[obol] Re: big kids table - little kids table
- From: "Phil Pickering" <philliplc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 04:43:45 -0800
When it comes to gull ID, I think there is a significant chasm
between what we think we know and what is actually knowable.
Agree the type of suggestions about the appearance of
structural features I've been making are largely subjective
and difficult to agree on given dissimilar experience. At the
same time in many cases with gulls it's all we can do, and
I don't think it's necessarily always valueless to try to
convey these things. I've learned a lot over the years
about what to look for in gull structural trends from others
making similar largely subjective points.
If they are so inclined my hope is that experienced gull
watchers might be able to study sets of Iceland photos
and get some sense of the things I’m seeing on Wayne's, such
as its comparative bulkiness, bill length, eye seemingly
more centered in the face (a way of looking at skull shape)
etc. And I'm open to reassessing myself if they can't.
I was on the OBRC when we accepted Wayne Hoffman's
report of Iceland Gull. We considered barrovianus Glaucous
Gull
For what it's worth I was suggesting the possibility that
it may be genetically mostly Glaucous-winged with lesser
influence from Glaucous. G-w do range fairly small and can
appear somewhat small-billed, particularly in 1st-cycle.
Also want to emphasize that I was only questioning certainty
of the ID given the incomplete state of our knowledge about
the possible range of appearance of west coast intergrades
and other oddballs. No claims being made about what it is
or isn't.
I still think the Fernhill gull is most likely a genetically aberrant
Glaucous, but do completely agree on encouraging study of it.
Phil
POST: Send your post to obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
JOIN OR QUIT:
//www.freelists.org/list/obol
OBOL archives: www.freelists.org/archive/obol
Contact moderator: obol-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
