Denny Granstrand wondered...

> Can someone please give me a brief history of the usage of the terms
> "basic" and "alternate" to describe plummages? It seemed quite proper not
> too long ago to use "breeding" and "non-breeding" (National Geographic uses
> "winter") to describe a bird's plummage. I'm not even sure if "basic" is
> the breeding or the non-breeding plummage. It seems to me that we are
> taking a step backward here.

Using "basic" and "alternate" in the realm of molt terminology is not so much a
step backward as a look backward... to 1959. Look up P.S. Humphrey and K. C.
Parkes, "An approach to the study of molts and plumages" in the Auk vol 76 no 1
pages 1-31. Some ornithology texts, as well as the Identification Guide to
North American Passerines (Pyle et al 1987) and other books offer nice synopses
of the system.

Using "nonbreeding" and "breeding" terms for plumages (just one 'm', BTW) will
generally be understood by birders and ornithologists alike. These terms are
less exact and can be misleading, though, and don't lead to a more complete
understanding of molts and plumages.

Generally speaking, "basic" is "nonbreeding", while "alternate" is "breeding".
--
Scott Richardson
northeast Seattle
salix at halcyon.com