Tweeters,

When confronted with a difficult identification-- such as McKay's
Bunting vs. Snow Bunting vs. hybrids of the two-- one approach is to
submit photos or descriptions to one or two experts on the species of
concern. A second approach is to submit them to a provincial or state
Bird Records Committee. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, BC
does not currently have a functional Records Committee.

A third approach is worth considering, especially if there are good
photos. This approach is to post the photos on a website, and then to
ask for help on the ID-FRONTIERS E-mail group. This group (which I've
subscribed to for several years) includes many experts on bird
identification from around the world. Many tricky identification
problems have resulted in a consensus on the identification being
reached very quickly on ID-FRONTIERS. Other problems have resulted in
no consensus at all after several days of lively debate. However, if
you want a quick response (but not necessarily an authoritative one--
not everyone on the group is an expert, at least not for the species
in question), posing a question to ID-FRONTIERS is one of the best
ways to do it.

Quite a few birders in WA and OR subscribe to ID-FRONTIERS, and have
gotten into the habit of referring ID problems to that forum. However,
few birders in BC seem to be subscribers, and very few if any BC birds
are referred to ID-FRONTIERS. It would be good if a few BC birders and
bird photographers joined this group.

In any case, I'm not sure that posting photos of the female Iona
bunting on ID-FRONTIERS would help that much. McKay's Bunting
must be one of the least known of all North American breeding birds,
and I'm sure there are relatively few people that can claim to be
experts
on McKay's ID.

In addition, a set of opinions expressed on ID-FRONTIERS, as I said,
is not necessarily authoritative. The best way of determining the
accuracy of a controversial identification is to refer it to a Bird
Records Committee. However, a decision from a Records Committee
may take months or years to reach, and Records Committees do
not usually publish detailed reasons for their decisions. Sorry if
that
isn't fast enough or detailed enough for you, Alan, but that's how
things
usually work.

I'd like to make another point. There seems to be a school of thought
out there that virtually any bird can be positively identified, if
only there is a good enough photo that is studied carefully enough.
This is NOT necessarily true. Some individual birds, especially
hybrids or possible hybrids, simply CANNOT be identified with
certainty on the available evidence. I'm not accusing either you or
Jason Rogers of belonging to the "anything-can-be-identified" school,
I'm just pointing out that some good old-fashioned caution is often
well-advised.

I don't claim to be an expert on the identification of McKay's versus
Snow Buntings, and I wouldn't be no matter how many books and articles
I had read on the subject. (Much bird identification literature
contains errors and points of misplaced emphasis, as we all know.)
For one thing, I don't have significant field or museum experience
with McKay's. From what I've seen of the female Iona bird so far, and
from
what I've read, it is going on my list as a "probable". If you and
Jason
want to count it as a positive McKay's Bunting, you are welcome to do
that.

Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus at telus.net




----- Original Message -----
From: Alan J. Knue <bluejay at surfbirder.com>
To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: [Tweeters] Re: McKay's Buntings or hybrids


> While I agree that an individual with access to a series of
specimens
> may be more qualified to make a call in identification, what bothers
me
> most about Dan Gibson's comments is that we haven't seen an
analysis.
> What characters is he using to determine the identity of the birds
in
> question? Is it the amount of black in the tail? That's the only
> character he states in his letter, but the literature clearly
> demonstrates that the amount of black at least in the female
plumaged
> bird at Iona Island is well within the range of what can be expected
for
> McKay's. How can all of the literature be wrong since at least some
are
> referring to a large series of specimens as well? I've wondered if
> anyone has access hybrid specimens, especially those taken in
winter.
> Nearly all references I've seen describing apparent hybrids involve
> breeding males. I'm also curious as to Gibson's real field
experience
> with McKay's and Snow X McKay's individuals. Statements such has " I
am
> sure Dan has seen McKay's Buntings in life quite a few times, as
opposed
> to the two birds (or maybe one)..." are not helpful- it's akin to
> putting words into his mouth. Regardless I'd like to know what
> characters are being used to make the call and thus influence the
rest
> of us as to what we are calling a McKay's Bunting or not. If
anything it
> would be beneficial to those of us without access to specimens to
make
> field determinations in the future regarding this species pair.
>
> I've also been seeing statements regarding hybridization between
McKay's
> and Snow Buntings, but as far as I have been able to determine, no
one
> has looked into this question in any real level of detail. There are
> numerous vague references to hybridization, even in recent emails,
with
> such contradictory qualifications as "rare" or "rather frequent". If
> anything, our understanding of the close relationship of McKay's to
Snow
> is very lacking. Mitochondrial DNA studies put the divergence as
very
> recent and if one trusts the percentages rule in determining
phylogeny
> in birds then McKay's should only be a well-marked subspecies of
Snow. I
> don't put much faith in the % rule, since it relies on an average
rate
> of evolution or the evolutionary clock which many believe isn't a
true
> reflection of the evidence- evolution may proceed rapidly or slowly
> depending on many factors- this is a long topic all by itself and a
huge
> tangent.
>
> So in summary- I think it's unreasonable to base our (the collective
> our) identification on an expert without good explanation,
especially
> when all we have to rely on is the literature to make our own
> determinations. I will get off my soapbox now!
>
> All the best, Alan
>
>
> --
> Alan J. Knue
> bluejay at surfbirder.com
>
> Seattle, WA, USA
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters