To Wayne and the rest-

I wasn't looking for a quick resolution, only an accurate one. I am well
aware of the avenues for feedback on difficult identifications (rare
bird committees and ID-Frontiers) but I haven't had the time to pursue
these myself (and I'm surprised no one else has either since for many
this would be a life bird). I definitely don't believe every bird can be
identified. My previous email was a plea for details regarding any
reservations as to the identity of this bird to species- a more detailed
analysis would be of benefit to all regardless of whatever consensus is
reached in the end. As you stated McKay's Bunting is poorly known so I
believe any good information on the identification of it's various
plumages and hybrids would be much appreciated. And just to reiterate- I
believe expert opinion is important but when it is lacking in detail or
explanation it does a disservice to the all of us, regardless of who the
expert is.

Cheers, Alan

Wayne C. Weber wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

--
Alan J. Knue
bluejay at surfbirder.com

Seattle, WA, USA