[wisb] Re: Dowitcher ID - what do you think?

  • From: "Tom Schultz" <trschultz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <ryanbrady10@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <wisbirdn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:50:21 -0500

Dowitcher ID can definitely be a challenge, as the plumages can be quite 
variable -- especially due to differences in age and molt patterns.   I have 
examined a fair number of museum skins of these two species, and have found 
that the back patterns and the tail patterns (when they can be seen -- as 
the tail feathers are often concealed) can be pretty distinctive.   The 
tertials and uppertail coverts can also be useful.   A good guide for the 
species is often the overall blackness of these feathers.  The tail on a 
Long-billed appears darker, since the black bars are wider than the white 
bars -- and I have found that this characteristic is generally also true on 
the uppertail coverts.

The back pattern of a Long-billed also appears darker, often with more black 
present, and the rufous areas are more chestnut.  On a Short-billed the 
rufous areas on the back are more golden-hued -- making the upperparts 
appear paler.  In part due to the darker back pattern on a Long-billed, the 
white feather tips appear more contrasty than they do on a Short-billed.

For these reasons, my opinion is that birds A and B are Short-billed, and 
that C is a Long-billed.

Tom Schultz
Green Lake Co.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ryan Brady
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 8:45 PM
To: wisbirdn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wisb] Dowitcher ID - what do you think?


Short version...what species are represented by these dowitchers seen in 
Ashland yesterday?

http://www.pbase.com/rbrady/dowitcherid
http://www.pbase.com/nanich/dowitchers


Longer version... Sam Krerowicz found three dowitchers just west of Ashland 
yesterday and then Nick Anich and I headed out to take a look after work. We 
didn't have much time and expected Short-billeds, even though it's slightly 
earlier (by about a week) than we usually see them. We walked up and tried 
turning them into Long-billeds. We thought we might have 1 LB and 2 SBs at 
one point and then convinced ourselves they were all just the expected SBs 
as LBs are quite rare here. We soon left to return to our fatherly duties 
but later last night that ID didn't sit well with us. After some chatting 
Nick and I started to convince ourselves that Bird C had to be a LB. Then we 
were leaning toward all 3 being LBs. Then we were just downright confused. 
And here we are...confused. This is a tough ID and one Nick and I frankly 
are not comfortable with. We butchered the whole process as we could've had 
killer photos of the birds in perfect light but our hurriedness resulted in 
mostly poo
r digiscopes and heavily cropped dSLR shots, which are in the two galleries 
above.

What do you think? I've labeled the individuals in my gallery for ease of 
referencing Birds A, B, and C during discussion.



Ryan Brady
Washburn, Bayfield County, WI
http://www.pbase.com/rbrady      ####################
You received this email because you are subscribed to the Wisconsin Birding 
Network (Wisbirdn).
To UNSUBSCRIBE or SUBSCRIBE, use the Wisbirdn web interface at: 
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
To set DIGEST or VACATION modes, use the Wisbirdn web interface at: 
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
Visit Wisbirdn ARCHIVES at: //www.freelists.org/archives/wisbirdn

####################
You received this email because you are subscribed to the Wisconsin Birding 
Network (Wisbirdn).
To UNSUBSCRIBE or SUBSCRIBE, use the Wisbirdn web interface at: 
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
To set DIGEST or VACATION modes, use the Wisbirdn web interface at: 
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
Visit Wisbirdn ARCHIVES at: //www.freelists.org/archives/wisbirdn


Other related posts: