November 1998 Field Journal 11.4 [SFBirds] Possible Acorn Woodpecker at Lily Pond in GGP
There was a report this evening of two (?) ACORN WOODPECKERS at the Lily
Pond in Golden Gate Park. This is the spot where Joe originally found the Hooded Merganser last
fall on one of his bird walks.11.8 Mark W. Eaton [eaton@best.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 1998 11:27 PM
To: Murphy Family
Cc: Luke Cole; Cotter, Hugh; Calvin Lou; Alan Hopkins; Josiah Clark; Dan
Singer; Harry Fuller; Joe Morlan; Joost Romeu; jromeu@ixl.com; David Nelson; Jennifer Matkin
Subject: Re: List questions...Murphy Family wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't accept the Red-eyed Vireo since the Skyline Grove was birded
> to death, and I don't know the observer. That bird should have been
> confirmed by someone else. Also, I don't recall seeing a write-up.
>I'd have to agree with Dan on this one. I spent a half day up there chasing the Yellow-green Vireo and saw a lot of birds. One of the ones which probably didn't get reported was a Warbling Vireo which I, in fact, was trying to turn into a Red-eyed Vireo. The bird was at the high end of contrast between the cap and face for fall Warbling Vireo, which could have easily been turned into a Red-eyed Vireo based on a casual observation.
> In reference to the "Skua" which Ken and I saw, I think we need to
> consider some options about accepting or rejecting such sightings. I
> haven't written it up beyond the notes I sent in a couple of e-mails.
> So here's the case: we have a bird never confirmed from shore in SF,
> though it apparently has been confirmed from shore in nearby areas and
> it has certainly been seen off shore; the bird is poorly documented,
> but not undocumented; I am pretty inexperienced with the bird in
> question; others have called the sighting into question.
>
> Following is the text of the message I sent Luke in the beginning of the
> month: "I have a question about the Skua which I have not yet claimed
> officially. This is a questionable bird due to the fact I am pretty
> unfamiliar with it. Also, the bird I observed was in the bay at Crissy
> Field. Hugh discounts it as a probable dark Pomarine Jaeger. Needless
> to say, I disagree. What is our formula for discussion and acceptance
> or rejection of birds in question? I'm sure this isn't the only bird in
> question. Had I thought of it earlier, I guess it would have been wise
> to get documentation of any unusual sighting which wasn't confirmed by 2
> or perhaps 3 observers. Too late for that now, but if we do this again
> we should give it some thought."
>
> As it stands now the "Skua" isn't accepted. That's ok with me, so we're
> not talking about hard feelings or bruised egos. I got over that with
> my very first Eurasian Wigeon. So let's beat this back and forth and
> come up with some standards for accepting such birds. Even if we don't
> apply them this year, I'll bet we recover from this little game in a
> year or two and most of us will be ready for another go at it. If
> that's the case it will be nice to have our "checks and balances" in
> place then.
>Sigh. I hate saying this but I knew this was going to happen. The bottom
line is that we don't have an effective way of reviewing sightings in the City. Normally, this would fall to the County Coordinator for SF County, which is of course vacant for the time being. Also, the most likely person to become the County Coordinator happens to be a participant, which represents a conflict of interest for that person.Given my druthers, I would have selected a (very) senior person or committee of non-participants that would rule on sightings of extreme rarity or controversy. It's a little late to be thinking about this, but it might be possible to rope one of the obvious candidates into reviewing these sightings. For that matter, there are one or two people on this list that are non-participants that I would be happy reviewing sightings. Failing this, I think the only recourse we have is to have the Regional Coordinators review these sightings. Between this and CBRC species, it might be years before we know the winner!
11.9 [SFBirds] [Fwd: [BIRDWEST] RBA: N.Calif BirdBox 11/6 - 11/9]
Brian Fitch has reported a ROCK WREN along the Coastal Trail near the GG
Bridge. The Birdbox has slightly more information on it than on Adam's
transcription, but I still don't have a good mental picture of where this
bird was.11.16 [SFBirds] Orchard Oriole at North Lake
This morning, Hugh and I refound the Orchard Oriole at North Lake. The bird was foraging and perching in the reeds near the north end of the first island north of the concrete bridge on the west side of the lake. This island is choked with reeds has a very large deciduous tree on its southern half.An obvious oriole immediately noticeable for relatively small size. The bird was in close proximity to the a COMMON YELLOWTHROAT, a RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET and a HERMIT THRUSH at various points during the observation. While the overall length was slightly greater than the HETH, the bulk of the bird was considerable less, giving a distinct long and svelte impression.
Bill was black, medium-short for an oriole, fine to very fine on the distal 1/3 but becoming relatively stout at the basal end. There was almost no curvature in the upper mandible; the lower mandible showed some slight curvature resulting in most of the overall thickness at the basal end. forehead was yellowish-green, becoming lightly suffused with brown on top of the head. This yellowish-green-with-brown-suffusion continued down the nape and back and the suffusion smoothly transition back to pure yellowish-green at the rump.
Face was yellowish-green with an indistinct though dark eye line which projected slightly from the rear of the dark eye and farther in front of the eye. Throat, breast and belly were uniformly yellowish-green with no hint of a throat patch. There was a very small clump of whitish feathers on the flanks near the greater coverts on the folded wing, but this may have been an aberration of molt or simple preening.
Upper tail brownish with a suffusion of yellowish-green, becoming the same color as the wings at the distal 20% of the tail. Tail was slightly tapered, wider at the distal end than the basal end. On first blush, the tail formula appeared rounded, but after closer observation it appeared that the outer tail feathers were either very worn or were in molt. Once this accommodation was made, the tail formula was as actually quite uniform in length. Undertail was entirely yellowish-green.
Wings were brownish with little yellow or green in them. Greater and median coverts showed thin pale edges, giving the impression of at best indistinct wing bars. Legs were dark. The bird was not heard vocalizing. While perched, it flicked its tail almost incessantly. The bird was observed on and off for approximately 15 minutes at relatively close range in good, albeit flat, light.
The overall size, relatively petite bill, tail formula and lack of any orange on the bird pretty much uniquely identify this bird as an ORCHARD ORIOLE, presumable a first fall bird.
Of considerably lesser note were an estimated 5 VARIED THRUSHES, a RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH, and an unidentified warbler which to me sounded like a WILSON'S WARBLER in the East Wash.
11.19 Annotated BBWA report
Hugh,Here's some comments on the documentation for BBWA. First, I'll start with an extract from D&G and then I'll add specific comments on the report. All emphasis as found in D&G.
"Bay-breasted Warbler _Dendroica castanea_"
"5.25 inches. Large, heavy, with conspicuous wing bars. Short tail and long primary extension. <Spring birds show...> On fall birds, upperparts are brigth yellow-green; some bay or buff on rear flanks. Fall birds show wiitish primary tips. _Legs and feet usually dark._"
> Birders, Here are my notes on the probable Bay-Breasted Warbler which Joost
> Romeu and I saw yesterday, 9/7/98, at John Mclaren Park, San Francisco, CA.
> Joost and I were viewing a group of Townsend's Warblers, one Red-breasted
> Nuthatch, many Pygmy Nuthatches and Western Tanagers when we spotted one
> very different bird high in the canopy of a Monterey Cypress tree."Very high in the canopy..."
> The tree
> is located east of the Amphitheater on the north side of the asphalt trail,
> where the trail extends out from under the mixed canopy of Eucalyptus and
> Cypress trees. The weather was clear and warm, about 70 degrees and calm.
> The time was about 10:30am. Since the bird was moving through the very top
> layers of the Cypress we could not see the top of the bird well.This eliminates one of the three key field marks.
> This
> Cypress tree does, however, have an open canopy to the east, so we had
> pretty good looks, in the sun of the lower half and sometimes back of the
> bird. The underside of the bird was clear white or off white, with no
> streaking or spotting, from the throat to the tail,Good so far...
> but had a tan patch on
> the side of the breast just below the shoulder. The tan patch was not the
> full length of the wing, but extended from just below the shoulder to at
> most an inch toward the back, but not onto the flanks.This appears to be problematic. D&G suggest that adult fall birds have either bay or buff on the flanks extending all the way to the vent. From D&G:
"First fll male.; bay of sides reduced."
"First Fall Female. Streaking above obscure. Generally lacks chestnut on flanks. Compare to first fall Blackpoll and also Pine. Note indistince face pattern, _brigher green upperparts, clear breast_, and _buff was on flanks and vent_."
However, the photograph on page 383 of D&G shows a September bird with very little buff/bay on the flanks (but curiously no buff patch on the sides of the breast. I have to admit that I'd be reticent to identify a BBWA in the canopy of trees that looked like the bird in the plate.
More interestingly, Joost seems to indicate that the tan (brown?) patch was under the wing rather than below the folded wing. I don't know what to make of this.
> Most Bay-breasted
> Warblers, as per the field guides, show the tan or brown sides the full body
> length in spring, but the 1st year females can show little or none of this
> characteristic. I've seen several Bay-breasted Warblers during spring and
> summer at High Island, TX, central Michigan, Iowa and I believe Minnesota,
> and one at Pt. Reyes in fall. My first thought was it was a Bay-breasted
> Warbler, as I was in the group that identified the one at Drake's Beach two
> years ago which Jan Anderson phoned in, and it had a similar appearance.
> That bird was also whitish below with a tan patch on the side of the
> breast. I tried very hard to see any other distinquishing characteristics
> and did note: black or very dark legs.This is good, but not diagnostic. There's a photo in D&G which shows an October BLWA with legs which are fairly dark.
> A long tail, which I didn't pay a
> lot of attention to at the time, but which I remembered later as being
darkThis is not good, but the tail of the CMWA in the photographs I took looks mostly dark (and long) too. I think undertail patterns are difficult to determine in bright light.
> (I looked in Dunn's Warbler book and saw the tail should have been white
> below) but in retrospect I wasn't clear if my memory was of the top or
> bottom of the tail. The bird was olive green on the back with an olive wash
> over black or dark gray wings and tail. The back appeared to be clear olive
> without heavy streaking.This is good, but hardly diagnostic...
> The wings did show light coloring at the outer
> trailing edges of the primaries. I did note the lower or outer wing bar was
> very prominent and white and the median coverts wing bar though white was
> narrower and less prominent.This is good for BBWA, perhaps the best indication in the observation. However, I don't know how diagnostic this is.
> I did not get a good look at the face of the
> bird. Joost indicated the bill was longer and narrow like a warbler, not a
> vireo. He will submit his observations, too. I noted a Townsend's Warbler,
> less than a foot away, was longer and larger around than the adjacent
> Townsend's. We later checked the National Geographic book and noted the
> Bay-breasted Warbler is 1/2 inch longer than either Townsend's or Hutton's
> Vireo.This doesn't really help...
> I did note the bird was moving very slowly through the Cypress which
> I thought might have meant a tired bird in migration, not a local bird which
> should have been more quickly moving. Although late morning could have
> accounted for the sluggishness of the bird.
>
> Though I did not see the face of the bird, I am leaning to Bay-breasted due
> to: The tan patch on the side of the breast, the overall color, the size of
> the bird being larger than Townsend's Warbler, the look of the wing bars.
>
> I would like to hear any comments from the birding world since this bird is
> not on the San Francisco, County list.
>Sigh. We'll never know with certainty the identity of this bird. I think the case for BAY-BREASTED WARBLER is not bad, but hardly conclusive. Also, the bird is way early for BBWA in CA. Were BBWA common or even a common vagrant, I might be happy with this description. However, I don't think BLACKPOLL WARBLER can be ruled out entirely and there are probably other dull fall warblers which are also a possibility. For a first city record, I think the standards are higher. Certainly the sighting needs to be of sufficient quality for Field Notes, and we already have a ruling in that space. For example, did Joe see a TRUMPETER SWAN in the city? I'm sure he did, but the record was not accepted by the CBRC. Therefore it's not on the list.
Someone has to make a call and you're the person. Note that I have no field experience with this bird in this plumage.
11.20 [SFBirds] Prarie Warbler at Lake Merced
This morning I found a PRARIE WARBLER at South Lake Merced. This may or may not be Dan's bird from early fall. From the south end of South Lake Merced, walk along the western edge of the lake. Shortly after passing a single small bush next to the sidewalk, there is a rather large grove of willows. The bird was loosely associating with a flock of BUSHTITs in the willows. The bird then flew farther north from the willows and I managed to refind the bird in some albezzia quite close to the sidewalk. There was also an ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER in this flock.When the bird was in the willows, it was roughly 50 feet away in good light. In the albezzia, it was at times inside of 20 feet away, perfectly front-lit, providing bin-filling views. I did not hear the bird vocalize.
An obvious warbler with relatively bright yellow on the the throat, breast and belly. Bill color and size noted but currently escapes me. Dark streaks started from the sides of the breast just below the throat and continued onto the flanks. The undertail coverts were a paler shade of yellow than the belly and the vent proper had very small circle of pure white around it. Undertail feathers were prominently marked with white spots, though I did not get a good look at the shape of the spots as the bird was below me or at eye level for most of the observation. Legs were dark.
Forehead, crown, nape and back uniformly colored either greenish-gray or grayish-green depending on orientation of the bird, orientation of the light and perhaps how much coffee you've had. Rump color observed but currently escapes me. Upper tail colored as the wings. Wings darker than back; upper wing bar showing some small amount of yellow while lower appeared thinner and closer to buff than to yellow. Neither wingbar was very distinct.
Facial pattern was quite distinctive. The greenish-gray coloration continued through the auricular region, underneath the eye (through the cheek area) and back up in front of the eye, leaving a prominent yellow crescent under the eye. The greenish-gray in front of the eye and immediately below showed the very faintest suggestion of black in it. As well, the yellow of the throat continued underneath the greenish-gray on the cheek, forming a yellow wedge bounded by the auricular region and the nape. Very little indication of an eye ring. The greenish gray continued through the eye to form an eye line, while the supercilium was yellow.
Without referring to Dunn and Garrett, I am reluctant to age or sex this bird.
11.23 [SFBirds] Larus sp. at Sutro Baths
Sunday morning I visited the Sutro Baths overlook and not much was
shaking. However, there was a gull which I spied on the way out which
I found very unusual. I observed the bird at the edge of and in the
large pool in the Sutro Baths ruins. The bird then flew onto
Fisherman's Rock where I left the bird after my extended observation.
Observation points included the trail above the pool, the sidewalk at
the loading zone for the Cliff House and the extreme northern edge of
the observation deck of the Cliff House. Light was excellent;
front-lit and bright sunshine for the duration of the observation. I
did not managed to get much closer than approximately 100 - 150 feet,
but took numerous photographs and assume that, though distant, they
will be definitive.Description: An obvious larus sp. that was slightly smaller than the
WESTERN GULLS in whose company it was. Bill was slight and of medium
length, in marked contrast to the bill of a Western Gull. The gonydeal angle
was slight and the otherwise uniformly yellow bill was smudged with
black from the tip to just beyond the gonys. Forehead was relatively
steep; combined with the slight bill and a rounded head gave the bird
a fairly gentle impression. The eye appeared medium brown.Plumage on the forehead, crown, nape, neck, throat, breast, flank,
belly, undertail coverts and undertail was essentially all white, with
the merest suggestion of gray mottling throughout. The overall
impression was uniformly white underparts. In particular, there was
no strong streaking on the head. Legs were pink, well within the
range of "normal" pink for other pink-footed gulls.Mantle, scapulars and wing coverts were all essentially uniformly
gray, distinctly a shade lighter than the nearby Western Gull. On close and
extended observation, there was some very slight nonuniform coloration
of upper surfaces, much as there was a suggestion of the nonuniformity
on the underparts, but there was little pattern to this. When
observed at certain angles, the greater coverts were _slightly_ darker
than the median coverts, but this differentiation disappeared when the
wing was held perpendicular to the direction of the light. The
overall impression was uniformly gray upperparts.The tertials were like colored as the rest of the upper parts, broadly
edged in white. Also, one or two of the scapulars nearest the back
were also broadly tipped in white. The rump and upper tail were
white; there was a broad subterminal gray band, possibly slightly
darker than the rest of the bird, and a thin white terminal band. The
primaries were _uniformly gray_, possibly with an extremely narrow
edging of brown. While the gray in the wings appeared slightly darker
than the rest of the bird, when the wing was held perpendicular to the
light, _there was no contrast between the primaries and the rest of
the wing_. I must emphasize that there was _absolutely no pattern_
(no mirrors, terminal bands, etc.) on the outer primaries.Age:
The smudging on the bill and the general gray/white appearance tend to
suggest that the bird is a third year plumage, but the lack of any
distinct streaking on the head and neck makes it unclear as to whether
the bird is in third year winter or summer plumage. Unfortunately, most
basic and evens some advanced texts don't have good descriptions of
third year plumages for many birds.Analysis (here we go again):
We can narrow down the candidates pretty quickly through the
combination of size, bill shape and leg color, and this leaves us
squarely in the middle of the Thayers/Kumlien/Iceland cline (hell)
again. GLAUCOUS-WINGED GULL can be eliminated by its larger size, and
much heavier bill. I must comment that the timing with Joe's bird at
Strybing is rather ironic.THAYER'S GULL
Obviously, this is the most likely candidate based on probability
alone. So the task here is to find why the bird is _not_ a Thayer's Gull.
>From [1]:
"_Third Year._ As adult, but gray on wings sometimes faintly
brown-washed, and tail usually marked with grayish in variable
pattern typical of third-year large gull. Patter of black on wing-tip
often less sharply defined that on adult (sometimes brownish, fading
to pale brow by third-summer), sometimes extending onto grater primary
coverts. Bill with dark tip or subterminal dark mark or band, often
with some reddish near gonys; base flesh, yellowish or
greenish-yellow; sometimes as adult."My reading of this that a third-winter Thayer's Gull should show much of the
pattern of the outer primaries as an adult Thayer's Gull does, This appears to
be inconsistent with this bird. Even if the primaries were still in
second year plumage, they would tend to be brown rather than gray.Again from [1]:
"Gray of upperparts and wings a shade darker than on [HERRING GULL],
thus obviously darker than on Iceland Gull".
This is good for this bird; the mantle appeared to me be roughly the
coloration of a Herring Gull.Again from [1]:
"Very variable amount of dark head marking in winter, often extending
over whole head and neck, averaging more extensive than on HERG; often
appears uniform pale brown rather than gray or gray-streaked as on a
Herring Gull."
This doesn't appear very good for this bird.Again from [1]
"An important step in the identification of Thayer's Gull at all ages is the
firm notation of its intermediate size and structure between Herring Gull and
Iceland Gull."The bird was distinctly smaller than the neighboring Western Gull, so this is
consistent with Thayer's Gull.Again from [1]
"Gray of upperparts and wings a shade darker than on Herring Gull, thus
obviously darker than on Iceland Gull".
This is good for this bird as the bird didn't seem extremely pale
overall.>From [2]:
"[Third Winter primaries (folded)] as adult, but with smaller
[apical]-spots."
This is not very good for this bird.ICELAND GULL
No accepted records in CA, thus rather unlikely. :-)>From [1]:
"[See GLAUCOUS GULL] Primaries sometimes whitish without clear gray or
brown."
This is tough. Does this mean that clear gray is a possibility?Again from [1]
"Gray of upperparts and wings a shade darker than on Herring Gull, thus
obviously darker than on Iceland Gull".
This is bad for Iceland Gull. Photographs of Adult ICGUs in [3] show mantles
paler than this bird. Are there ICGUs at the dark end of their cline
that have darker mantles?KUMLIEN'S GULL
>From [1]:
"Second- and third-years as [Iceland Gull], except outer webs of outer three or
four primaries extensively uniform brownish, contrasting with always
pale secondaries and inner primaries."
This isn't bad for this bird, if you ignore the fact that the
primaries were gray instead of brown and didn't contrast with the rest
of the wing.Bottom line:
The case for Thayer's Gull isn't particularly good, particularly the complete
absence of any pattern or contrast with the primaries. Certainly, the
(few) Thayer's Gull adults which I have seen haven't been close to appearance
of this bird. I've tried pretty hard to turn this into a Thayer's Gull and it
doesn't really fit. The case for KUGU is slightly better, if only
because it appears that the absence of a pattern on the primaries is
slightly better in third year plumage than for Thayer's Gull. However, the
mantle did appear a bit dark for KUGU/Iceland Gull. One would think that Iceland Gull
would be the easiest to rule out, but the photo 434 in [1] of a
third-summer Iceland Gull is a dead ringer for this bird, if you make the
primaries the same color as the rest of the mantle and the mantle
slightly darker.I would very much appreciate additional input as well as additional
references in the literature which might help in resolving this issue.
I certainly will make the photos available.
__________
[1] "Gulls, a guide to identification", by P.J. Grant
[2] Steve Hampton's Gull Page,
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/6181/gulls.html
[3] "Seabirds of the World, A Photographic Guide", by Peter HarrisonHome
You can contact me via email.