Subject: [Tweeters] Re: glaucland gull comments
Date: Feb 3 15:32:41 2006
From: Phillip Pickering - philliplc at harborside.com


>Phil, you and I are shooting for the same goals but coming from
different directions, I guess. My goal has always been in fact to try
to explain what exactly that physical substance is that portrays the
"impression." There is no reason why you should have to b an
"experienced birder" to understand a field mark. If it indeed is a
shorter bill or a larger eye or a different eye-to-bill ratio, then
why not just say that? As different people will surely have different
ideas of "fierce" and "innocent" and "chesty," don't you think it
would be better to abandon such terms to avoid confusion? When a bird
looks "dumpy," isn't it usually because it has a short tail?


Dennis,

Thanks for clarifying. I agree the terms themselves are subjective
and tend to confuse, but at the same time a lot the differences that
make up different looks are so subtle and difficult to quantify
that they are frequently very difficult to effectively convey.
I do think terms like cute or fierce have their use in general
descriptions of looks when used in conjunction with specifics,
such as how the comparatively small eye, elongated skull, large bill
etc "impart a fierce look" on Glaucous. In other words I think
the terms are useful in descriptively bridging the gap between a
species appearance and what exactly makes it up. I agree just
as naked descriptive terms they typically aren't of much use, but at
the same time I wouldn't abandon them completely.

You don't need to be an experienced birder to understand a field
mark. But again, a lot of the structural differences between
similar species that make up their unique looks are so subtle that
it does take a lot of practice looking at comparative shape on a
fine level to be able to see them.

Cheers,

Phil