On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, M. Smith wrote:
> I would think that after all this debate regarding its sex, and no clear
> answers, it actually makes alot of sense to catch it. Why? Because if
> the collective tweeters can't figure it out, that probably means there's
> not enough info regarding visual sexing of this particular species in the
> field (giving all of us tweets the benefit of the doubt here that we are
> competent birders, of course). Either we're a collective group of
> nitwits, or there isn't enough info answer that question.

We don't really know how much info is out there re sexing winter CCLO.
All we know is that the field & banding guides consulted are ambiguous
and/or contradictory. Surprise, surprise. I'll bet a look at some sizable
collections (LSU? Texas?) of known-sex birds in winter plumage would reveal
whether or not there are reliable plumage characters to distinguish the
sexes (the critical piece of info we lack). Also, Pyle et al cite
Oberholser and a couple of other refs in their section on CCLO (not
cited specifically for plumage chars, but I seem to recall that his
descriptions are noted for thoroughness). Has anybody checked refs
beyond the guides?

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu