Dennis wrote:

>> A really obvious walk points away from any emberizine bunting (including
>> our North American sparrows) except for longspurs and Snow/McKay's (or
>> is it MacKay's?).

True. Covered below.

then Stuart wrote:

<cut>

>Thinking about this more. I would tend to exclude reed bunting based on the
>apparent crown stripe and "conspicuous caramel or pale ochre wash over
>lores",though female reed's do have the "Cheek patch bordered above and
>below by creamy stripes". I would also reject little bunting for the same
>reasons though the check patch should be more rust coloured, if my memory
>serves me well.

The crown stripe may merely have been the lighter tone to the crown.
Didn't get a great look. The cheek patch may have had a rusty tone but
the ochre wash on the lores was what I keyed on since at first I
thought I was looking at an aberrant Savannah Sparrow until I got a
good look at it. In answer to Dennis' earlier query re. relative size:
Rustic length is given as 15 cm whereas Little is 13 cm... not a great
deal of difference to pick up on when you are in a froth. My gestalt
snapshot would be between Savannah Sparrow and junco in size.

>Rustic, I don't recall much detail. However there are more records for this
>species along the Pacific coast.

Correct. That is why I considered it first. However, the bill of
Rustic in the books looks too big in relation to the head than the
bird in question. However, this is always a dicey call with a cursory
view. In fact, Rustic's bill is deeper but shorter than Little's
according to Jonsson. In Rustic's favor are the chestnut tone to the
breast-streaking and the fact that I didn't notice an eye-ring which
apparently is conspicuous on Little Bunting. In Little's favor is the
*amount* of breast streaking which was more extensive but finer as
shown in Jonsson. Also the upper breast did not seem to have an ochre
wash as depicted in the Reed plates. In Reed Bunting's favor is the
fact that I didn't seem to notice a pale "ear-spot" which is supposed
to be conspicuous on Rustic, but I could have easily missed this. And
the bill shape of Reed seems right as depicted in Jonsson.

>Pallas's reed bunting, hmmm. I suppose there a couple of other species it
>could be, no idea what they might be though.

Pallas's Reed Bunting has flesh-cloured legs in Jonsson rather than
neutral-coloured ones and does not have as strong a facial pattern.

>Back to the walking thing. If it clearly walked then it must be longspur. If
>it was short hops, which are still pretty obvious then a bunting it must be.
>By the plumage described it certainly sounds like a bunting - well it fits
>the general description.

This is a red herring. The bird was eating grass seeds which
necessitated frequent short hops to reach the higher seedheads. When I
flushed it for the last time, it scuttled under the car by running,
not hopping. This was a fright response and thus not representative of
regular gait. And I have seen tens of thousands of Lapland Longspurs
and Horned larks in my day, none of which have chestnut streaking on
the underparts, nor any resemblance other than dorsal feather pattern
on the longspur, to the mystery bunting.

>Jack, next time make sure you find a male !!!!!!

Indeed. Obviously too many unanswerable questions about this one for a
clincher. But I am sure that it was one of the Palearctic buntings
with higher odds on a Reed, Rustic or Little. I know I had never seen
one until a couple of days ago!

>Stuart - ace idle speculator.

This was informed speculation, Stuart, the only worthwhile kind.
Thanks to both you and Dennis for sharing your knowledge.

- Jack