Scott Richardson wrote:

> The subject line has lost some intrigue, but I have gained new knowledge
>of Marsh Wren plumage characters. Thanks Mike, Gene, Dennis, and Raymond for
>being so unanimous. (Thanks, too, to Don for the Swamp Sparrow suggestion.
>The bill shape led us to eliminate sparrows from consideration.)
> We had discounted Marsh Wren because it clearly lacked *any* indication
>of white streaks on its back. With newfound knowledge that hatch-year birds
>have not yet acquired those streaks, I would not be surprised if that's what
>we were chasing.

Not true that hatch-year birds aren't streaked on the back. They're
colored just like adults. *Juveniles* are distinctly duller, with a poorly
defined pattern, but they quickly molt into the definitive plumage, and all
birds by Christmas count time should look the same. But the western WA
subspecies is just not very brightly marked and shows more buff and less
brown to rufous than the eastern subspecies that are often pictured. I
think it might be easy to get a look at a Marsh Wren and not see the back
streaks, which don't show that prominently from the side. I don't know
what to say if the bird didn't have a trace of streaks on the back.

Marsh and House are easily distinguished by absence or presence of bars on
the underparts, sometimes more easily seen than the pattern of the
upperparts.

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