>Gene,
>
>Indeed, I treated Seattle as C.b. in my innocence, before my eyes were
>opened to the fine nuances of northwest crow identification. As I said,
>the presentation itself refers more carefully to geographic differences
>in vocalizations. And your observation is also correct in that nothing
>that we have demonstrated argues against a simple clinal variation down
>the coast... we need recordings from farther south and farther north to
>determine whether the changes continue, or whether there is really a
>break here in the Puget Sound region (as we originally interpreted the
>data). We hope to make those recordings later this summer... any
>suggestions for crow roosts in the Portland to Vancouver Island coastal
>area, anyone?
>
>Cheers,
>Jim
>

I think that it would be a great idea to get more samples to the north,
south and perhaps to the east of where you already gathered data. Its about
time that someone tackled this problem and I encourage you to get the 'real
story'. I would not be surprised in the least if you find that your results
conflict with the accepted birding dogma, but hey give us points for trying.
However, the way I see it is that if the two sites that are furthest north
and south in your sample are still within the cline then it is possible that
the situation may appear more clear cut than it really is. What it may do is
make the apparent hybrid zone between the two sites appear to be much
narrower and distinct than if you had birds from further south and north.
Who knows.

In any case, I am really happy that you are doing this. Now we will be one
step closer to knowing what to call crows on the CBCs and being able to
twitch American Crow in Burnaby ;-) .

Cheers
Alvaro Jaramillo
Half Moon Bay, CA

alvaro at quake.net