On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Wes Jansen wrote:

> 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

Wes and all,

I don't think there is any question as to wether it is a male or not. The
chestnut wash in the nape rules out that it could be a female. It is very
faint, and probably would not show up in photographs very well. There was
a good deal of black on the belly of the bird.

I am pretty sure that the bird was an adult, going on the shape of the
tail feathers. This was also the opinion of Steve Mlodinow, how has seen
many alternate plumaged CCLO. Steve said that this was one of the more
well defined males that he has seen.

In my opinion, the National Gegographic guides illustrations of this
species is a little over stated.

--------------------------------------------------------
Russell Rogers
4510 Glenn Way SW
Seattle, WA 98116
(206) 935-6280
rrogers at halcyon.com
--------------------------------------------------------