Kelly wrote, about the CC longspur:

"This bird is most likely a vagrant that will never again contribute to the
CCLO gene pool."

Stuart responded:

"Perhaps, perhaps not. It was recently thought that all the birds
involved in waxwing irruptions in western Europe were doomed to
failure since the species was not migratory and did not possess the
necessary survival skills to return to their breeding ground. Until
that it enough birds were banded and recovered to show that this
notion was entirely wrong."

You're certainly right implying we don't have the answer to this, although
my suspicion is that Kelly is most likely right. I think a bird that's
sufficiently misoriented to be our classical vagrant has a pretty low
probability of contributing to the gene pool. Dave De Sante's work in
California showed that many (most, I think) of the eastern warblers that
hit the coast there in the fall were orienting right out into the Pacific
Ocean at night.

(Bohemian) waxwing has been known to be nomadic (hence the name, coming
from its "Gypsy-like" way of life) for a very long time, and I'm surprised
that anyone ever thought its irruptive populations wouldn't succeed in
returning to their breeding grounds, banding or not. Thus your use of
"recently" boggles me.

Stuart again:

"Why all this interest in the sex of one bird when there is no
interest in the sex ratios of junco wintering here or lots of other
questions for that matter. Seems to me that this debate is more
fashionable than anything else."

Nope, I'd still say the debate centers around the concept "one data point
is better than zero," and the junco comparison illustrates the concept "one
data point is easier to gather than 100."

But of course, you're right, *debate* is fashionable on tweeters. ;-)

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416