Hi Tweets,

Franny Drobny writes:

>do you think it is safe to assume I saw it, as opposed to
>other Flycatchers that may be in the area that could possibly be
>confused with this?
>I felt pretty certain that it was a Gray
>Flycatcher, but having never seen one before and since I'm not an expert
>in Flycatchers, I do wonder if it would be one -- based on having just
>a visual match from the National Geographic field guide. There were no
>olive, brownish or buffy-type washes on it, just plain gray in addition
>to the standard field marks as shown in the guide.

Well, 'safest' would be to list it as 'Empid sp.' or 'flycatcher sp.' Are
you content with an assumption based on degree of likelihood? Some people
aren't happy until they've proved absolutely conclusively what the bird is,
almost an exercise in theological purity for some or observational
conservatism for others; others are more relaxed --it's personal choice
where on that continuum you place yourself.

>Or did I need to
>hear the song and compare that to others? The habitat was open oak
>trees and ponderosa pine within an expanse grassland.

It sounds quite like a GRFL, and the habitat's right, but some Duskies can
seem fairly grey. Grey's also got a characteristic bill--I'd strongly
recommend taking along Kenn Kaufman's Advanced Birding for its ID section on
Empidonax flycatchers by the reigning God of Empid ID.

Behaviorally, the clincher would be the *downward* tail-pump: all the others
pump up. GRFL pumps the tail down quickly, brings it back up slowly; if you
saw that, you've got a Grey, no question.

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)