Subject: Re: Chestnut-collared Longspur
Date: Dec 13 15:16:46 1995
From: David Wright - dwright at u.washington.edu


On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Don Baccus wrote:
>David:
>> Er, yes, we do. Because one specimen cannot reveal the degree of overlap
>> between winter males and females (which is what we need to find out).
>
>The bander who e-mailed me claimed that the degree of overlap is
>known. The person could be wrong, of course - I'm in no position
>to judge which of you is right.

I was referring (all along) to potential overlap in *plumage* characters.
I believe you indicated earlier that the bander indicated overlap in *wing
chord lengths*. It seems pretty clear from this long-running thread that no
one out here in tweeters land has a clue how much overlap in plumage
characters there is between winter males and females. Maintaining this
point of view hardly constitutes "self-proclamation" of expert status...

> Well, I guess I should've bracketed my statement with plenty of
> "for instances". I will accept responsibility for not writing
> clearly.
>
> However I'm not going to debate you over a point you *think* I
> was trying to make.

Sigh. Your original statement is repeated below. It is reasonable to
conclude from it (even with liberal application of "for instances") that
you thought that determining the sex of *this bird* might allow sexing of
individuals in the field simply by seeing them. You really meant something
else. So be it, but the inaccuracy in your original statement --
intentional or not -- is what I was addressing.

On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Don Baccus wrote:
> And one can argue that any
> ornithologist or serious birder or bander (members of the ornithological
> infantry, in a sense) might well benefit from learning to sex this bird. ^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^
> The next one to show up might then be sexable without capture, even if
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> its plummage is somewhat cryptic as this one seems to be.

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu