Andy:

>Instead, we see
>the reports dealing with detailed plumage descriptions. When one considers
>the incredible variation in plumage - pattern and color in Buteos - I guess
>I want to skip it all.

In this case, there's no need. It's clearly a red-tail. I don't see
what all the fuss is about. I'd not give it a second look in the field
(from the ID point of view, I love to stare at red-tails for aesthetic
reasons as much as I do with other birds).

Dunne doesn't say that one should ignore plumage, he merely is providing
useful, non-plumage characteristics for identifying raptors during
migration, when plumage often is not visible due to distance, presentation,
and lighting.

Here, we have great photos and the plumage is clearly visible. So, let's
take the easy way out - the plumage looks just like the rufous-morph
red-tails I've banded, so I have no reason to think it is anything other
than that. Occam's razor, "walks like a duck/quacks like a duck", etc etc.

>When I once mentioned my
>admiration for Dunne's work to Bud Anderson, he retorted with a scoff that
>spoke a thousand words.

Well...says something about Bud, though perhaps not a thousand words.

Dunne's book is great for those of us who work with migratory raptors.
We use it as a training guide for our observers around the West. On
the other hand, it is Clark's book that we keep in each banding station
along with the banding keys, to help sort buteo morphs (the keys deal
with subspecies only, for good reason). Clark's not of much use
when trying to ID an accipiter 1/2 mile away which is silhouetted by
the setting sun. On the other hand, one can see the plumage of a
bird in the hand, and if the bander's doing his/her job the bird's
not flying around the blind, so all this in-flight jizz stuff isn't
of use.

On the other hand, Dunne's book isn't worth as much for a perched bird. He
does talk about them, but the real focus is on the migrant bird scooting
by. When observing migrants, one is presented with all sorts of
abnormal views, i.e. accipiters 1,000 feet below you, that one
normally doesn't see traipsing about your favorite birding haunts.

Bud's work hasn't been focused on high-volume identification of
large numbers of raptors zipping by at high speed. Solving this
problem is where Dunne shines. Someone who spends all winter
watching gyrfalcons at the West 90 might not find it so useful.

>Thats why I'm bothered some by Scott's "in flight" photo. The bowing of the
>wings looks odd for a Red-tail. I'm not sure it is totally out-of-character
>for a Red-tail...I'm just bothered by it. You did not mention anything about
>this.

First, you must remember that a still photo captures a tiny moment
in time. Think of the old debate - "does a horse lift all four
legs off the ground when galloping"? This was finally solved by an
early photographer (Melbridge? is that right?) who set a series
of cameras, each triggered by a thread stretched across a track, and
had a jockey gallop the horse on by. (Horses do get airborne, if
you're curious).

I would pay very little attention to a still photo of a bird in
flight for this purpose. Gliding and soaring birds are an exception,
but you-the-viewer can't tell if a bird has been snapped in one of
those modes, or in mid-flap. The whole "jizz-thing" is based on our
perception based on watching birds in motion. The human eye is
notoriously poor at being able to differentiate discrete steps in
that motion - though we're damned good at integrating an overall
impression. A still photo does just the opposite.

I guess I'll have to look at the photos again. I'm not quite sure
what you mean by "bowed wings", but I've seen plenty of gliding
red-tails that bow their wings to some extent.

>I'm also surprised nobody played a tape to this bird. If it responded with
>even a brief call, the case would be open and shut in my opinion.

Why doesn't the fact that it looks just like a red-tail clinch it?

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