I was unable to make it to the Fill to see the bird, so I did it
vicariously by senting my birder/photographer buddy over to see it. He
did see and photograph it--about twenty good shots. After a one-hour
development, he brought the photos over to my office. From looking at
his photos and comparing them to the National Geographic field guide, we
both thought it to be a female. There didn't seem to be any discernable
yellow on the throat like the guide shows for a winter male. Also the
black barring on the chest didn't appear in the photos. When we compared
the photos to the illustration of a winter-plummaged female, it looked
like a match. Neither of us are experts however, and this was a lifer
for both of us. So I would appreciate any clues distinquishing this bird
as a male rather than a female.
wjansen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Russell Rogers wrote:

> Hello Tweeters,
>
> I managed to find the bird very easily at around 7:20 this morning. I
> spent no more than 10 minutes looking for it (I think that is a record
> for me and the fill, as I usually don't seen any of the reported birds from
> there).
>
> I was able to study it from 7:20 till about 9:00. At times it was no more
> than ten feet away and in bright morning light. From this close
> observation I can conclude that the bird was and adult basic plumaged
> male.
>
> Usuing the Identification Guide to North American Passerines (Pyle
> et. al)
>
> Male because it had a very faint chesnut wash to the nape (which was only
> visible at close range and in good light) and the lesser wing coverts were
> *very white*.
>
> Adult because the tail feathers were truncate (i.e. squareish). Imm.
> birds have pointed tail feathers (like a woodpecker).
>
> I Hope lots of people get to see this bird, it is very interesting.
>
> Russell
>
> Russell Rogers
> 4510 Glenn Way SW
> Seattle, Washington 98116
> (206) 935-6280
> rrogers at halcyon.com
>
>