> Jim Lady:

> I've studied some other references since then, and I'm pretty well
> convinced it was a RT hawk. Everything fits except the peculiar marking
> around the head, which is what confused me.

RT plumage can be just about anything that's not lime green or sky blue
(I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the point!). The only 100%
reliable way to ID RTs is by shape, and that takes lots and lots
of practice! After seeing one that was totally white with no hint
of any RT markings I finally realized that.

Of course, such a bird is one in a gazillion, but I'm trying to make
it clear you shouldn't feel at all bad at being confused over a
weird RT.

You are in fine and numerous company.

> Probably true. I would be interested in some positive suggestions of what
> I should have concentrated on.

There are all sorts of things to look at, more than I can cobble
together right now. However, 99% of RTs will show a "dark-light-dark"
pattern (darker head, lighter chest, darker belly). Even most dark
morphs will show that pattern to some degree. Nearly all immy
RTs (that have no red tail) show a very pale chest with dark head
and belly.

However, this past winter I photographed an immy RT in New Mexico
that was coal black, as black as crow or raven. No banding in
the tail that I could see through my 10 power binos from 25 feet,
or so, away. Tip-to-toe, BLACK. I've banded a couple of black
RTs before, but those showed at least a hint of the "outlined in
ink" wing pattern you can observe on RTs (look at one flying and
you'll see what I mean). This showed NOTHING. And was most
assuredly an RT. Bleah.

That dovetailed neatly with the all-white one I saw the year before!

Wonder what their kids would look like?

You're definitely on the right track when you said the shape matched
that of an RT - that's a good thing to think about/concentrate on.

> I'm a bit embarrassed about the discussion my original post has caused. I
> hesitated post it, but I thought that (1) it might be of general interest
> to people and (2) I'm interested in becoming more experienced and the
> insight of more experienced people is always helpful. Should I have not
> made the original post since I'm not experienced? This is an honest
> question - not a rhetorical one.

Oh, please don't be embarrased! When I said it sounded like a beginner
who didn't know what to look at, I did not mean that in a judgemental
way.

We've all been beginners, in the beginning. It takes a LONG TIME
to "learn your birds". I, at least, feel it is entirely appropriate
for such questions to be posted, and it triggered an interesting
discussion.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>