I'd add two comments to the discussions here:
a) Dennis wrote:
> >I've lost track of some of the earlier comments, but I recall someone
> >saying this bird looked "just like the illustration in the NGS guide."
> >That's a perfectly rational statement when identifying a Black-billed
> >Magpie or an adult Bald Eagle, but it's probably inappropriate for an
> >empidonax, a molting shorebird, or an immature buteo.
> >
> >One of the reasons the old guard like myself (i.e., most members of the
> >bird-record committee) are so critical of rare-bird reports is that we
> >find--again and again--that there is a strong tendency for people to assume
> >that any bird they see that they can't immediately pigeonhole as a common
> >species must be something rare. This is Fallacy #1 of birding and has
> >certainly been caused by the (not surprising) emphasis on rare birds. I
> >was elated at finding some rare birds this weekend; it's a rush, no doubt
> >about it. But I think it may border on the addictive and cause snap
> >judgments that are unwarranted. It calls for a combination of caution on
> >the one hand and superb documentation on the other hand. A Really Right
> >Rarity Reporter should have (a) exhaustive knowledge of common birds, and
> >(b) a camera.
> >
These comments I think are very good for all to recall. When I first
started birding I had lots of problems in naming birds I thought were
rare incorrectly because of the high reliance to play match the picture.
There are lots of variants in even common species that we have to deal
with every day. In December, I had equal excitement (ok, nearly equal)
over a Gyrfalcon vs. my first grey-headed form of Orange-crowned
Warbler. I'd see a gyr; I hadn't seen a grey-headed orange-crowned. The
discussion on lumping and splitting also reflects this--as some pointed
out, it's just as important to look at morphs and races and forms and
subspecies as it is for species themselves.
I'd reiterate the desire for carrying a camera when you
can--somedays it's absolutely useless here in greyland, but sometimes you
can get a shot off. Both gyrs I've had this winter we're within camera
range and light range, but I'd left it at home. Gyrs are still a review
species here in Oregon, so this becomes even more important.

b) Andy said,
>
> Wheeler and Clark represent the "micro" view of raptors, Dunne the "macro."
> I did notice some attempts at reconciliation - Dunne
> wrote the forward in the new Wheeler and Clark book! Unfortunately, jizz and
> flight style are scantily mentioned in the text, even when obviously
> important in id. What a pity...
>
I think all birders who are serious about getting better at identifying
hawks should get both a hawk id book (either drawings or photos) and
Dunne's jizz-based book. Having both in your arsenal really helps and
can make watching the hawks more fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Korpi "Life is a smorgasbord--
Hm: Portland, OR you decide whether or not you
Wk: Clark College make yourself sick" --k.d. lang
Vancouver, WA (the more accurate transcription)
rkorpi at clark.edu