets 
of murky video that do not reveal them. These videos are what they are and 
won't get better or become more revealing with more views or more explanation. 
You see what you see in them and are convinced that you see an Ivory-billed 
Woodpecker. I look at them and see a flying bird that I cannot identify. You 
are welcome to call that an "agenda" if you wish. However, you cannot "prove me 
wrong" because I have not put any name to this bird. One cannot be wrong for 
merely expressing the limits of their own ability to ID birds from poor quality 
photographic and video images. You do not get to set my criteria in this 
regard. I and many others have told you that we find your video clips to be 
inconclusive. Perhaps you could for once simply accept this reality without 
suggesting that the rest of us are driven by some sort of agenda. I am assuming 
that everyone in this forum would love to know that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 
still exists, but we aren't prepared to believe it so without far more 
conclusive proof than you have thus far provided. 


Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:00 AM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> 
> The remarks below suggest an agenda to discourage open discussions of data. 
What could motivate such an agenda? Fear of being proved wrong? What better way 
is there to engage than to publish data in peer reviewed journals? There have 
been claims that the evidence has been refuted, but there has been no 
substantial discussion on this forum of the evidence in the paper. 

>      From: David Irons 
> To: "mike AT fishcrow.com"  
> Cc: "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU" 
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> 
> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in 
this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is 
seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael 
Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no 
inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade 
without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy. 

> 
> Dave Irons
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins  wrote:
>> 
>> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual 
wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes 
the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became 
acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds 
under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are 
encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides 
the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as 
John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been 
many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I 
had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated 
area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight 
characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage 
of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO. 

>>       From: Don Richardson 
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>> 
>> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from 
Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of 
North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no 
trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find. 

>> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published 
by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century 
until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call 
that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the 
impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them 
would also hear them. 

>> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are 
more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird 
should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive 
evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson 

>> Pearland Texas
>> 
>>       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>   
>> Michael,
>> 
>> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple 
of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking 
references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references 
referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how 
certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its 
genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic 
bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical 
myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas 
in order to look at a subject in a new way. 

>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael L. P. Retter 
>> To: Michael O'Keeffe 
>> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>> 
>> Hello.
>> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus 
woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and 
bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter 

>> --------------------------
>> Editor, Birder's Guide
>> American Birding Association
>> www.aba.org/birdersguide
>> ---------------------------
>> 
>>       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>   
>> Michael,
>> 
>> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment 
I'll assume IBWO exists. 

>> 
>> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What 
approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test 
the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing 
of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments? 

>> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists 
tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. 
It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. 
The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to 
think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried 
methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and 
where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may 
also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in 
Australia is a good recent case in point. 

>> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money 
translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark 
its value? 

>> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll 
note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced 
with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should 
consider trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures 
and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers. 

>> 
>> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of 
probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed 
relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at 
the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to 
penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you 
are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever 
get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. 
Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far 
more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a 
good quality photograph using the current methodology. 

>> 
>> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it 
provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it 
makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for 
over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be 
just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being 
detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will 
rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I 
would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the 
case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other 
standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial 
Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and 
perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker 
species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of 
course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

>> 
>> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards 
your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and 
therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see 
how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of 
the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. 
Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or 
photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end. 

>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Collins 
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>> 
>> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who 
had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a 
clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, 
but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how 
vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. 
Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly 
these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During 
each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was 
just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any 
sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds 
still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in 
that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a 
promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's 
an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage 
obtained with this approach is available here: 

>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLarETXSiUV1MXFAmK4hDSPfPI_2Hf7dVa
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>   
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of 
IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly 
because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I 
wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected 
in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New 
Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an 
open mind. 

>> 
>> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If 
detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining 
photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not 
make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these 
might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way 
of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective 
way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is 
difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up 
on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for 
argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large 
swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for 
the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all 
accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 
1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard 
timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they 
all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion. 

>> 
>> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various 
normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop 
recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- 
give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic 
level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly 
consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this 
playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. 
Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts. 

>> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera 
trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good 
enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the 
playback source. 

>> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a 
camera trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area 
one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider 
the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all 
traps at least once a month to download the evidence. 

>> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different 
woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree 
species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, 
maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live 
cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques). 

>> 
>> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology 
is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter 
timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long 
experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might 
work? 

>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Mike O'Keeffe
>> Ireland
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>> 
>> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new 
observations here? 

>> Dominic Mitchell 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing 
Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: 
Azores and more 

>> 
>>       From: Michael Collins 
>> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
>> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>   
>> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details 
publicly available and put their names to it. 

>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com 
>>       From: Mark Szantyr 
>> To: mike AT fishcrow.com 
>> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>>   
>> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a 
few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? 

>> 
>> Mark Szantyr
>> 
>> "He's not my President"
>> Sic Semper Tyrannis. 
>> Remove Trump and his Villains
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>>> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
>>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>>> 
>>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
>>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
>>> 
>>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> 
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: David Irons <llsdirons AT MSN.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:20:34 +0000
We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed in 
this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same conclusion is 
seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or disagreeing with Michael 
Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile, as he has shown no 
inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say let him have his crusade 
without getting caught up ourselves in the intellectual eddy. 


Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> 
> The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the unusual 
wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract (which includes 
the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy, and Eckleberry) became 
acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites. The behavior of those birds 
under those conditions is irrelevant to the behavior of birds that are 
encountered in the field when there does not exist a knownnest site. Besides 
the historical accounts, wariness has been reported by many observers (such as 
John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the past several decades. There have been 
many modern reports that clearly have nothing to do with wishful thinking. I 
had good views of key field marks during multiple sightings in a concentrated 
area over a five day period, heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight 
characteristics that can only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage 
of birds that can only be explained in terms of IBWO. 

>      From: Don Richardson 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> 
> I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from Roger 
Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North 
America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had no 
trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to find. 

> Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts, published by 
the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late 19th century until 
then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but not very loud call that 
can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less. While soft, I get the 
impression that it is pretty regular and that one close enough to photo them 
would also hear them. 

> I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them are 
more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this bird 
should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more conclusive 
evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson 

> Pearland Texas
> 
>       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>   
> Michael,
> 
> My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a couple 
of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I am taking 
references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the references 
referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's advocate here how 
certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the other members of its 
genus. Could it be that a more reclusive sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic 
bottle-necks can throw up all sorts of surprises. While I remain sceptical 
myself I think we all need to be prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas 
in order to look at a subject in a new way. 

> 
> Regards
> 
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael L. P. Retter 
> To: Michael O'Keeffe 
> Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> 
> Hello.
> I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but Campephilus 
woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud, conspicuous, and 
bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael L. P. Retter 

> --------------------------
> Editor, Birder's Guide
> American Birding Association
> www.aba.org/birdersguide
> ---------------------------
> 
>       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>   
> Michael,
> 
> I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment 
I'll assume IBWO exists. 

> 
> (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions. What 
approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test 
the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing 
of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments? 

> (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists 
tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. 
It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. 
The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to 
think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried 
methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and 
where? Don't get me wrong. Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may 
also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in 
Australia is a good recent case in point. 

> (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated 
into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value? 

> (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note 
this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with 
these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider 
trying more automated detection methods. After deployment, these lures and 
camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers. 

> 
> As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of 
probability of success. The current standard method that has been deployed 
relies heavily on luck. First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at 
the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect. The terrain is hard to 
penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you 
are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever 
get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. 
Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far 
more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a 
good quality photograph using the current methodology. 

> 
> On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method. While it 
provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it 
makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for 
over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be 
just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being 
detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will 
rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes. In fact I 
would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the 
case of the Giant Squid. The efficacy of the method can be compared with other 
standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial 
Woodpecker or similar control species. The method and lure can be worked on and 
perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different Woodpecker 
species to see those which work, those which are the most effective, and of 
course, above all, which will have the least detrimental effect. 

> 
> I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards 
your evidence. Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and 
therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see 
how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of 
the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. 
Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or 
photographic bit of evidence. I do hope you or others get there in the end. 

> 
> Regards
> 
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Collins 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> 
> Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who 
had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a 
clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, 
but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how 
vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. 
Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly 
these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During 
each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was 
just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any 
sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds 
still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in 
that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a 
promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's 
an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage 
obtained with this approach is available here: 

> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLarETXSiUV1MXFAmK4hDSPfPI_2Hf7dVa
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>   
> Hi,
> 
> I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of 
IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly 
because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough. But then I 
wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected 
in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New 
Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did. So I try to keep an 
open mind. 

> 
> I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper. If 
detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining 
photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not 
make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these 
might be improved upon? A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way 
of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective 
way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker. The angle of view is 
difficult and is always set. The ability to change one's position and creep up 
on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least. Lets for 
argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large 
swamp. The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density for 
the purpose of conserving such a precious species. For a bird that, by all 
accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 
1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard 
timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they 
all rely on detection. So how about this for a suggestion. 

> 
> Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various 
normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop 
recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- 
give for 5 minutes segments +/-. Set the volume at a reasonably realistic 
level. Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly 
consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density. Move away from this 
playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human ear. 
Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring outposts. 

> Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera 
trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good 
enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the 
playback source. 

> Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera 
trap positioned opposite it. Decide based on resources how big an area one can 
afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal. Consider the power 
source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at least 
once a month to download the evidence. 

> Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different 
woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree 
species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, 
maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live 
cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques). 

> 
> For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology 
is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter 
timespan than the current methodology being deployed. Based on your long 
experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might 
work? 

> 
> Regards
> 
> Mike O'Keeffe
> Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> 
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new 
observations here? 

> Dominic Mitchell 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing 
Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: 
Azores and more 

> 
>       From: Michael Collins 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>   
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details 
publicly available and put their names to it. 

> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com 
>       From: Mark Szantyr 
> To: mike AT fishcrow.com 
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>   
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a 
few years ago? Is there new evidence of new observations here? 

> 
> Mark Szantyr
> 
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis. 
> Remove Trump and his Villains
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
>> 
>> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
>> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
>> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
>> 
>> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
>> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
>   
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
>   
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
>   
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
>   
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> 
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Andrew Sewell <semillama AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:49:15 -0500
I am a passive observer on this list serve and joined mainly to learn more
about the finer points of identification. I am not an ornithologist but do
work in a scientific field, so my observations are based on what I have
been perceiving in the rebuttals in this email chain.

I have followed the IBWO/Collins controversy for a while. One thing that I
have noticed is that Collins' arguments hinge on the physics of woodpecker
flight, with the hypothesis he supports being that the flight mechanics of
the birds in his videos are incompatible with Pileated Woodpecker but match
historical descriptions of IBWO flight and the known physical
characteristics of the bird. Surely if one is to disprove Mr. Collins
hypothesis, one would concentrate on demonstrating that Pileated
Woodpeckers can also exhibit the same flight characteristics. To my
admittedly limited knowledge, it would appear no one has attempted this, or
at least I am unaware of any such work (if such exists, it should have been
addressed in Collins' paper; admittedly I may have missed the reference as
I am working from memory of the paper's contents). Instead, rebuttals have
mostly focused on Collins' statements about behavior and detectability.

Rather than attack his paper around the edges, go right at the science he
is using to support it. If it can be demonstrated that PIWO exhibit all the
same flight behaviors that Collins appears to claim are strictly diagnostic
for IBWO, then his hypothesis can be dismissed. If such studies of PIWO
flight show that they cannot share the same flight styles as the birds in
Collins' paper and video, then his work should not simply be shrugged off
and explanations should be sought to explain what is seen in the videos.
Anything else seems unhelpful.

My two cents,
Andy Sewell
Columbus, Ohio

On Feb 3, 2017 10:20 AM, "David Irons"  wrote:

> We all know the definition of insanity. This ground seems to get re-plowed
> in this or some other forum every 2-3 years. Without fail the same
> conclusion is seemingly reached by all but one of us. Debating or
> disagreeing with Michael Collins on this topic was long ago proven futile,
> as he has shown no inclination to engage any narrative but his own. I say
> let him have his crusade without getting caught up ourselves in the
> intellectual eddy.
>
> Dave Irons
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:43 AM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> >
> > The paper mentions historical accounts by Audubon and Wayne of the
> unusual wariness of these birds and that the birds in the Singer Tract
> (which includes the ones observed by Peterson as well as Pough, Christy,
> and Eckleberry) became acclimated to the presence of humans at nest sites.
> The behavior of those birds under those conditions is irrelevant to the
> behavior of birds that are encountered in the field when there does not
> exist a knownnest site. Besides the historical accounts, wariness has been
> reported by many observers (such as John Dennis and Geoff Hill) during the
> past several decades. There have been many modern reports that clearly have
> nothing to do with wishful thinking. I had good views of key field marks
> during multiple sightings in a concentrated area over a five day period,
> heard kents in the same area, saw unusual flight characteristics that can
> only be attributed to IBWO, and obtained video footage of birds that can
> only be explained in terms of IBWO.
> >      From: Don Richardson 
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > I'd like to add to Mike O'Keffee's comment by pointing out a quote from
> Roger Tory Peterson in the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of
> North America." He refers to a find of two females in 1942. He said "We had
> no trouble following the two" and "An Ivory Billed once heard is easy to
> find.
> > Arthur Cleveland Bent is always a delight to read. His accounts,
> published by the government in 1939 are actually collected from the late
> 19th century until then. Those accounts of "Voice" describe a regular but
> not very loud call that can be heard at a distance of 1/4 mile or less.
> While soft, I get the impression that it is pretty regular and that one
> close enough to photo them would also hear them.
> > I tend to believe, as do many fine birders, that modern reports of them
> are more wishful thinking that reality. I also think that reports of this
> bird should continue to be discounted unless they contain "far" more
> conclusive evidence than has recently been seen. Don Richardson
> > Pearland Texas
> >
> >       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > My experience of Campephilus is limited to a handful of sighting of a
> couple of the family members so you are right I am no authority on them. I
> am taking references to the shyness of IBWO at face value here based on the
> references referred to by Michael Collins in his paper. Playing devil's
> advocate here how certain can you be that IBWO behaved the same way as the
> other members of its genus.  Could it be that a more reclusive
> sub-population of IBWO remain? Genetic bottle-necks can throw up all sorts
> of surprises. While I remain sceptical myself I think we all need to be
> prepared to throw away all pre-conceived ideas in order to look at a
> subject in a new way.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mike O'Keeffe
> > Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael L. P. Retter 
> > To: Michael O'Keeffe 
> > Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:58:57 -0000 (GMT)
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Hello.
> > I don't know how much experience you have in the New World, but
> Campephilus woodpeckers are anything but shy and retiring. They are loud,
> conspicuous, and bold. That's why this whole this is laughable... Michael
> L. P. Retter
> > --------------------------
> > Editor, Birder's Guide
> > American Birding Association
> > www.aba.org/birdersguide
> > ---------------------------
> >
> >       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a
> moment I'll assume IBWO exists.
> >
> > (1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What
> approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to
> test the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and
> photographing of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in
> these experiments?
> > (2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable
> scientists tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a
> live Giant Squid. It was by trial and error that the method of detection
> was finally discovered. The quality of the ornithologist may be less
> important than his/her ability to think outside the box and try lots of
> different techniques, including untried methods. Again it would be helpful
> to know what has been tried, how, when and where?  Don't get me wrong.
> Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may also pay off eventually.
> The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in Australia is a good
> recent case in point.
> > (3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money
> translated into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we
> benchmark its value?
> > (4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll
> note this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When
> faced with these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one
> should consider trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment,
> these lures and camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in
> all weathers.
> >
> > As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter
> of probability of success.  The current standard method that has been
> deployed relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO,
> which is, at the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The
> terrain is hard to penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your
> quarry. Then even if you are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO
> undetected, you are unlikely to ever get close enough for long enough to
> capture a high quality photograph. Personally I think those odds are so
> stacked against you that you would be far more likely to accidentally
> stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a good quality photograph
> using the current methodology.
> >
> > On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it
> provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp,
> it makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera
> deployed for over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may
> it turns out be just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp,
> probably being detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The
> camera trap however will rely on a lure to really have any impact in the
> probability stakes.  In fact I would say it will all come down to the
> quality of lure - just as it did in the case of the Giant Squid.  The
> efficacy of the method can be compared with other standard methods of
> detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or Imperial Woodpecker or
> similar control species.  The method and lure can be worked on and
> perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using different
> Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most
> effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental
> effect.
> >
> > I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as
> regards your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated
> Woodpecker and therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific
> findings, I don't see how the quality of evidence as it stands could be
> called 'definitive proof' of the continued survival of a species most
> authorities still consider extinct. Unfortunately I think it will still
> require that unequivocal physical or photographic bit of evidence.  I do
> hope you or others get there in the end.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mike O'Keeffe
> > Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Collins 
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists
> who had lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to
> obtain a clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not
> criticizing yours, but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the
> habitat of this bird. See how vast it is, the limited visibility, and the
> impediments to searching in it. Even better, stick around long enough to
> have a sighting and see how quickly these birds vanish into cover. I
> returned to the Pearl River recently. During each of my visits in recent
> years, I have looked back and realized that I was just plain lucky to find
> those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any sightings during my final
> five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds still use that part of
> the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in that basin, or even if
> they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a promising approach
> last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's an amazingly
> stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage obtained with
> this approach is available here:
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLarETXSiUV1MXFAmK4hDSPfPI_2Hf7dVa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       From: Michael O'Keeffe 
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence
> of IBWO, as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate,
> mainly because the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But
> then I wouldn't have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go
> undetected in the busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009
> or that New Zealand Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So
> I try to keep an open mind.
> >
> > I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If
> detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining
> photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it
> not make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how
> these might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat
> stealthy way of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a
> particularly effective way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling
> woodpecker.  The angle of view is difficult and is always set.  The ability
> to change one's position and creep up on a subject must be frustratingly
> difficult, the say the least.  Lets for argument's sake say we all agree
> IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large swamp.  The next question
> becomes how do we estimate the population density for the purpose of
> conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by all accounts is so
> quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per documented 1st hand
> accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the standard timed
> tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, because they all
> rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion.
> >
> > Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing
> various normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital
> loop recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30
> minutes +/- give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a
> reasonably realistic level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp
> which is fairly consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.
> Move away from this playback source to a distance where it is just about
> audible to the human ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the
> distance between monitoring outposts.
> > Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a
> camera trap opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to
> capture a good enough quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree
> beside the playback source.
> > Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a
> camera trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an
> area one can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.
> Consider the power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to
> visit all traps at least once a month to download the evidence.
> > Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly
> (different woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different
> elevations, tree species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps,
> times between playbacks, maybe consider leaving little food piles at each
> point, maybe one or two live cams, live speakers etc to trial different
> techniques).
> >
> > For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad'
> methodology is probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live'
> in a shorter timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based
> on your long experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of
> approach might work?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mike O'Keeffe
> > Ireland
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of
> new observations here?
> > Dominic Mitchell
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
> >
> >       From: Michael Collins 
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com
> >       From: Mark Szantyr 
> > To: mike AT fishcrow.com
> > Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
> >
> > Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully
> refuted a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?
> >
> > Mark Szantyr
> >
> > "He's not my President"
> > Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> > Remove Trump and his Villains
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> >>
> >> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> >> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
> >> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >>
> >> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
> >> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
> >>
> >> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Michael Collins <mike AT FISHCROW.COM>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:06:28 +0000
The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.

      From: "dominic.mitchell AT yahoo.co.uk" 
 To: "mike AT fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU" 
 

 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
   
>>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff 
Hill had a sighting". 

Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an 
unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in your 
reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group. 

Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor 
| Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: 
Azores and more 


      From: Michael Collins 
 To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
 Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out last 
week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video 
involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had a 
sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended for 
publication by ornithologists.  

      From: "dominic.mitchell AT yahoo.co.uk" 
 To: "mike AT fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU" 
 

 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new 
observations here? 

Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor 
| Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: 
Azores and more 


      From: Michael Collins 
 To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
 Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details 
publicly available and put their names to it.  

Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr 
 To: mike AT fishcrow.com 
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a 
few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here? 


Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis. 
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> 
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> 
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


  

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

  

  

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

   

   

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Michael Collins <mike AT FISHCROW.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:56:02 +0000
You may very well be correct that nobody will obtain a photo without stumbling 
upon a nest, but I would prefer to focus on the material that is presented in 
the paper:  

1. An analysis on the expected waiting time for obtaining a photo, which is 
consistent with the history of this bird and suggests that it is unlikely that 
anyone will obtain a clear photo.  

2. An analysis of three videos that contain the strongest evidence for the 
persistence of the IBWO that has been obtained during the past several 
decades.  

      From: Michael O'Keeffe 
 To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
   
Michael,

I'd like to explore the various components of your last email. For a moment 
I'll assume IBWO exists. 


(1) 'Various other approaches have been tried'. Obvious questions.  What 
approaches? Are any documented anywhere? What were the controls used to test 
the efficacy of those various techniques, using say detection and photographing 
of Pileated Woodpecker in the same habitat as control in these experiments? 

(2) 'Extremely capable ornithologists'. Lots of extremely capable scientists 
tried for decades and failed to detect let alone photograph a live Giant Squid. 
It was by trial and error that the method of detection was finally discovered. 
The quality of the ornithologist may be less important than his/her ability to 
think outside the box and try lots of different techniques, including untried 
methods. Again it would be helpful to know what has been tried, how, when and 
where?  Don't get me wrong.  Classic field craft, experience and tenacity may 
also pay off eventually. The detection and photographing of Night Parrot in 
Australia is a good recent case in point. 

(3) 'Lots of resources spent'. Were the proceeds of all this money translated 
into good, published science? Otherwise how else can we benchmark its value? 

(4) 'The vastness and difficulty of the terrain' (to paraphrase). You'll note 
this is kind of irrelevant in terms of the proposed technique. When faced with 
these frustrating challenges, all the more reason I suggest one should consider 
trying more automated detection methods.  After deployment, these lures and 
camera traps put in the hard hours all by themselves, in all weathers. 


As you have identified in your paper this really comes down to a matter of 
probability of success.  The current standard method that has been deployed 
relies heavily on luck.  First you need to stumble upon an IBWO, which is, at 
the very least extremely rare, shy and hard to detect.  The terrain is hard to 
penetrate while remaining undetected yourself by your quarry. Then even if you 
are lucky enough to sneak up on an IBWO undetected, you are unlikely to ever 
get close enough for long enough to capture a high quality photograph. 
Personally I think those odds are so stacked against you that you would be far 
more likely to accidentally stumble upon an IBWO nesthole than actually get a 
good quality photograph using the current methodology. 


On the other hand, consider the lure and camera trap method.  While it 
provides less spacial coverage than a winding kayak trip through the swamp, it 
makes up for this in terms of temporal coverage - a hidden camera deployed for 
over a month looking continuously at a single tree branch may it turns out be 
just as effective as a few hours passing through a swamp, probably being 
detected and successfully evaded much of the time. The camera trap however will 
rely on a lure to really have any impact in the probability stakes.  In fact I 
would say it will all come down to the quality of lure - just as it did in the 
case of the Giant Squid.  The efficacy of the method can be compared with 
other standard methods of detection by using Pileated Woodpecker and/or 
Imperial Woodpecker or similar control species.  The method and lure can be 
worked on and perfected scientifically by trialing different lures using 
different Woodpecker species to see those which work, those which are the most 
effective, and of course, above all, which will have the least detrimental 
effect.  


I honestly admire your tenacity. However I am still on the fence as regards 
your evidence.  Even without personal experience of Pileated Woodpecker and 
therefore the ability myself to challenge your specific findings, I don't see 
how the quality of evidence as it stands could be called 'definitive proof' of 
the continued survival of a species most authorities still consider extinct. 
Unfortunately I think it will still require that unequivocal physical or 
photographic bit of evidence.  I do hope you or others get there in the end. 


Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland

 









----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Collins 
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:59 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

Various approaches have been tried by extremely capable ornithologists who had 
lots of resources at their disposal. None of them have managed to obtain a 
clear photo. Ideas are always welcome, and I'm certainly not criticizing yours, 
but I would recommend spending a few weeks in the habitat of this bird. See how 
vast it is, the limited visibility, and the impediments to searching in it. 
Even better, stick around long enough to have a sighting and see how quickly 
these birds vanish into cover. I returned to the Pearl River recently. During 
each of my visits in recent years, I have looked back and realized that I was 
just plain lucky to find those birds in 2006 and 2008. I didn't have any 
sightings during my final five years of fieldwork. I have no idea if the birds 
still use that part of the Pearl River, if they are still present at all in 
that basin, or even if they still persist anywhere. But I started testing a 
promising approach last year. The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has a 4K camera, and it's 
an amazingly stable platform (almost like a tripod). Some video footage 
obtained with this approach is available here: 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLarETXSiUV1MXFAmK4hDSPfPI_2Hf7dVa




      From: Michael O'Keeffe 
 To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
Hi,

I'll start by admitting I remain skeptical about the ongoing existence of IBWO, 
as I have indicated before in this seemingly perennial debate, mainly because 
the evidence presented hasn't been compelling enough.  But then I wouldn't 
have believed a species like Pincoya Storm-petrel would go undetected in the 
busy waters just off Puerto Montt, Chile until Feb 2009 or that New Zealand 
Storm-petrel would 'rise from the dead' as it did.  So I try to keep an open 
mind. 


I have a genuine question concerning a key aspect of the new paper.  If 
detection levels are likely to be so low that the chance of obtaining 
photographic documentation using current methods are miniscule, would it not 
make sense to focus on the methods of detection being deployed and how these 
might be improved upon?  A kayak may be an efficient and somewhat stealthy way 
of penetrating the swampland habitat but it cant be a particularly effective 
way to find or photograph a swamp-dwelling woodpecker.  The angle of view is 
difficult and is always set.  The ability to change one's position and creep 
up on a subject must be frustratingly difficult, the say the least.  Lets for 
argument's sake say we all agree IBWO exists in small numbers in a given large 
swamp.  The next question becomes how do we estimate the population density 
for the purpose of conserving such a precious species.  For a bird that, by 
all accounts is so quiet, rarely shows itself and leaves no trace (per 
documented 1st hand accounts of IBWO), random visits and the more formal the 
standard timed tetrad and similar bird survey techniques will not cut it, 
because they all rely on detection.  So how about this for a suggestion. 


Step 1 - Take a recording of a similar woodpecker (Imperial?) doing various 
normal things, tapping, calling, feeding etc and create a digital loop 
recording made up of these random sounds, set to sound every 30 minutes +/- 
give for 5 minutes segments +/-.  Set the volume at a reasonably realistic 
level.  Mount the tape on a tree in a section of swamp which is fairly 
consistent with the overall habitat diversity and density.  Move away from 
this playback source to a distance where it is just about audible to the human 
ear.  Double that distance and that becomes the distance between monitoring 
outposts. 

Step 2 - Protect and camouflage the playback source and position a camera trap 
opposite the playback source at a distance sufficient to capture a good enough 
quality image of an IBWO were one to land on the tree beside the playback 
source. 

Step 3 - Each monitoring outpost will consist of a playback tape and a camera 
trap positioned opposite it.  Decide based on resources how big an area one 
can afford to monitor based on the resources at one's disposal.  Consider the 
power source and memory capacity. One would probably want to visit all traps at 
least once a month to download the evidence. 

Step 4 - Continue to monitor and adjust the technique accordingly (different 
woodpecker species, different activities/behaviors, different elevations, tree 
species, micro-habitat types, distances between traps, times between playbacks, 
maybe consider leaving little food piles at each point, maybe one or two live 
cams, live speakers etc to trial different techniques). 


For me this type of systematic, 'bring the mountain to Muhammad' methodology is 
probably more likely to yield a high quality 'proof of live' in a shorter 
timespan than the current methodology being deployed.  Based on your long 
experience out in the swamps Michael do you think this type of approach might 
work? 


Regards

Mike O'Keeffe
Ireland



----- Original Message -----
From: 0000029076749262-dmarc-request AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 18:34:48
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published

To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new 
observations here? 

Dominic Mitchell 
----------------------------------------------------------------Managing Editor 
| Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the Middle 
EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook | Bird tours: 
Azores and more 


      From: Michael Collins 
 To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
 Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the details 
publicly available and put their names to it.  

Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com 
      From: Mark Szantyr 
 To: mike AT fishcrow.com 
Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
  
Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted a 
few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here? 


Mark Szantyr

"He's not my President"
Sic Semper Tyrannis. 
Remove Trump and his Villains



> On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> 
> The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
> Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> 
> http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


  

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

  

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

  

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

   

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: IBWO evidence published
From: Phil Jeffrey <phil.jeffrey AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:21:23 -0500
Specifically the videos are part of the supplementary material of the paper
whose direct link is:
http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/#supplementary-content
but I really think that was trivial to determine and my .edu domain isn't a
factor in access.  One of the videos (S5) is currently giving me a problem
when I try to view it.

Phil Jeffrey
Princeton

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:

> The link to the paper was provided in a previous post.
>
>       From: "dominic.mitchell AT yahoo.co.uk" 
>  To: "mike AT fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
> 
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:57 PM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> >>>>"a video involving several events that was obtained in the area where
> Geoff Hill had a sighting".
> Is this a new, previously unpublished video which you claim shows an
> unequivocal Ivory-billed Woodpecker? If so, please post the direct link in
> your reply, for examination and debate by ornithologists in this group.
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>       From: Michael Collins 
>  To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 18:44
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Parts of two of the videos were published in 2011. The paper that came out
> last week contains additional analysis of those videos and presents a video
> involving several events that was obtained in the area where Geoff Hill had
> a sighting. Nobody has refuted any of this evidence, which was recommended
> for publication by ornithologists.
>       From: "dominic.mitchell AT yahoo.co.uk" 
>  To: "mike AT fishcrow.com" ; "BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU"
> 
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:34 PM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> To repeat Mark Szantyr's unanswered question, is there new evidence of new
> observations here?
> Dominic Mitchell
> ----------------------------------------------------------------Managing
> Editor | Birdwatch and BirdGuidesBirds of Europe, North Africa and the
> Middle EastBlog: www.birdingetc.com | Twitter:  AT birdingetc Facebook |
> Bird tours: Azores and more
>
>       From: Michael Collins 
>  To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 17:48
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> If anyone thinks they can refute the evidence, they should make the
> details publicly available and put their names to it.
> Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiamike AT fishcrow.com
>       From: Mark Szantyr 
>  To: mike AT fishcrow.com
> Cc: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>  Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:13 AM
>  Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] IBWO evidence published
>
> Am i mistaken or is this the same info that was pretty succesfully refuted
> a few years ago?  Is there new evidence of new observations here?
>
> Mark Szantyr
>
> "He's not my President"
> Sic Semper Tyrannis.
> Remove Trump and his Villains
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Michael Collins  wrote:
> >
> > The links didn't work. The paper may be accessed here:
> > http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00230/
> > Videos from the Alaska sea trip may be accessed here:
> >
> > http://fishcrow.com/alaska16.html
> > Mike CollinsAlexandria, Virginiacinclodes AT yahoo.com
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
"If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge"
- Henry Spencer

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Help With Goose ID
From: Bates Estabrooks <wgpu AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 00:42:26 +0000
All,


I need help with ID of a goose. In the picture linked, there is a smaller goose 
just left of center floating vs. standing. The picture was taken last Feb. in 
Albuquerque. 



Based on its size, and shape of bill and head, I am leaning to Cackling Goose 
ssp. taverneri, based on what I read in Reeber Plates 16 and 17 and text p.263 
ff. 



Or could this be just a smaller subspecies of Canada Goose?


The goose that is second from the right (facing right) is interesting to me 
too, due to its head shape. 



Any thoughts?


Thanks much.


Bates Estabrooks




https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipORWum4qUxxuk1gACiAFEpTRarqqdB_LDtDPThgGzaxpl1cewGpwndRnEeP_2G2nQ?key=OS1yUlVXRjRLRkVCcEdfRUZzTnFrcE9VWDJkaERR 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Help With Goose ID
From: BRUCE DEUEL <bdeuel AT WILDBLUE.NET>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:57:56 -0500
Hi all,
I, too, would lean to taverneri, though because of the bird's neck position I 
can't be sure it doesn't have a white neck collar. I would expect a leucopareia 
to have darker underparts, but I can't rule out that subspecies. As to the 
other bird, it looks like it flew into a board fence! I have no idea what to 
suggest (especially regarding the apparent white eye). 

Cheers,
Bruce Deuel
Red Bluff, CA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bates Estabrooks" 
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 4:42:26 PM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Help With Goose ID

All,


I need help with ID of a goose. In the picture linked, there is a smaller goose 
just left of center floating vs. standing. The picture was taken last Feb. in 
Albuquerque. 



Based on its size, and shape of bill and head, I am leaning to Cackling Goose 
ssp. taverneri, based on what I read in Reeber Plates 16 and 17 and text p.263 
ff. 



Or could this be just a smaller subspecies of Canada Goose?


The goose that is second from the right (facing right) is interesting to me 
too, due to its head shape. 



Any thoughts?


Thanks much.


Bates Estabrooks




https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipORWum4qUxxuk1gACiAFEpTRarqqdB_LDtDPThgGzaxpl1cewGpwndRnEeP_2G2nQ?key=OS1yUlVXRjRLRkVCcEdfRUZzTnFrcE9VWDJkaERR 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Unusual Anas duck with ESPD characteristics
From: Joseph Miller <josephlowellmiller AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:09:38 -0600
Hi all, I found this duck (photos here
) in
central Kansas today. It was pretty striking compared to the Mallards
around it, with a face and bill pattern reminiscent of Eastern Spot-billed
Duck. Now, I'm quite sure it's not an ESPD, but it is quite interesting.
Dabblers are very hybridization-friendly, but what combination would show
that orange-tipped bill, broad white supercilium, white throat, dark line
from bill to cheek and white underwings on the same bird? About the only
match I can think of would be MALL X ESPD, (which doesn't seem likely, even
with captive origins) or a very aberrant Mallard. Any thoughts?
Thanks,

Joseph Miller
Nickerson, Kansas
Reno County Birdmen 

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: male Gadwall plumage
From: Wayne Hoffman <whoffman AT PEAK.ORG>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 22:28:47 -0800
Good point!   Just not in definitive plumages.  And Reeber (Plate 39) 
illustrates a hybrid American Wigeon X Northern Shoveler with a distinct 
crescent. 


Wayne
On 1/19/2017 11:44:52 AM, Tony Leukering 
<000000b797e8dae8-dmarc-request AT listserv.ksu.edu> wrote: 

Wayne et al.:


I would add Northern Shoveler to the list of duck species expressing a white 
pre-ocular crescent: 



http://cobirds.org/CFO/ColoradoBirds/InTheScope/13.pdf




Tony


Tony Leukering
Largo, FL
http://cowyebird.blogspot.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_leukering/

http://aba.org/photoquiz/



-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Hoffman
To: BIRDWG01
Sent: Thu, Jan 19, 2017 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] male Gadwall plumage

Hi -

I can see the reasons you might think this bird has a Pintail in its recent 
ancestry. I would not argue against it. On the other hand, 


I think to understand plumage variation in waterfowl(and other birds), and to 
understand plumages of hybrids, we need to update our understanding of how 
feather colors (and shapes) are coded for and controlled genetically. At this 
point it appears that there are (at least) 2 levels of control. One set of 
genes codes for the production of the protein products that are the building 
blocks of feathers. The second set regulates the transcription of the first 
set. 


Applying an analogy I have used before: consider a 3D Printer. The products it 
can create depend on (1) the precursor materials loaded into it, and (2) the 
software program that tells it when and how much of each of these substances to 
deposit. So think of the first set of genes loading the printer, and the second 
set running it. 


In the case of duck plumages, there has to be a basic set of patterns coded, 
and then the transcription regulators determine which are activated. 


The earlier discussion centered on the green blob/swoosh/rotated teardrop 
extending back from the eye. Evidently this is incorporated in an underlying 
pattern possessed by all(?) dabbling ducks and presumably expressed in their 
common ancestor. It is normally expressed in American Wigeons, Green-winged 
Teal, Common Teal, Falcated Duck (and Crested Shelduck), and masked, 
de-activated, or over-ridden in many species. In hybrids, it appears that the 
masking regulatory programs are disrupted, and this feature often is expressed, 
even if it is not expressed in either parent. 


A second example is the vertical dark bar below the eye separating pale 
fore-cheek from hind-cheek in Baikal Teal. A similar vertical separation shows 
up in quite a few dabbling duck hybrid combinations. 


Third, Baikal Teal expresses a vertical white bar separating breast from flank, 
a feature shared with Green-winged Teal but not Common Teal or most other 
dabbling ducks. 


Fourth, Green-winged and Common Teal have a triangular yellow/tan patch framed 
in blackon the sides of the tail base. This is also present in slightly 
modified form in Falcated Duck. 


Fifth. Blue-winged Teal are marked with a prominent white crescent between the 
bill and eye. This seems likely to be an expression of the same feature as the 
fattened crescent with supercilium on Baikal Teal, and this crescent as a 
retained ancestral pattern seems to be as likely an explanation as coincidental 
convergence for its appearance also in Barrow's Goldeneye. 


I think we can see other ancestral and variably retained/suppressed 
charactersin other bird groups as well. For example, collars and contrasting 
patches on the sides of necks of Columbids. Or, contrasting crown patches in 
Tyrant Flycatchers. I doubt that many would argue that Kingbirds, Elanias, and 
Royal Flycatchers are each others' closest relatives in this large family. 


Wayne


On 1/18/2017 11:15:35 AM, KEVIN karlson wrote:
A few weeks ago, Bates Estabrook posted a photo of a male Gadwall with a dark 
crown, and wondered if it could include hybrid genes from another duck species. 
The discussion basically covered ancestral traits of anas ducks and reflected 
on the ancient traits that exist in the gene pool of certain duck species. I 
just sent a photo of a male Gadwall that I mentioned in my response to Bates 
that I noticed had a darker crown than usual, but just brushed it off as 
variable Gadwall plumage based on these ancestral traits. However, closer views 
of this photo show distinct thin white lines on the tertial feathers and a 
grayish-blue cast to the bill base, which seem to be traits of male Northern 
Pintail. I was curious to see how others view this bird, and their opinion 
about hybrid genes or just ancestral traits. Here is the link to this photo on 
my website. 
http://kevinkarlsonphotography.com/gallery/v/Waterfowl/Dabbling+Ducks/Gadwall_+ad+male_+Oct_+NJ+small.jpg.html 




Kevin Karlson

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: male Gadwall plumage
From: Wayne Hoffman <whoffman AT PEAK.ORG>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:55:28 -0800
Hi - 

I can see the reasons you might think this bird has a Pintail in its recent 
ancestry.  I would not argue against it.  On the other hand,  


I think to understand plumage variation in waterfowl(and other birds), and to 
understand plumages of hybrids, we need to update our understanding of how 
feather colors (and shapes) are coded for and controlled genetically.  At this 
point it appears that there are (at least) 2 levels of control.  One set of 
genes codes for the production of the protein products that are the building 
blocks of feathers.  The second set regulates the transcription of the first 
set. 


Applying an analogy I have used before:  consider a 3D Printer.  The products 
it can create depend on (1) the precursor materials loaded into it, and (2) the 
software program that tells it when and how much of each of these substances to 
deposit.  So think of the first set of genes loading the printer, and the 
second set running it. 


In the case of duck plumages, there has to be a basic set of patterns coded, 
and then the transcription regulators determine which are activated. 


The earlier discussion centered on the green blob/swoosh/rotated teardrop 
extending back from the eye.  Evidently this is incorporated in an underlying 
pattern possessed by all(?) dabbling ducks and presumably expressed in their 
common ancestor.  It is normally expressed in American Wigeons, Green-winged 
Teal, Common Teal, Falcated Duck (and Crested Shelduck),  and masked, 
de-activated, or over-ridden in many species. In hybrids, it appears that the 
masking regulatory programs are disrupted, and this feature often is expressed, 
even if it is not expressed in either parent.   


A second example is the vertical dark bar below the eye separating pale 
fore-cheek from hind-cheek in Baikal Teal.  A similar vertical separation 
shows up in quite a few dabbling duck hybrid combinations. 


Third, Baikal Teal expresses a vertical white bar separating breast from flank, 
a feature shared with Green-winged Teal but not Common Teal or most other 
dabbling ducks. 


Fourth, Green-winged and Common Teal have a triangular yellow/tan patch framed 
in blackon the sides of the tail base.  This is also present in slightly 
modified form in Falcated Duck. 


Fifth.  Blue-winged Teal are marked with a prominent white crescent between 
the bill and eye.  This seems likely to be an expression of the same feature 
as the fattened crescent with supercilium on Baikal Teal, and this crescent as 
a retained ancestral pattern seems to be as likely an explanation as 
coincidental convergence for its appearance also in Barrow's Goldeneye. 


I think we can see other ancestral and variably retained/suppressed 
charactersin other bird groups as well.  For example, collars and contrasting 
patches on the sides of necks of Columbids.  Or, contrasting crown patches in 
Tyrant Flycatchers.  I doubt that many would argue that Kingbirds, Elanias, 
and Royal Flycatchers are each others' closest relatives in this large family. 


Wayne


On 1/18/2017 11:15:35 AM, KEVIN karlson  wrote:
A few weeks ago, Bates Estabrook posted a photo of a male Gadwall with a dark 
crown, and wondered if it could include hybrid genes from another duck species. 
The discussion basically covered ancestral traits of anas ducks and reflected 
on the ancient traits that exist in the gene pool of certain duck species. I 
just sent a photo of a male Gadwall that I mentioned in my response to Bates 
that I noticed had a darker crown than usual, but just brushed it off as 
variable Gadwall plumage based on these ancestral traits. However, closer views 
of this photo show distinct thin white lines on the tertial feathers and a 
grayish-blue cast to the bill base, which seem to be traits of male Northern 
Pintail. I was curious to see how others view this bird, and their opinion 
about hybrid genes or just ancestral traits. Here is the link to this photo on 
my website. 
http://kevinkarlsonphotography.com/gallery/v/Waterfowl/Dabbling+Ducks/Gadwall_+ad+male_+Oct_+NJ+small.jpg.html 




Kevin Karlson

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: male Gadwall plumage
From: KEVIN karlson <karlson3 AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:15:09 -0500
A few weeks ago, Bates Estabrook posted a photo of a male Gadwall with a 
dark crown, and wondered if it could include hybrid genes from another duck 
species. The discussion basically covered ancestral traits of anas ducks and 
reflected on the ancient traits that exist in the gene pool of certain duck 
species. I just sent a photo of a male Gadwall that I mentioned in my response 
to Bates that I noticed had a darker crown than usual, but just brushed it off 
as variable Gadwall plumage based on these ancestral traits. However, closer 
views of this photo show distinct thin white lines on the tertial feathers and 
a grayish-blue cast to the bill base, which seem to be traits of male Northern 
Pintail. I was curious to see how others view this bird, and their opinion 
about hybrid genes or just ancestral traits. Here is the link to this photo on 
my website. 
http://kevinkarlsonphotography.com/gallery/v/Waterfowl/Dabbling+Ducks/Gadwall_+ad+male_+Oct_+NJ+small.jpg.html 




Kevin Karlson

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: San Diego County Larus sp.
From: James Pawlicki <jmpawli10 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:42:43 -0800
All-

Seeking comments on this apparent 2nd-cycle large gull that I observed
yesterday, 16 January 2017 at Lower Otay Lake, San Diego County,
California. Ten photos are in the eBird checklist below.

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33744930

Plumage evidently appears good for a retarded 2nd-cycle Slaty-backed Gull,
and I was hoping that others with in-range experience with 1st/2nd-cycle
Slaty-backed Gull could offer opinions.

A few concerns are the bill color and eye color, as well as the lack of
solid/unpatterned blackish-gray mantle feathers. Additionally my
impressions of the size/shape were rather Glaucous-winged Gull-like (large,
thick bill; high, centrally-placed eye with "swollen" lores; large body
size with pot-bellied shape and very short primary projection). Obviously
some of these structural traits overlap with Slaty-backed Gull, so in
theory should be ok for the species, perhaps a large male.


Jim Pawlicki
San Diego, California, USA

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: California x Ring-billed Gull?
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle AT BIRDPOP.ORG>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:56:19 -0800
Hi all -

Mark Sawyer photographed this adult gull in central California on 6 
January 2017 and is seeking comment from Larophiles on his tentative 
identification of Ring-billed X California gull hybrid. Most or all 
features seem intermediate to me, including wing-tip patterns (p5-p7 
resembling RBGU more and p9-p10 resembling CAGU more) and it seems a 
good candidate for such a hybrid. We're also curious if this hybrid 
combination has been "confirmed" previously. I could only find 
references to "possible" hybrids between these two species (Harrison 
1983, McCarthy 2006, Howell and Dunn 2007) or any hybrid involving 
California Gull.

Thanks in advance,

Peter


http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33525438 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: strange bird from Nevada reported…
From: Jeff Gilligan <jeffgilligan10 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:41:07 -0800
Thanks Paul. I will pass that along and suggest the observer try for a photo. I 
think Pine Grosbeak would be very unusual at that location, though they breed 
in the Sierra Nevada Mts. Jeff Gilligan 



On Jan 8, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Paul Clyne  wrote:

> The general assemblage of characters might be OK for Pine Grosbeak, 
particularly for a young male of the interior West population in transitional 
plumage. I don't speak from experience; I'm looking at the plate on page 570 of 
the 2014 Sibley Guide to Birds, and all the details mentioned appear to be 
within the realm of potential variation for that species. 

> 
> Paul Clyne
> Chicago
>  
> paulclyne2000 AT yahoo.com
> 
> 
> From: Jeff Gilligan 
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU 
> Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] strange bird from Nevada reported…
> 
> The following is a description of a bird seen today at Tule Springs, near Las 
Vegas, Nevada. The description was sent to me second hand. The birder was 
described as experienced but not "expert". The description is fairly detailed, 
at least in regard to what seem to be very distinctive characteristics 
regarding the bird. I am drawing a blank as to what it could be. I don't think 
that the observer saw a regular species based on the description of his 
experience and the distinctive marks he mentions on the bird. I am not on a 
Nevada listserv, so I am posting here, since it also is an identification 
quandary, at least to me. Perhaps it is an escaped exotic? 

> 
> currently on the southern Oregon coast,
> Jeff Gilligan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > "Subject bird was in mesquite tree
> > . About the size of a Mockingbird.
> > Dark feet, dark seed eater beak.
> > Dark eyes.
> > Orange rump ala Audubon's warbler 
> > 
> > Orange crown 
> > Reddish malar area.
> > Red spot, under and behind mandible. 
> > Gray tail 3 1/2 inches, no other color in tail.
> > Gray back.
> > Light gray belly, with 4 dark "belly bars"!
> 
> 
> Archives:
> https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: strange bird from Nevada reported…
From: Christopher Hill <Chill AT COASTAL.EDU>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:01:43 -0500
It sounds like a beginning birder's description of a House Finch to me. 

Chris Hill
Conway, SC
________________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
[BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeff Gilligan 
[jeffgilligan10 AT GMAIL.COM] 

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:10 PM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] strange bird from Nevada reported…

The following is a description of a bird seen today at Tule Springs, near Las 
Vegas, Nevada. The description was sent to me second hand. The birder was 
described as experienced but not "expert". The description is fairly detailed, 
at least in regard to what seem to be very distinctive characteristics 
regarding the bird. I am drawing a blank as to what it could be. I don't think 
that the observer saw a regular species based on the description of his 
experience and the distinctive marks he mentions on the bird. I am not on a 
Nevada listserv, so I am posting here, since it also is an identification 
quandary, at least to me. Perhaps it is an escaped exotic? 


currently on the southern Oregon coast,
Jeff Gilligan




> "Subject bird was in mesquite tree
> . About the size of a Mockingbird.
> Dark feet, dark seed eater beak.
> Dark eyes.
> Orange rump ala Audubon's warbler
>
> Orange crown
> Reddish malar area.
> Red spot, under and behind mandible.
> Gray tail 3 1/2 inches, no other color in tail.
> Gray back.
> Light gray belly, with 4 dark "belly bars"!

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: strange bird from Nevada reported…
From: Jeff Gilligan <jeffgilligan10 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 18:10:56 -0800
The following is a description of a bird seen today at Tule Springs, near Las 
Vegas, Nevada. The description was sent to me second hand. The birder was 
described as experienced but not "expert". The description is fairly detailed, 
at least in regard to what seem to be very distinctive characteristics 
regarding the bird. I am drawing a blank as to what it could be. I don't think 
that the observer saw a regular species based on the description of his 
experience and the distinctive marks he mentions on the bird. I am not on a 
Nevada listserv, so I am posting here, since it also is an identification 
quandary, at least to me. Perhaps it is an escaped exotic? 


currently on the southern Oregon coast,
Jeff Gilligan




> "Subject bird was in mesquite tree
> . About the size of a Mockingbird.
> Dark feet, dark seed eater beak.
> Dark eyes.
> Orange rump ala Audubon's warbler 
> 
> Orange crown 
> Reddish malar area.
> Red spot, under and behind mandible. 
> Gray tail 3 1/2 inches, no other color in tail.
> Gray back.
> Light gray belly, with 4 dark "belly bars"!

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: KEVIN karlson <karlson3 AT COMCAST.NET>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 20:18:47 -0500
Bates and all: I photographed a few of these strongly marked male Gadwall this 
past fall, and noted the same caution when I first encountered them. However, 
as several people pointed out, they are just strongly marked male Gadwalls and 
not hybrids in my opinion. Several just like this bird were present in Cape May 
this fall. Kevin Karlson 

> On January 6, 2017 at 7:27 AM Bates Estabrooks  wrote:
> 
> 
> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN. I need ID 
help with the duck in the center. I want to say Gadwall, but the head pattern 
seems off. 

> 
> 
> Thanks much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB 

> 
> 
> Bates Estabrooks
> 
> Tennessee
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: David Irons <llsdirons AT MSN.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000
This is a seemingly normal variation expressed in some male Gadwall. I am happy 
to see Martin Reid put words to a theory that I arrived at a couple years back 
and have shared in other forums and in many private discussions. Under close 
scrutiny the head patterns of almost all male Anas ducks show at least a 
diffuse head stripe/wedge. Often it just enhanced iridescence. Living in the 
land of Nike, I call it a "swoosh" stripe (upside down). 


What lead me to conclude that this stripe is a trait is ancestral is the fact 
that when Anas hybridize the male offspring typically have a fairly conspicuous 
swoosh stripe even when neither parent species shows an obvious stripe. 
Brewer's Duck (Mallard X Gadwall) is perhaps the best example of this. 


Dave Irons

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Martin Reid  wrote:
> 
> All,
> There is a small but meaningful difference between Bates’ bird and those 
discussed/illustrated in preceding comments: The rear of the crown and upper 
nape are pale gray (similar to lower cheeks), and the forecrown is also pale 
but has a buffy tinge. This might suggest that some wigeon genes are in this 
individual’s recent genetic past, but there are a couple of phenomena that 
could explain this bird’s appearance. 

> 
> Ancestral re-expression: Here is a snippet I wrote years ago regarding a 
similar situation: 

> “I feel that many (but not all) cases of male ducks that show some form of 
curved green wedge behind the eye, are not due to the direct influence of 
recent hybridization with a relative that has this plumage feature, but instead 
are due to an expression of a normally-suppressed element of the genome that 
lingers in all the dabbling ducks from their common ancestor. 

> We don't know what the common ancestor of the dabbling duck tribe looked 
like, but we can make some educated (?) guesses using Baikal Teal as a model, 
since Baikal Teal split off from all other dabblers long before the later 
radiation into the species we are now familiar with (Johnson and Sorenson. 
Comparing Molecular evolution in two mitochondrial protein coding genes 
(Cytochrome b and ND2) in the dabbling ducks (tribe Anatini). MOLECULAR 
PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Vol. 10, No. 1, August, pp. 82-94, 1998). 

> Thus I speculate that the common ancestor had some form of green curved wedge 
behind the eye, and this is why this feature is part of the normal plumage of 
so many current species. 

> I think that this explains why so many non-standard individuals of our 
dabblers have the shared feature of this curved green wedge in some form. I 
have heard birders say that a Blue-winged Teal with such a green wedge is a 
hybrid with Green-winged Teal, and similarly for Cinnamon Teal so-adorned. I 
don’t think such birds necessarily have any recent hybrid genes in their 
make-ups, but instead bare the re-expression of an ancient family trait.“ 

> 
> Secondly, as mentioned in an earlier reply, there is a theory that as 
individual males get older they get a stronger facial pattern, with a green 
wedge developing plus more contrast between this green wedge and the 
surrounding feathers. This is dramatically illustrated in the so-called 
“Storm Wigeon” - see pic 
(http://www.martinreid.com/Main%20website/amwi.html) or search for this term 
for numerous examples online. 

> This process would be a simple explanation for most, if not all, examples of 
dabbling ducks that have a non-typical extent of green behind the eye (but 
otherwise look normal) - as opposed to these birds being recent hybrids. 

> 
> Cheers,
> martin
> 
> ---
> Martin Reid
> San Antonio
> www.martinreid.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2017, at Jan 6, 6:27 AM, Bates Estabrooks  
wrote: 

>> 
>> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN. I need 
ID help with the duck in the center. I want to say Gadwall, but the head 
pattern seems off. 

>> 
>> 
>> Thanks much.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB 

>> 
>> 
>> Bates Estabrooks
>> 
>> Tennessee
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: Cathy Sheeter <hawkcall AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:03:47 +0000
And FWIW I believe the pale edge on the crown/neck is an artifact of reflected 
light/rim lighting as the bird is mostly lit from behind. Just my opinion, but 
those areas doesn't truly look light brown to my eye. 


Cathy Sheeter
www.cathysheeter.com

> On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Martin Reid  wrote:
> 
> All,
> There is a small but meaningful difference between Bates’ bird and those 
discussed/illustrated in preceding comments: The rear of the crown and upper 
nape are pale gray (similar to lower cheeks), and the forecrown is also pale 
but has a buffy tinge. This might suggest that some wigeon genes are in this 
individual’s recent genetic past, but there are a couple of phenomena that 
could explain this bird’s appearance. 

> 
> Ancestral re-expression: Here is a snippet I wrote years ago regarding a 
similar situation: 

> “I feel that many (but not all) cases of male ducks that show some form of 
curved green wedge behind the eye, are not due to the direct influence of 
recent hybridization with a relative that has this plumage feature, but instead 
are due to an expression of a normally-suppressed element of the genome that 
lingers in all the dabbling ducks from their common ancestor. 

> We don't know what the common ancestor of the dabbling duck tribe looked 
like, but we can make some educated (?) guesses using Baikal Teal as a model, 
since Baikal Teal split off from all other dabblers long before the later 
radiation into the species we are now familiar with (Johnson and Sorenson. 
Comparing Molecular evolution in two mitochondrial protein coding genes 
(Cytochrome b and ND2) in the dabbling ducks (tribe Anatini). MOLECULAR 
PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Vol. 10, No. 1, August, pp. 82-94, 1998). 

> Thus I speculate that the common ancestor had some form of green curved wedge 
behind the eye, and this is why this feature is part of the normal plumage of 
so many current species. 

> I think that this explains why so many non-standard individuals of our 
dabblers have the shared feature of this curved green wedge in some form. I 
have heard birders say that a Blue-winged Teal with such a green wedge is a 
hybrid with Green-winged Teal, and similarly for Cinnamon Teal so-adorned. I 
don’t think such birds necessarily have any recent hybrid genes in their 
make-ups, but instead bare the re-expression of an ancient family trait.“ 

> 
> Secondly, as mentioned in an earlier reply, there is a theory that as 
individual males get older they get a stronger facial pattern, with a green 
wedge developing plus more contrast between this green wedge and the 
surrounding feathers. This is dramatically illustrated in the so-called 
“Storm Wigeon” - see pic 
(http://www.martinreid.com/Main%20website/amwi.html) or search for this term 
for numerous examples online. 

> This process would be a simple explanation for most, if not all, examples of 
dabbling ducks that have a non-typical extent of green behind the eye (but 
otherwise look normal) - as opposed to these birds being recent hybrids. 

> 
> Cheers,
> martin
> 
> ---
> Martin Reid
> San Antonio
> www.martinreid.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2017, at Jan 6, 6:27 AM, Bates Estabrooks  
wrote: 

>> 
>> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN. I need 
ID help with the duck in the center. I want to say Gadwall, but the head 
pattern seems off. 

>> 
>> 
>> Thanks much.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB 

>> 
>> 
>> Bates Estabrooks
>> 
>> Tennessee
>> 
>> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> 
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: Martin Reid <upupa AT AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:52:10 -0600
All,
There is a small but meaningful difference between Bates’ bird and those 
discussed/illustrated in preceding comments: The rear of the crown and upper 
nape are pale gray (similar to lower cheeks), and the forecrown is also pale 
but has a buffy tinge. This might suggest that some wigeon genes are in this 
individual’s recent genetic past, but there are a couple of phenomena that 
could explain this bird’s appearance. 


Ancestral re-expression: Here is a snippet I wrote years ago regarding a 
similar situation: 

“I feel that many (but not all) cases of male ducks that show some form of 
curved green wedge behind the eye, are not due to the direct influence of 
recent hybridization with a relative that has this plumage feature, but instead 
are due to an expression of a normally-suppressed element of the genome that 
lingers in all the dabbling ducks from their common ancestor. 

We don't know what the common ancestor of the dabbling duck tribe looked like, 
but we can make some educated (?) guesses using Baikal Teal as a model, since 
Baikal Teal split off from all other dabblers long before the later radiation 
into the species we are now familiar with (Johnson and Sorenson. Comparing 
Molecular evolution in two mitochondrial protein coding genes (Cytochrome b and 
ND2) in the dabbling ducks (tribe Anatini). MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND 
EVOLUTION Vol. 10, No. 1, August, pp. 82-94, 1998). 

Thus I speculate that the common ancestor had some form of green curved wedge 
behind the eye, and this is why this feature is part of the normal plumage of 
so many current species. 

 I think that this explains why so many non-standard individuals of our 
dabblers have the shared feature of this curved green wedge in some form. I 
have heard birders say that a Blue-winged Teal with such a green wedge is a 
hybrid with Green-winged Teal, and similarly for Cinnamon Teal so-adorned. I 
don’t think such birds necessarily have any recent hybrid genes in their 
make-ups, but instead bare the re-expression of an ancient family trait.“ 


Secondly, as mentioned in an earlier reply, there is a theory that as 
individual males get older they get a stronger facial pattern, with a green 
wedge developing plus more contrast between this green wedge and the 
surrounding feathers. This is dramatically illustrated in the so-called 
“Storm Wigeon” - see pic 
(http://www.martinreid.com/Main%20website/amwi.html) or search for this term 
for numerous examples online. 

This process would be a simple explanation for most, if not all, examples of 
dabbling ducks that have a non-typical extent of green behind the eye (but 
otherwise look normal) - as opposed to these birds being recent hybrids. 


Cheers,
martin

---
Martin Reid
San Antonio
www.martinreid.com



> On Jan 6, 2017, at Jan 6, 6:27 AM, Bates Estabrooks  wrote:
> 
> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN. I need ID 
help with the duck in the center. I want to say Gadwall, but the head pattern 
seems off. 

> 
> 
> Thanks much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB 

> 
> 
> Bates Estabrooks
> 
> Tennessee
> 
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: Michael Todd <birder1 AT BELLSOUTH.NET>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:01:52 +0000
Bates,
I don't really see anything on the bird, other than the head pattern to suggest 
other than Gadwall. I've seen quite a few of these very high contrast head 
pattern birds, that in other aspects look entirely like a typical Gadwall. I 
would suggest your first impression of Gadwall was correct. This pattern is 
mentioned in Reeber's Waterfowl of Europe, Asia and North America. He mentions 
it is most commonly seen in North America, and may reflect an ancient sign of 
hybridization, but considers it a Gadwall. Are we seeing anything off on the 
bird in the photos other than the head pattern? 

Good birding!
Michael ToddJackson, TNwww.pbase.com/mctodd 

    On Friday, January 6, 2017 7:49 AM, The HH75  wrote:
 

 Hi Bates,
    I think Larry is on to something, though, obviously, the wigeon parent
would likely be American Wigeon over there. I have found a few images of
presumed Gadwall x Eurasian Wigeon online and these look quite similar to
the subject bird.

 Regards,

Harry Hussey, Cork, Ireland

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Bates Estabrooks  wrote:

> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN.  I
> need ID help with the duck in the center.  I want to say Gadwall, but the
> head pattern seems off.
>
>
> Thanks much.
>
>
>
> https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-
> hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=
> T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB
>
>
> Bates Estabrooks
>
> Tennessee
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html


   

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: Cathy Sheeter <hawkcall AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 13:55:57 +0000
To be the voice of discent, this bird looks perfect for an adult male Gadwall - 
just a more strongly marked individual. I see no indication of hybrid. Adult 
males can get quite strong contrast on the upper half of the hear, and 
sometimes a strong maroon to purple sheen (which like all irridecence can look 
different at different angles). I was told once (though do not have science to 
back it up) that older males have stronger contrasting head patterns than 
younger males. Wigeon x Gadwall hybrids show some degree of blue on the bill, 
not the long solid dark bill of this bird and some structural aspect to suggest 
hybrid ancestry, which this bird does not show i(if you cover the head you will 
see a perfect normal male Gadwall body). To me this is without a doubt just a 
good ole', under appreciated for their beauty, heavily marked Gadwall. You can 
see a close up head shot of a strongly marked individual here: 
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/attachments/_dsc3915_1-jpg.153443/ and many 
other photos of contrasting headed Gadwalls online. Some are just superb! 



Cathy Sheeter
www.cathysheeter.com


________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of The HH75  

Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 5:49 AM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Mystery Duck

Hi Bates,
    I think Larry is on to something, though, obviously, the wigeon parent
would likely be American Wigeon over there. I have found a few images of
presumed Gadwall x Eurasian Wigeon online and these look quite similar to
the subject bird.

 Regards,

Harry Hussey, Cork, Ireland

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Bates Estabrooks  wrote:

> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN.  I
> need ID help with the duck in the center.  I want to say Gadwall, but the
> head pattern seems off.
>
>
> Thanks much.
>
>
>
> https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-
> hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=
> T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB
>
>
> Bates Estabrooks
>
> Tennessee
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: Deborah Allen <dallenyc AT EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:55:48 -0500
Hi Bates & Larry,

Here's a photo of a male Gadwall taken in early December that resembles your 
bird: 


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18329951

It seems that some males have darker caps than others. The bill color (black) 
and undertail (black), pale gray tertials, and other markings are certainly 
fine for male Gadwall. I see no reason to think that this bird is a hybrid. 


Deb Allen


-----Original Message-----
>From: Bates Estabrooks 
>Sent: Jan 6, 2017 7:27 AM
>To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>Subject: [BIRDWG01] Mystery Duck
>
>I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN. I need ID 
help with the duck in the center. I want to say Gadwall, but the head pattern 
seems off. 

>
>
>Thanks much.
>
>
>

>https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB 

>
>
>Bates Estabrooks
>
>Tennessee
>
>Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Mystery Duck
From: The HH75 <hhussey3 AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 13:49:51 +0000
Hi Bates,
    I think Larry is on to something, though, obviously, the wigeon parent
would likely be American Wigeon over there. I have found a few images of
presumed Gadwall x Eurasian Wigeon online and these look quite similar to
the subject bird.

 Regards,

Harry Hussey, Cork, Ireland

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Bates Estabrooks  wrote:

> I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN.  I
> need ID help with the duck in the center.  I want to say Gadwall, but the
> head pattern seems off.
>
>
> Thanks much.
>
>
>
> https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-
> hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=
> T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB
>
>
> Bates Estabrooks
>
> Tennessee
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Mystery Duck
From: Bates Estabrooks <wgpu AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:27:31 +0000
I took these (poor) photos yesterday at a pond SW of Oak Ridge, TN. I need ID 
help with the duck in the center. I want to say Gadwall, but the head pattern 
seems off. 



Thanks much.




https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtTfboLtT-hRIh2Bym79QxVW4MShfI9wSYO3jIUOB_QudL9owNJqppYgVs6Sx79g?key=T0NxWjdGaGtxXzJHWHNaSjJaNFBXR1JqcmdDSmtB 



Bates Estabrooks

Tennessee

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle AT BIRDPOP.ORG>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:09:38 -0800
I agree this is certainly a fist-winter bird by the molt limits, but 
I'm not as sure that this is a female, though agree it could be. Many 
formative females are duller with less black in the crown and throat, 
for example,
http://www.birdphotography.com/species/photos/btyw-6.jpg

On the other hand, many formative males are bolder than this bird, 
with more black and without thin shaft streaks to the median covert 
tips, as Ashli thoroughly and correctly describes. All criteria can 
be variable and it is not unusual in first-winter Setophaga to have 
one or two not fit a typical pattern for a given sex, and for there 
to be some overlap. I guess my conservative leaning would be sex 
unknown. Perhaps it will stick around until the prealternate molt in 
March-April and sex can be confirmed.

Peter

At 12:55 PM 1/2/2017, Ashli Gorbet wrote:
>What a great January bird for D.C.!
>
>
>This bird appears to be a second year individual based on the 
>slightly abraded and brownish flight feathers and rectrices, as well 
>as contrastingly dull primary coverts. The lack of black in the 
>throat, as well as the gray cheek, mostly grayish crown, gray and 
>indistinct flank streaks, and slightly brownish washed back without 
>black centers to individual feathers all indicate female. A male 
>should be more blue gray above, have more black in the crown, a 
>darker cheek (mostly blackish), more contrasting wingbar and flight 
>feather edges (greater coverts black with white versus gray with 
>white), and would show bolder, blacker flank-streaking.
>
>
>I would caution folks against sexing this species based on throat 
>pattern alone as I have seen many females with nearly completely 
>black throats. Most birders would likely call these birds males 
>based on depictions in field guides which tend to make people think 
>there are only two possible throat patterns in this species. I can 
>say with certainty, after years spent in the field studying this 
>species, that females have quite a range of throat patterns from the 
>near-"male" pattern I describe to what field guides typically depict 
>as females (what this D.C. bird displays). While a bird with a 
>throat this white is a female, not all birds with black throats are 
>males. In fact, at my study site in Central New Mexico, I found many 
>more females tending toward completely black throats than completely 
>light throats. The typical female at my site showed a beautiful 
>marble-like pattern of black and white in their throats. In all the 
>years I studied BTWY, I think I only had one bird that showed the 
>throat pattern of this bird. They are definitely in the minority, at 
>least where I did my work.
>
>
>While I was never able to observe the progression (or lack thereof) 
>of throat pattern in an individual female, my feeling is that birds 
>with the whitest throats are young females and after their first 
>adult prebasic molt they acquire more black. Whether that amount of 
>black is then "set" for the remainder of that bird's life or 
>continues to progress in subsequent molts would be an interesting 
>thing to study. Perhaps someone out there has experience with this 
>and could help shed light on the topic?
>
>
>Again, this is a really fantastic bird for this time of year. We 
>don't typically get to see them in January, so I appreciate you 
>sharing the pictures and inquiring. I'd love to hear other folks' 
>experiences as well if you have additional/differing observations.
>
>
>Thanks, Hugh.
>
>
>Ashli Gorbet
>
>
>Black Swamp Bird Observatory
>
>Oak Harbor, OH
>
>
>________________________________
>From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
> on behalf of Hugh McGuinness 
>
>Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 12:39 PM
>To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
>Subject: [BIRDWG01] Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age
>
>The District of Columbia is currently enjoying its first BLACK-THROATED
>GRAY WARBLER. I believe the individual, shown in the links below, is an
>adult female b/c of the lack of black on the throat, the lack of buffy
>flanks, and the well developed blue-gray color of the upper parts. I would
>love to hear confirmation or rejection from people more experienced with
>the species than I.
>
>http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33305407
>
>http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33297839
>
>http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33310600
>
>http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33309050
>
>Thanks, Hugh
>
>Hugh McGuinness
>Washington, D.C.
>
>Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
>Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age
From: Ashli Gorbet <antelope916 AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:55:55 +0000
What a great January bird for D.C.!


This bird appears to be a second year individual based on the slightly abraded 
and brownish flight feathers and rectrices, as well as contrastingly dull 
primary coverts. The lack of black in the throat, as well as the gray cheek, 
mostly grayish crown, gray and indistinct flank streaks, and slightly brownish 
washed back without black centers to individual feathers all indicate female. A 
male should be more blue gray above, have more black in the crown, a darker 
cheek (mostly blackish), more contrasting wingbar and flight feather edges 
(greater coverts black with white versus gray with white), and would show 
bolder, blacker flank-streaking. 



I would caution folks against sexing this species based on throat pattern alone 
as I have seen many females with nearly completely black throats. Most birders 
would likely call these birds males based on depictions in field guides which 
tend to make people think there are only two possible throat patterns in this 
species. I can say with certainty, after years spent in the field studying this 
species, that females have quite a range of throat patterns from the 
near-"male" pattern I describe to what field guides typically depict as females 
(what this D.C. bird displays). While a bird with a throat this white is a 
female, not all birds with black throats are males. In fact, at my study site 
in Central New Mexico, I found many more females tending toward completely 
black throats than completely light throats. The typical female at my site 
showed a beautiful marble-like pattern of black and white in their throats. In 
all the years I studied BTWY, I think I only had one bird that showed the 
throat pattern of this bird. They are definitely in the minority, at least 
where I did my work. 



While I was never able to observe the progression (or lack thereof) of throat 
pattern in an individual female, my feeling is that birds with the whitest 
throats are young females and after their first adult prebasic molt they 
acquire more black. Whether that amount of black is then "set" for the 
remainder of that bird's life or continues to progress in subsequent molts 
would be an interesting thing to study. Perhaps someone out there has 
experience with this and could help shed light on the topic? 



Again, this is a really fantastic bird for this time of year. We don't 
typically get to see them in January, so I appreciate you sharing the pictures 
and inquiring. I'd love to hear other folks' experiences as well if you have 
additional/differing observations. 



Thanks, Hugh.


Ashli Gorbet


Black Swamp Bird Observatory

Oak Harbor, OH


________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of Hugh McGuinness 
 

Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 12:39 PM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age

The District of Columbia is currently enjoying its first BLACK-THROATED
GRAY WARBLER. I believe the individual, shown in the links below, is an
adult female b/c of the lack of black on the throat, the lack of buffy
flanks, and the well developed blue-gray color of the upper parts. I would
love to hear confirmation or rejection from people more experienced with
the species than I.

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33305407

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33297839

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33310600

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33309050

Thanks, Hugh

Hugh McGuinness
Washington, D.C.

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age
From: Shaibal Mitra <Shaibal.Mitra AT CSI.CUNY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:48:13 +0000
To my eye, the contrast between the black-centered, neatly edged, greater 
secondary coverts and the much browner, more worn-looking primary coverts, 
suggest a bird in formative plumage (second calendar year = SY, as of 
yesterday). 


Best,
Shai
________________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
[BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] on behalf of Hugh McGuinness 
[hdmcguinness AT GMAIL.COM] 

Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 2:39 PM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age

The District of Columbia is currently enjoying its first BLACK-THROATED
GRAY WARBLER. I believe the individual, shown in the links below, is an
adult female b/c of the lack of black on the throat, the lack of buffy
flanks, and the well developed blue-gray color of the upper parts. I would
love to hear confirmation or rejection from people more experienced with
the species than I.

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33305407

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33297839

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33310600

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33309050

Thanks, Hugh

Hugh McGuinness
Washington, D.C.

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Black-throated Gray Warbler Sex/Age
From: Hugh McGuinness <hdmcguinness AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:39:29 -0500
The District of Columbia is currently enjoying its first BLACK-THROATED
GRAY WARBLER. I believe the individual, shown in the links below, is an
adult female b/c of the lack of black on the throat, the lack of buffy
flanks, and the well developed blue-gray color of the upper parts. I would
love to hear confirmation or rejection from people more experienced with
the species than I.

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33305407

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33297839

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33310600

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33309050

Thanks, Hugh

Hugh McGuinness
Washington, D.C.

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: RFI: Rock Sandpiper Soft Parts Coloration
From: Jeremy Gatten <jarofme AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 04:56:32 +0000
Hi all,


On December 30th, 2016, I found what would normally be presumed to be a Rock 
Sandpiper on a nearshore islet along the Victoria, BC waterfront. The bird I 
was looking at, however, had a very bright orange bill base and vibrant 
creamsicle orange legs. I had to rush off and didn't have a lot of time to 
study the bird and did not get any photos, but when I got home that night I 
realized it bore a stronger resemblance to Purple Sandpiper than it did to a 
Rock Sandpiper. I urged birders to get out to look for the bird and get some 
photo documentation. Daniel Donnecke took a very solid approach and kayaked to 
Little Trial Island on December 31st and managed to find the bird and then 
tracked it over to the Victoria Golf Course where he managed some record shots. 
We are aware that this bird cannot be definitively identified from the photos 
available, so that is not the intent of my inquiry. 



To see Daniel's record photos, see his decent record shots here: 
http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33323094 



My response pertains to the general response that Purple Sandpipers cannot be 
identified by soft parts coloration because there are examples of Rock 
Sandpipers that have a very bright bill base and legs. I would be interested in 
seeing some examples of these bright Rock Sandpipers to get a sense of what the 
known extreme looks like and see how it compares to the Victoria bird. I 
understand that there is overlap, but I am wondering if the overlap is complete 
(i.e., the drabbest billed PUSAs look identifical to the drabbest ROSAs and the 
brightest ROSAs look like the brightest PUSAs) or if nearly all field 
identifications in the late fall/winter are based purely on allopatry. 



I am grateful for any examples of extremely bright Rock Sandpipers and also any 
input on the Victoria bird. Purple Sandpiper would be a first provincial record 
for British Columbia, so I am hoping local birders can compile a bunch of 
documentation over the next while, including flight/spread wing shots. This 
will be no small feat as the bird may stick to nearshore islets that are 20+ 
meters (~60 ft) away and the lighting has been really tricky (late day and 
backlit). This is an extraordinary claim and I know it requires extraordinary 
evidence, so I really hope it can all come together! 



Thanks and Happy New Year,

Jeremy Gatten

Saanichton, BC


Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow
From: Peter Pyle <ppyle AT BIRDPOP.ORG>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 16:59:24 -0800
Hi all -

My impression having looked at a lot of specimens and trying to 
figure out Fox Sparrows on the Farallones in the 1980-90s is that 
altivagans is somewhat of an intergrade swarm taxon between Pacific 
Coastal, Boreal/Eastern, and, to a lesser extent Great Basin 
subspecies groups. In this manner it is similar to merrilli Song 
Sparrows, cismontanus Dark-eyed Juncos, and other taxa that have 
subspecies or species groups meeting in British Columbia. As such, 
altivagans is a variable taxon that shows more Pacific tendencies 
toward the western portion of the range, more Eastern tendencies 
toward the northern and eastern portions of the range, and more Great 
Basin tendencies toward the southern portion of the range. The 
problem with birds outside of the breeding range is that it is easy 
to assign almost anything that doesn't fit expectations into the 
"altivagans" pot, resulting in some circular reasoning on what 
exactly altivagans is. This may not be an incorrect approach, 
however. I'm grateful to Steve and others for taking us to the next 
level in trying to figure this out.

Last year Lucas DeCicco sent to me some Fox Sparrow specimens from 
Middleton Island, Alaska, for subspecies assessment in comparison 
with specimens at MVZ. My comments are below, and I'll be happy to 
share my photographs to those interested enough in this, though I'll 
be "off-line" now for about a week.

Best to all for 2017,

Peter

Lucas DeCicco: we have a long series of fall birds from Middleton, 
many of which we identified based on comparable material at UAM. We 
have three specimens that we would like your opinion on. Two birds 
show olive tones to their plumage, we are assuming this is some type 
of plumage aberration not linked to subspecies, but would like your 
opinion. The third specimen (UAM34532) troubles me greatly as it does 
not appear to match any intergrade combination of Alaska breeding 
taxa. In my uneducated opinion, it appears similar to a 
schistacea-group taxon, but I would greatly appreciate an educated 
opinion on this. This bird may be best left without a name. If you 
would like, we can also send a couple specimens from Middleton that 
we identified as intergrade sinuosa x zaboria for comparison (the 
only combination that comes close in plumage aspect to the specimen 
in question).

Peter Pyle:

Upon initial inspection these grouped as follows to me:

UAM 30809 - more rufous than the other four specimens
UAM 34529 and 34532 slightly grayer than UAM 34530 and 34537
UAM 34530 and 34537 slightly browner than UAM 34529 and 34532

UAM 30809 falls within the series identified at MVZ as altivagans. I 
believe that this subspecies is an integrade swarm between zaboria, 
sooty subspecies to the west, and schistacea (see below). It appears 
closer to the specimens labeled altivagans than to a bird identified 
as Swarth as zaboria x townsendi (MVZ 42418) but to me this latter 
specimen could also be placed within the wide range of variation 
found among altivagans.

Photos (left to right):
MVZ 31257 zaboria California
MVZ 42418 zaboria x townsendi Hazelton BC
UAM 30889
MVZ 26039 altivagans Hazelton BC
MVZ 9660 townsendi AK

All four of UAM 34529, 34532, 34530, and 34537 also are matched best 
by specimens labeled altivagans. They are generally grayer on the 
back and less-marked on the breast than specimens of any of the Sooty 
subspecies but redder and heavier marked on the breast than specimens 
of schistacea. I believe that subspecies altivagans is like merrilli 
Song Sparrows (see Johnson et al. 2013, Western Birds 44:162-170) and 
cismontanus juncos in representing genetic hodge-podges of NW 
coastal, Boreal/Eastern, and Great Basin subspecies groups which come 
together in central BC. These subspecies tend to vary a lot and show 
characters closer to the peripheral groups as one approaches the 
respective edges of the swarm area. Maybe altivagans should not be 
considered a valid subspecies but I believe that all five of your 
birds come from this swarm, with the redder 30889 influenced more by 
zaboria/townsendi and the other four more with schistacea 
introgression. I should also note that many specimens at MVZ, 
especially those collected in California, show a lot of variation 
such that some labeled fuliginosa and others labeled schistacea also 
come close to one or more of the UAM birds, but for all we know these 
birds may also originate from the "altivagans" area.

Photos (all fresh fall birds, matching UAM specimens closest):
MVZ 80564 fuliginosa
UAM 34532-34529-34530-34537
MVZ 88125 altavagans
MVZ 12188 altavagans
MVZ 12189 altavagans
MVZ 27373 schistacea

At 08:00 AM 12/30/2016, Steve Hampton wrote:
>Jason,
>
>Thanks for these pics!  Breeding ground pics of many FOSP are hard to come
>by.  These pics and everything you say are consistent with my understanding
>of altivagans as well.  In these pics, I note the wingbars and tertial tips
>are negligible-- I wonder if that is thru wear (as these birds are in
>April).  Either way, they would have been quite small to begin with.
>
>thanks!
>
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Jason Rogers  wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > The birds in this checklist are what I consider altivagans -
> > http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S23038540
> >
> > Though the observer has called one a Red and the other a Slate-colored, I
> > believe both are just variations of altivagans, which is the subspecies to
> > be expected at that location.
> >
> > Comparing these to Red, they're darker grey above and the browns are less
> > red. Head markings, mantle streaking, and wing bars are subtler. Bills are
> > greyer. P. i. schistacea seems to have blacker markings below. But I'd also
> > be interested in hearing from others on this.
> >
> > Jason Rogers
> > Calgary, AB
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification <
> > BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU> on behalf of Andrew Spencer <
> > gwwarbler AT GMAIL.COM>
> > Sent: December 26, 2016 2:43 AM
> > To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> > Subject: [BIRDWG01] A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The recent (and very informative) discussion about the Sooty Fox Sparrow in
> > Newfoundland has reminded me of a topic I've been meaning to ask about
> > here.  Namely, what does altivagans Fox Sparrow actually look like?  My
> > impression of what is generally considered this form is a bird that looks
> > like a dull Red Fox Sparrow, quite a bit better marked than a Slate-colored
> > bird, but without much in the way of foxy tones.  A photo on this ebird
> > article:
> > http://ebird.org/content/nw/news/fox-sparrows-one-of-the-
> > northwests-more-confusing-species/
> > [http://ebird.org/content/nw/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/
> > Figure_2-520x634.jpg] 
> sparrows-one-of-the-northwests-more-confusing-species/>
> >
> > Fox Sparrows - one of the Northwest's more confusing ...<
> > http://ebird.org/content/nw/news/fox-sparrows-one-of-
> > the-northwests-more-confusing-species/>
> > ebird.org
> > Four groups of Fox Sparrows occur in our region; few other parts of the
> > country can claim that distinction. Three breed in the region and one is a
> > scarce winter visitant.
> >
> >
> > (most of the way down the page), and the one mid-way down this page:
> > http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html demonstrate what
> > [http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MTYbirds-FOSP/
> > FOSP-sch19Jun01Glacer-GWLzz.jpg] 
> montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html>
> >
> > Slate-colored Fox Sparrow - Monterey Bay 
> montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html>
> > creagrus.home.montereybay.com
> > The Slate-colored Fox Sparrow group is a set of populations that breed in
> > the interior of western North America, primarily the Rockies and isolated
> > mountains in the ...
> >
> >
> > I'm talking about.
> >
> > However, more recently I began noticing that essentially all photos of
> > putative altivagans are from the wintering grounds, and mostly from CA or
> > OR.  After a trip to Alaska, where I saw some rather dull Red Fox Sparrows,
> > and especially after a trip to Central Alberta/BC I was wondering if these
> > birds really are altivagans?  The birds I saw there looked very similar to
> > Slate-colored, but a bit more well marked and brighter.  Granted, I was a
> > bit south of the type locality, but not by a lot.  A couple of photos of
> > these birds can be seen here:
> > https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33199849.  I also extensively
> > recorded the Fox Sparrows in this area, and as one would expect from the
> > plumage, the vocals also matched Slate-colored.
> >
> > The type description of altivagans also gives me some doubt that birds as
> > well marked as the ones I alluded to earlier in this email are actually
> > representative of the taxon, and would lead me to expect something closer
> > to the Slate-colored birds that I'm more familiar with from living in CO
> > and what I photographed in Jasper.  Unfortunately the type specimen is a
> > juvenile bird, and also purported to be in bad shape (I haven't seen it).
> > I did track down some other specimens from both north and south of the type
> > locality, and they did NOT appear to be as well marked as nearly all the
> > birds reported as altivagans further south, and thus closer to
> > Slate-colored.  But I would also add a big caveat that I found the
> > differences between Fox Sparrow groups to be less obvious in old specimens
> > than in life.
> >
> > SO, what I would be interested in knowing is a) what do birders in the
> > lower 48, especially in the west, consider an altivagans Fox Sparrow to be?
> > and b) what do birders in western Alberta and E BC consider it to be?  Does
> > anyone have more photos from the purported range?  Are the birds that are
> > commonly reported to be altivagans actually that taxon, or are they
> > intergrade Red x Slate-colored, or are those two things one and the same?
> >
> > I very much appreciate any light that any of you can throw on this topic,
> > and look forward to hearing what you all have to say,
> >
> > Andrew Spencer
> > Ithaca, NY
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Steve Hampton
>Davis, CA
>
>Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow
From: Steve Hampton <stevechampton AT GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:00:54 -0800
Jason,

Thanks for these pics!  Breeding ground pics of many FOSP are hard to come
by.  These pics and everything you say are consistent with my understanding
of altivagans as well.  In these pics, I note the wingbars and tertial tips
are negligible-- I wonder if that is thru wear (as these birds are in
April).  Either way, they would have been quite small to begin with.

thanks!



On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Jason Rogers  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> The birds in this checklist are what I consider altivagans -
> http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S23038540
>
> Though the observer has called one a Red and the other a Slate-colored, I
> believe both are just variations of altivagans, which is the subspecies to
> be expected at that location.
>
> Comparing these to Red, they're darker grey above and the browns are less
> red. Head markings, mantle streaking, and wing bars are subtler. Bills are
> greyer. P. i. schistacea seems to have blacker markings below. But I'd also
> be interested in hearing from others on this.
>
> Jason Rogers
> Calgary, AB
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification <
> BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU> on behalf of Andrew Spencer <
> gwwarbler AT GMAIL.COM>
> Sent: December 26, 2016 2:43 AM
> To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> Subject: [BIRDWG01] A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow
>
> Hi all,
>
> The recent (and very informative) discussion about the Sooty Fox Sparrow in
> Newfoundland has reminded me of a topic I've been meaning to ask about
> here.  Namely, what does altivagans Fox Sparrow actually look like?  My
> impression of what is generally considered this form is a bird that looks
> like a dull Red Fox Sparrow, quite a bit better marked than a Slate-colored
> bird, but without much in the way of foxy tones.  A photo on this ebird
> article:
> http://ebird.org/content/nw/news/fox-sparrows-one-of-the-
> northwests-more-confusing-species/
> [http://ebird.org/content/nw/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/
> Figure_2-520x634.jpg] sparrows-one-of-the-northwests-more-confusing-species/>
>
> Fox Sparrows - one of the Northwest's more confusing ...<
> http://ebird.org/content/nw/news/fox-sparrows-one-of-
> the-northwests-more-confusing-species/>
> ebird.org
> Four groups of Fox Sparrows occur in our region; few other parts of the
> country can claim that distinction. Three breed in the region and one is a
> scarce winter visitant.
>
>
> (most of the way down the page), and the one mid-way down this page:
> http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html demonstrate what
> [http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MTYbirds-FOSP/
> FOSP-sch19Jun01Glacer-GWLzz.jpg] montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html>
>
> Slate-colored Fox Sparrow - Monterey Bay montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html>
> creagrus.home.montereybay.com
> The Slate-colored Fox Sparrow group is a set of populations that breed in
> the interior of western North America, primarily the Rockies and isolated
> mountains in the ...
>
>
> I'm talking about.
>
> However, more recently I began noticing that essentially all photos of
> putative altivagans are from the wintering grounds, and mostly from CA or
> OR.  After a trip to Alaska, where I saw some rather dull Red Fox Sparrows,
> and especially after a trip to Central Alberta/BC I was wondering if these
> birds really are altivagans?  The birds I saw there looked very similar to
> Slate-colored, but a bit more well marked and brighter.  Granted, I was a
> bit south of the type locality, but not by a lot.  A couple of photos of
> these birds can be seen here:
> https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33199849.  I also extensively
> recorded the Fox Sparrows in this area, and as one would expect from the
> plumage, the vocals also matched Slate-colored.
>
> The type description of altivagans also gives me some doubt that birds as
> well marked as the ones I alluded to earlier in this email are actually
> representative of the taxon, and would lead me to expect something closer
> to the Slate-colored birds that I'm more familiar with from living in CO
> and what I photographed in Jasper.  Unfortunately the type specimen is a
> juvenile bird, and also purported to be in bad shape (I haven't seen it).
> I did track down some other specimens from both north and south of the type
> locality, and they did NOT appear to be as well marked as nearly all the
> birds reported as altivagans further south, and thus closer to
> Slate-colored.  But I would also add a big caveat that I found the
> differences between Fox Sparrow groups to be less obvious in old specimens
> than in life.
>
> SO, what I would be interested in knowing is a) what do birders in the
> lower 48, especially in the west, consider an altivagans Fox Sparrow to be?
> and b) what do birders in western Alberta and E BC consider it to be?  Does
> anyone have more photos from the purported range?  Are the birds that are
> commonly reported to be altivagans actually that taxon, or are they
> intergrade Red x Slate-colored, or are those two things one and the same?
>
> I very much appreciate any light that any of you can throw on this topic,
> and look forward to hearing what you all have to say,
>
> Andrew Spencer
> Ithaca, NY
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
>



-- 
Steve Hampton
Davis, CA

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
Subject: Re: A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow
From: Jason Rogers <hawkowl AT HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:35:47 +0000
Hi Andrew,

The birds in this checklist are what I consider altivagans - 
http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S23038540 


Though the observer has called one a Red and the other a Slate-colored, I 
believe both are just variations of altivagans, which is the subspecies to be 
expected at that location. 


Comparing these to Red, they're darker grey above and the browns are less red. 
Head markings, mantle streaking, and wing bars are subtler. Bills are greyer. 
P. i. schistacea seems to have blacker markings below. But I'd also be 
interested in hearing from others on this. 


Jason Rogers
Calgary, AB


________________________________
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification 
 on behalf of Andrew Spencer  

Sent: December 26, 2016 2:43 AM
To: BIRDWG01 AT LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG01] A question about altivagans Fox Sparrow

Hi all,

The recent (and very informative) discussion about the Sooty Fox Sparrow in
Newfoundland has reminded me of a topic I've been meaning to ask about
here.  Namely, what does altivagans Fox Sparrow actually look like?  My
impression of what is generally considered this form is a bird that looks
like a dull Red Fox Sparrow, quite a bit better marked than a Slate-colored
bird, but without much in the way of foxy tones.  A photo on this ebird
article:

http://ebird.org/content/nw/news/fox-sparrows-one-of-the-northwests-more-confusing-species/ 


[http://ebird.org/content/nw/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/Figure_2-520x634.jpg] 


Fox Sparrows - one of the Northwest's more confusing 
... 

ebird.org
Four groups of Fox Sparrows occur in our region; few other parts of the country 
can claim that distinction. Three breed in the region and one is a scarce 
winter visitant. 



(most of the way down the page), and the one mid-way down this page:
http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MTYbirdsFOSP2.html demonstrate what

[http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MTYbirds-FOSP/FOSP-sch19Jun01Glacer-GWLzz.jpg] 


Slate-colored Fox Sparrow - Monterey 
Bay 

creagrus.home.montereybay.com
The Slate-colored Fox Sparrow group is a set of populations that breed in the 
interior of western North America, primarily the Rockies and isolated mountains 
in the ... 



I'm talking about.

However, more recently I began noticing that essentially all photos of
putative altivagans are from the wintering grounds, and mostly from CA or
OR.  After a trip to Alaska, where I saw some rather dull Red Fox Sparrows,
and especially after a trip to Central Alberta/BC I was wondering if these
birds really are altivagans?  The birds I saw there looked very similar to
Slate-colored, but a bit more well marked and brighter.  Granted, I was a
bit south of the type locality, but not by a lot.  A couple of photos of
these birds can be seen here:
https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S33199849.  I also extensively
recorded the Fox Sparrows in this area, and as one would expect from the
plumage, the vocals also matched Slate-colored.

The type description of altivagans also gives me some doubt that birds as
well marked as the ones I alluded to earlier in this email are actually
representative of the taxon, and would lead me to expect something closer
to the Slate-colored birds that I'm more familiar with from living in CO
and what I photographed in Jasper.  Unfortunately the type specimen is a
juvenile bird, and also purported to be in bad shape (I haven't seen it).
I did track down some other specimens from both north and south of the type
locality, and they did NOT appear to be as well marked as nearly all the
birds reported as altivagans further south, and thus closer to
Slate-colored.  But I would also add a big caveat that I found the
differences between Fox Sparrow groups to be less obvious in old specimens
than in life.

SO, what I would be interested in knowing is a) what do birders in the
lower 48, especially in the west, consider an altivagans Fox Sparrow to be?
and b) what do birders in western Alberta and E BC consider it to be?  Does
anyone have more photos from the purported range?  Are the birds that are
commonly reported to be altivagans actually that taxon, or are they
intergrade Red x Slate-colored, or are those two things one and the same?

I very much appreciate any light that any of you can throw on this topic,
and look forward to hearing what you all have to say,

Andrew Spencer
Ithaca, NY

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html

Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html