[Birdtalk] Re: [Birdnet] Empid question

Fri May 16 18:42:29 MDT 2008

Cliff,

Thanks for your response, as your knowledge, and insights are always appreciated.  The picture you refer to as being a Dusky is a bit misleading as it was taken from an angle, looking slightly down on the bird.  It gives the primaries a forshortened look that maybe causing some confusion.  Also, no photoshopping the way you are referring, only the levels were changed to brighten the image as I was in the wrong place in relation to the sun. The bird is perched on an angled branch, and twisting its head to look back at me.  This motion of turning the head, has pulled the left wing slightly down, drooping, giving it a longer appearance than the other wing, which is at an angle coming across the rump giving it a shorter look, again because of the angle.  Here is another shot of the same bird, form the front, in good lighting:

http://www.timaverybirding.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=280&pos=2

I stand by my ID of the bird as a Hammond's. I started shooting pictures of this bird, because I felt its bill was odd, more like a Least Flycatcher bill, as seen in the shot I linked to here, where again an angle has foreshortened that aspect of the bird, giving it a shorter billed appearance.

I am always hesitant of ID'ing photographs of empids because photos can be very misleading.  Light, angles, color, etc., the best tool for learning these birds, is as Cliff and I both mentioned, spending time in the field, with singing birds.

Cheers,

Tim

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cliff and Lisa Weisse 
  To: Birdtalk 
  Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:35 PM
  Subject: [Birdtalk] Re: [Birdnet] Empid question

  David,

  Empids are hard, no question about it.  The best way to learn what they look like is to study field marks on singing birds that can be positively identified.  Regarding the separation of Hammond's/Dusky forget plumage as there is complete overlap.  If the bird isn't vocalizing you can separate most by structure.  Bill size is a good place to start as you can usually see the bill better than other field marks.  Hammond's usually has a very short bill that often (typically?) appears all black at any distance.  The base of the lower bill is pale but that's very hard to see unless you are close.  Dusky usually doesn't have as much black on the lower mandible, therefore having more extensive pale at the base.  Primary projection is a good mark that can be hard to see and harder to judge.  It takes practice (again, singing birds that can be positively identified are the best to study) but after a while you start to see the difference.  Another thing I never see mentioned is that the primaries on Hammond's look narrower than Duskys, maybe only because of the longer length or because you are seeing narrower outer primaries but whatever the reason, this seems consistent.  Apparent tail length can be useful as suggested by Tim.  Hammond's looks short-tailed because of the longer primary projection.  Another thing to study is the shape of the tail.  Hammond's holds its tail closed so the sides look parallel.  Dusky usually holds the tail very slightly open which makes it look wider at the tip than at the base, or slightly wedge shaped.  All of these marks are variable and some birds can't be identified in the field but I think a majority are field identifiable with practice.  

  As an example here are links to two photos on Tim's web site that are both labeled Hammond's Flycatcher.  
  http://www.timaverybirding.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=280&pos=0
  http://www.timaverybirding.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=280&pos=4

  The first link is to a photo of a bird perched on a wire that shows a couple marks I mentioned (click on the image to see the larger size to make it a little easier to see).  It has a very small bill that appears essentially all black.  The primaries are narrow and the primary projection is long.  You can't see the tail shape or judge the length very well in this photo but the primaries extend slightly beyond the undertail coverts.  

  The second link is to a bird perched on a branch.  It has an obviously longer bill, almost entirely pale lower mandible with just a bit of dusky at the tip, wide looking primaries, primary projection that looks longish on the right wing but shorter on the left (after some photoshopping), the primaries apparently fall short of the undertail coverts, the tail looks long and is wider at the tip than at the base.  I'm not going to go so far as to insist that I'm right, but just based on this photo I'd call this bird a Dusky.  Maybe the photo is deceptive or maybe I'm just wrong (won't be the first time) but that's what it looks like to me.  Like I said, Empids are hard and you can't ID every one you see.  But this bird does seem to show field marks consistent with Dusky.  It also doesn't grab me a being in fresh plumage and I wish there were other photos that show the bird from the front because adult Duskys don't molt until later than Hammond's, which molt on the breeding grounds and look very bright and crisp during fall migration (as will juvenile Duskys).   

  At any rate I think these photos serve to illustrate some of the field marks that I've found helpful.  But don't take my word for it.  Get out and find singing birds and study them for yourself (I'm fortunate to have Hammond's breeding right in my yard so I see them often during summer).  And let me know if you decide that any of the field marks I've mentioned seem inaccurate.  

  Cliff 

  David Jensen wrote: 
    I'll probably be laughed into the next state over this, but:
    Does anyone who REALLY knows their Hammond's and Dusky flycatchers know whether the Dusky has the obvious "vested" look that the Hammond's supposedly always has?
    David Jensen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Birdnet mailing list
Birdnet at utahbirds.org
http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdnet

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa at octobersetters.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Birdtalk mailing list
  Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
  http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date: 5/7/2008 5:23 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20080516/038534ca/attachment-0001.htm