dowitcher sp, orange county, ca
In my humble opinion, the top two are Long-billed Dowitchers and the bottom two are Short-billed Dowitchers. Why? Well, for starters, the top two were in a flock that was talking, and the bottom two were in another flock that was not, so I have the field advantage there. It is rather miserable to contruct ID’s from photographs, I know. Between lighting and color variations, the impossibility of size judgement, differences in feather “puffiness” obscuring structure from wind or temperature, well, you know all of this if you are bothering to even look at this post so I won’t go on. One thing I can add is that the bill differences were also observed in the field, and though I am well aware of the trickiness of overlap, it is still really cool to see a whole group of one against another, where things can actually average out. However, I am happy to be wrong, or even to say impossible to tell – please let me know what you think! I’m more interested in the learning process here than in nailing the ID.
Catherine: you are correct about the upper two being Long-billeds. What is the relationship between those birds and the ones in the orginal photos? Just for my own enlightenment. As to the bottom two: Throw out bill differences because of overlap/angle of view. As I tell my classes, you should have at least THREE and hopefully FIVE specific reasons why it’s one dowitcher/scaup/yellowlegs/Caidrid/Larus sp. rather than the other. So, according to what you see in these photos ONLY, not what you recall, why are the bottom two SHORT-BILLED in your opinion? YOU HAVE GIVEN NO GOOD REASONS. Especially #3 from top as it is almost in the same position and lighting as the bird above, so there should be a number of points to tick off: hint: USE CROSSLEY et alia.
More later. I promise to put in my two bits in awhile: But right now gotta go pick up Mom’s ashes in Boston: I know: sounds weird, but not really. I will scatter them April 23 during a bird trip to Plum. More on that later. For now: I need concrete reasons for Short-billed and the answers one way or another are there.
Mark
Back. You know what’s REALLY weird? Does that third bird have THREE legs? What is that phantom limb?
Mark
TALKING ABOUT PIC #3 ONLY:
1. Note extreme abrasion. This plumage has been around the block quite a few times, so all plumage clues are going to be shadows of thier former selves. Could you make things MORE difficult?
2. I think this may be a SHORT-BILLED : Smudgy (now) but heavily and distinctly barred flanks; looks very whitish between the bars on the flanks under wing, where in Long-billed it should be grayer; LIGHTER OVERALL COLOR ON THE UPPER PARTS; Scaps look lighter centred too, but this is very subtle; BILL TIP LOOKS BLUNTER; NOT AS FINE-TIPPED AS LONG-BILLED; BUT MAJOR CAVEAT: Posture: “looks like it swallowed a grapefruit” posture mentioned in Crossley and Sibley, but this could be factor of angle or that the bird was not relaxed with you so close. Bottom bird could be another LONG-BILLED.
What IS that dark thing behind the 3rd dow’s left leg?
Mark
I think the dark thing is just a proverbial stick in the mud – most of what you see is the reflection.
Previously withheld info: the top two were from one flock, the bottom two from another flock, in a different location. I based the top two ID’s mostly on vocalization. The second flock (bottom two) were completely silent, which is inconclusive. They were in a windier location, and almost all of them were puffier and windblown, so with my experience level I wasn’t comfortable saying anything based on structure. Except that, in the field, I did notice an overall difference in their faces, namely on the eye location and average bill length. Having such long experience with noticing proportional minutiae from drawing things, it struck me that they had a different “expression,” for lack of a better term. Some of this happens when the bill is shorter (not reliable) and it makes the base and gape area look stumpier. However, the eye position and resultant change in the shape of the supercillium across the entire flock made me TENTATIVELY say Short-billed. And, and I think this shows in the photos, look at the primary projection between the top two and bottom two.
After all of this long-windedness, I am still not sure on the bottom two. I’ll save a more definite call for another time. I don’t have enough of a mental map yet to feel sure. I’m going to look back at the flock photos of each to see if there are barring differences not apparent in these photos…
Oh, and the photo from the previous post were from the second flock, same as the bottom two photos in this post.
So…the old “i’m an artist and my eyes are so much more sensitive” ploy! Ingenious, but wouldn’t make it through most rarities committees. Which is why photos cover so many sins. Just missed SLATY-BACKED GULL: yesterday and dipped today. Grrrrrrrrr.
Mark
I have to insert my thoroughly amateur, non-artist, non-birder, old-timer two cents worth into this discussion. In my mind the birds in the bottom two photos are definitely different from those in the top two. The white spot above the eye is higher on the head and more pronounced on the bottom birds. The eye streak is shorter. The dark area at the base of the bill ends fairly abruptly in front of the eye on the bottom birds while on the top specimens it extends under the eye and fades out gradually. Assuming the photos are all of separate individuals one is led to the conclusion that the top flock has a different genetic makeup than the bottom flock. What that may or may not imply is up to you experts . . .
Now, don’t get all “arsty-huffy” now. By “white spot” I assume you mean superillium, right? Well, to my eye, the supercillium on the TOP bird looks bright, as pronounced et et et. and that one in shadow, as opposed to the bottom bird. #2 bird definitely has a reduced supercilium; #3 looks at first blush as a wide supercilium, but the angle is weird and you cannot be sure; #4 is a shot that emphasizes the supercilium; and, therefore, it looks wide and bright. I think you can do useful comparisions with birds 1-3, but the angle and position of the bird in photo #4 does present a challenge even to the artistically gifted. Part of the problem with dows is the extreme variation of Short-billeds: what we are calling three subspecies, a number of ornithologists think may be three SPECIES. This would be a nightmare scenario because in basic plumage ID criteria separating them is subtle and confusing. There is also age and wear to consider. Don’t get me wrong, I likely agree with you about the top two and the bottom two, BUT what I am saying is that what you have WRITTEN down (imagine no photos) likely would not pass a rarities committee. In MA this had to be dealt with recently where overwintering dows are extremely rare and a single bird has been too distant to get decent photos. And of course a series of photos from differeant angles of a SINGLE bird is really preferable. This is why at MARC, the powers that be here, always ask for ALL the photos of any rarity. Some odd shot can tell you something different from all the perfect close ups. Are shots #3 &4 the same bird? This is where birding (versus ornithology) gets either (1) exciting or (2) a waste of time depending on your demeanour. An ornithologist doesn’t waste time trying to id the bird in the field, but insteads mist-nets it and takes measurements. Case closed. In cases like the photos, you may be 80-90% sure it is one species and that may have to be enough. Time to move on to 1stW Thayers and non adult plumages of Yellow-legged Gull.