Hi Tweets,

Scott Hoskins writes:

>Rick Romea wrote:
>
>"I think that August in the Pacific Northwest is a *hard* time to sort
>out
> gulls. They're all in ratty transitional plumage."
>
>Rick is right, this time of year can be tough for Gull ID.

Well, actually, time of year may have little to do with it; when you have
gulls of different ages loafing around together, the ID's can be challenging
unless you know how to age them accurately; then it's no more difficult than
ID'ing anything else on field-marks.

The problem is four-fold: first, most birders learn songbirds or waterfowl
before tackling gulls, so are used to one or two definitive plumages whereas
the largest species of gulls can have up to nine distinct plumages depending
on age, excluding down; second, beginners are told by Old Hands who have
found gulls to be difficult that "Gulls are difficult.", a myth or
prejudice; third, none of the standard field guides handle the problem of
showing immature gull plumages sufficiently well, though some try, and the
lack of illustration of complete molt-sequences for gulls hampers learning
their characteristic plumages; fourth, and finally, since gulls don't molt
overnight but take a good deal of time at it, we can also see many gull
species during their molts from one plumage to the next, a progression in
the case of the immature gulls, an alternation in the case of 'adult'
plumage (some birds can be in 'adult' plumage, but not be fully adult in
behavior and sexual maturity for another year or two-- it's one of those
inbuilt assumptions in the 'immature/adult' terminology that a bird in Def
Alt is an adult, not necessarily the case): these transitional plumages need
to be recognised for what they are, and other identifying features of the
bird-- i.e., bare parts, bill structures etc.-- will come into play as
supplemental features. Once one knows these things, the decision to learn
about non-'adult' gulls becomes *much* simpler, even elementary: do I want
to take the time to learn these extra plumage patterns? Yes or no?

But if the standard guides don't have these patterns for study, where can
one find them? 'Gulls: a Guide to Identification', 2nd ed., P.J. Grant.
Indispensable. But more on that below; a few more points need coverage first.

>My point was
>that the 5 gulls I saw were all adults that were very "clean". The field
>marks were very evident (eye color, color of bare parts, wing and wing
>tip color etc.). I think starting on these breeding plumage adults, the
>comparisons to the "ratty" looking gulls is easier based on overall
>size, head and bill shape etc. Also, this is a nice quiet place in
>Seattle where you can see a diversity of species at a close range.

Ummm, yes and no. I assume we're speaking of the larger white-headed gulls
here, the three- to five-year birds, as the discussion would take a slightly
different direction for the small hooded gulls. Here's an instance where
ageing the birds with the kind of precision that Grant's 'Gulls' allows one
to do will be the key to identifying most if not all of these birds. As
adult breeding birds don't really begin their pre-Basic molt until breeding
is over, and won't show it for a couple more months, most of the Definitive
Alternate adults will still be in what Scott terms "evident"-- i.e.,
Definitive Alternate-- plumage and identifiability. It's a sure bet that
most the ratty ones will be First Alternate birds, having retained
primaries, scapulars and some coverts from their juvenile plumage, almost a
year; the wear on some of these birds' flight- and covert-feathers is
sometimes so great as to make it seem that the bird is flying more on hope
than aerodynamics. Alt 2 & 3 --and for *some* individuals in the large gull
species, even Alt 4-- birds aren't quite so hammered-looking as the Alt 1's,
but still can look rather ratbag from wear by the end of the summer.

>The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is that I have
>talked to many beginning birders who don't even look at gulls because
>they think they all look the same and it is too hard to sort them out.

Part of it is a self-perpetuating myth: that gulls are intrinisically
difficult. When beginners hear this from old-time birders, they have to
believe it, as beginners are at the mercy of what we Old Hands choose to
tell them, even if it is the transmission of a personal experience or a
prejudice. Beginners know no better, which is why we have to be so careful
of what we tell them. I'd suggest treating a beginner's mind as a child's
mind: a 'tabula rasa' which will show whatever we write upon it, whether
received bias or truth.

In the case of the 'Gulls are difficult/impossible' myth, this is *not*
--repeat, *not*-- the case (I stand as personal testament: if this Birder of
Little Brain can learn them, anyone can). Their field-marks are no more
difficult to learn than any other species. The key, though, is learning that
each gull species has a characteristic appearance and set of diagnostic
marks at particular ages, so the actual key to identifying gulls in
non-definitive adult plumages is learning to age them properly. None of the
standard field guides do a particularly good job of this, and one can't
learn to see what isn't illustrated, except the very rare individual birder
who will try over several years to put the species' molt-sequence together
empirically.

What *will* open the door to the endlessly-fascinating halls of gull
identification is the photographic guide, Gulls: a Guide to Identification,
by P.J. Grant, 2nd ed. It has a few minor shortcomings, but overall is by
far the best guide to learning how to ID gulls because it gives a complete
series of photographs of each species' molt-sequence at various ages as well
as mega-useful textual information and context.

It can't be said often enough: the key to ID'ing gulls in non-definitive
plumages is ageing them properly. After that, it's a walk in the park.

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)