Gene etc,

The anomalies I mention are not subjective. Although this
gull is so radically off structurally for GBBG that I don't
find it necessary, things like relative head/body length and
body width at certain points, and other aspects of shape
and proportion can certainly be measured in photos and
compared. I would hope the WBRC would do exactly
that before accepting this bird as a pure GBBG.

Respectfully, to anyone interested in a completely objective
approach to this gull I'd recommend spending a few hours
studying GBBG photos on the web (Google image search
brings up access to over 150), and specifically comparing
(try measuring if you want) the aspects I mentioned. Some of
them such as the difference in culmen downcurve and typical
head shape should become fairly obvious even if you aren't
used to looking at such things. The photos in Grant also
show the shape differences I mention, although for someone
not intimately familiar with GBBG structure it will take more
than a glance to see them and compare them to the Renton
bird.

True I don't have any real life experience with this species. But
please concider that I have spent the last 5 years doing virtually
nothing but training myself to identify seabirds by shape and
proportions, both in the field and in photos. I can say for a fact
that it's not that hard to pick up on and compare those aspects
of a species (or individual) from a series of photos if you take the
time to train yourself to do so.

In any event, as those that subscribe to ID Frontiers are aware
at least a few of the more prominent and experienced gull enthusiasts
who have studied GBBG in life share my concerns with the Renton
gull's structure. They just have the good sense to not be quite
so obsessive about it.

Cheers,

Phil


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene and Nancy Hunn" <enhunn at comcast.net>
To: <philliplc at harborside.com>; <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Great Black-backed


> Phillip,
>
> With all due respect, I've reviewed one again the photos of the Renton
bird
> and those in Grant (which is what I have available to me) and just don't
see
> what you are seeing. If you can find a way to quantify your subjective
> impressions (and that's what they seem to me to be), I'll be happy to
> consider your points. I'm sure you've spent a lot of time studying gull
> photos, but we've spent many years (nearly 40 in my case) closely
examining
> all variety of local gulls, as well as those somewhat further afield. On
the
> basis of my experience I can't accept your analysis.
>
> Gene Hunn.