Hi Tweets,

Sorry to be late on this, but other things arose. The reason I'm sending
this is that there's a number of points which need discussion.

Wayne Weber writes:

>Anna's
>Hummingbird is totally non-migratory, but there are dozens of records
>hundreds of miles from its normal range. (At this point, I would say
>"normal" stops at about Campbell River, B.C.) Costa's Hummingbird, which is
>at most a short-distance migrant, has occurred far north of its normal range
>in B.C. (at least 6 or 7 records), Washington, and Oregon (lots of records).
>In many cases (certainly not all!) vagrant individuals of these species were
>immatures, as was the Xantus' Hummingbird in Gibsons.

"Certainly not all" is an understatement: it should actually read "in almost
no cases", and given his legendary memory concerning bird records, Wayne
should know better than to assert the opposite of the recorded history of
vagrant hummingbirds in BC to suit a tactical debating position. In all
cases of the Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae whose vagrancy has extended
to Canada and Alska, the vagrant birds have been males in definitive
plumage. The other vagrant hummingbirds of any species reported and/or
confirmed in BC, that I know of-- besides the Costa's Hummingbird, both
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris and Broad-tailed Hummingbird
Selasphorus platycercus come to mind-- have been definitively plumaged
males. Given this history, the Xantus's Hummingbird Hylocharis xantusii is
highly *unusual* in that was 1.) not adult and 2.) identifiably female. It
may be that extralimital females of vagrant species are here but go
unrecorded given their greater inconspicuousness.

>Would Michael turn thumbs down on the Curve-billed Thrasher now in Barrhead,
>Alberta, because the species is "non-migratory" and with no other records
>north of South Dakota? Would he turf the records of Painted Redstart in
>B.C., Ontario, Massachusetts, and elsewhere, which have been widely accepted
>by the ornithological community, because the species supposedly is only
>slightly migratory?

No, at the same time he would stop beating his wife, had he had one, Michael
would not be so foolish as to pronounce a verdict without looking at the
details first and making up his own mind, and if he sets himself against the
weight of the ornithological community (what's that? birders? scientists?
twitchers? rarities-committee members? all the people who agree with Wayne
Weber?), what of it? It's something which may need doing anyway from time to
time to prevent arrogance and complacency from setting in, and it will be
because his judgement leads him to it. What if the accepted California
Xhummer in San Diego was an escape from the caged-bird markets just a few
miles away across the border in Tijuana, about the same distance or less as
Vancouver BC is from White Rock? Did anyone raise that possibility?

>The first B.C. record of Costa's Hummingbird in 1972 was viewed with
>skepticism by many at the time (for example, it was ridiculed in print by
>A.O.U. Check-list Committee member Allan Phillips) because it was then by
>far the northernmost record of the species. Now, it fits in as part of a
>well-documented dispersal pattern. Perhaps, in 30 years, there will be 10 or
>more U.S. records of Xantus' Hummingbird, and the B.C. record will look for
>less unlikely in that light.

And perhaps pigs will have wings and be called pigeons. Such a pattern for
xantusii may emerge, or may not-- much too soon to tell as it's much too
soon to use this isolated sighting for such special pleading.

>If we are making comparisons with other species, we may as well get our
>facts straight. Wrentits get well north of "southern Oregon", and are common
>in Astoria; in southern Oregon and California, they occur far inland, and
>are not confined to a "narrow strip".
>Also, there is no such species as a
>"Catalina Island Scrub Jay". The Island Scrub-Jay is found only on Santa
>Cruz Island, and has never been recorded on Santa Catalina.

Wayne is completely right on my nomenclatural mistake, and to a much smaller
extent on ranges and which is more vagrant than which, but is allowing the
term 'far inland' a remarkable elasticity of application of the word 'far',
and an equally striking limitation of the word 'narrow' in 'narrow strip'.
Look at a range map to see that such semantic tailoring is done to fit a
current debating suit.

>I agree with the position of Don Baccus: the application of the principle of
>Occam's razor (the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true)

I wish I had had this kind of certainty in deliberating on this candidate.
And actually Occam's Razor is the principle of using the fewest number of
assumptions in eplaining something, not quite the same thing. As Don Baccus
pointed out so ably, if uncharitably, the other day in his wonderfully
over-the-top screed, there is no evidence except the bird's presence--
though, I would add that the bird's historically sedentary nature is a
factor if not a fact-- and anything else about this instance is guesswork.

Remember, too, the current BC rarities committee votes are all pass/reject
with no abstention: the committee does not (as yet?) have a 'pending further
developments' category into which this record could have gone until or
unless a credible pattern of vagrancy emerged for this species, though I
have been promoting for some time the inclusion of such a category (they've
had 'em for years in the UK and Europe) for precisely this kind of
controversial sighting.

But, as with the previous compare and contrast, Wayne's trying to have it
both ways: today he says this:

>suggests strongly to me that the Xantus' Hummer in Gibsons was most likely
>an unassisted vagrant from Baja California.

but in an earlier post, he says:

>Admittedly, the chance of a species which is normally
>non-migratory, and confined to southern Baja California, making it on its
>own to B.C., and then remaining for almost a year, is remote.

then,

>Michael's viewpoint on the Xantus' is well-known now, as is mine.

Well, I spoke of earlier confusion when Wayne took both sides of an issue as
his definitive position; once again, above, we have two diametrically
opposite statements: I can't tell which is the weather tack here, so it's
difficult to tell to which viewpoint Wayne is referring as his. As to mine,
all I know is that I don't know how the bird got here and human assistance
can't be ruled out. If I have a viewpoint, a solid conclusion, it's news to
me. Too bad, I'd love to count the little rascal because I might never see
another one, but for me anyway, doubt would always cast a small shadow
beside that tick.

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
mprice at mindlink.net