Arch,

Glad that you are doing some systematic investigation of the "Western
Flycatcher" complex in the Pacific Northwest. Back in 1990 Richard Cannings
and I submitted a manuscript (mostly Richard's work) to the Auk questioning
the reasoning behind the Western Flycatcher split. We had had extensive
correspondence with Ned K. Johnson himself (before he died) but could not
convince him that he had failed to adequately investigate the situation
along the northern border of Washington and the southern border of British
Columbia. In fact, none of his biochemical samples were from north of 45
degrees N and were quite inconclusive in any case, and he had made only a
single brief visit in Okanogan County, Washington. Richard and I recorded
songs and calls of Western Flycatchers across that zone (which in Johnson's
monograph is shown as a large gap between the "Cordilleran" and
"Pacific-slope" range, but which, in fact has continuous populations of
Western Flycatchers from the Cascades to the Rockies). Richard performed a
statistical analysis of songs across this zone using Ned K.'s own algorithm
and demonstrated that the song features varied in a stepwise cline from
Pacific-slope type songs on the Cascades' east slope to the Cordilleran-type
songs in his intermediate "volcanic zone" [he called it something like
that], the "Cordilleran" population in southeastern Washington and environs.
The Auk rejected our manuscript entirely on the basis of a negative review
by, you guessed it, Ned K. Johnson. The other two reviewers were quite
positive. Since then we've not had the time or inclination to revisit the
controversy, but I believe you will find that there are Western Flycatchers
in Pend Oreille, Stevens, Ferry, and Okanogan counties in Washington (and
north of the border in BC as well as east to Alberta) and that they
represent a cline linking Pacific-slope and Cordilleran populations. In
short, the split was and is wrong.

If I can locate our manuscript I would be happy to share it. Better yet, you
might want to contact Richard Cannings at 3007 W. 7th Ave., Vancouver, B.C.
V6K 1Z7.

Gene Hunn
18476 47th Pl. NE
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155
enhunn323 at comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arch McCallum" <archmcc at qwest.net>
To: "OBOL" <obol at lists.oregonstate.edu>; "tweeters"
<tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: [Tweeters] Pacific-slope/Cordilleran Flycatcher- inland
northwestregion


> OBOL and Tweeters,
> I have been looking into the vocalizations of the Western Flycatcher
> complex for the past several years. Since I have some experience in
> bioacoustics, but don't have a very good ear, I use spectrograms to
> compare sounds. For now, I subjectively compare samples from the interior
> northwest (Cascades to Montana, north to Alberta and e. BC, and s. to ...
> ?) to standards from the four corners states (for COFL) and from the
> immediate coast (for PSFL). I am going to have to do statistical analyses,
> but that is in the future. My standards are at
>
> http://www.appliedbioacoustics.com/research/wefl
>
> That website presents samples from two important areas in Oregon. I just
> back from a trip to e. WA, w. Idaho, and ne. OR. A few impressions, after
> cursory spectrographic inspection of most samples:
>
> Overall, the samples from w. Idaho and e. WA and ne OR are similar to
> those from Lake and Deschutes Counties, OR, which are already on my
> website. (It will take some time, probably in the fall, before I can get
> the current round processed and up on the web.) In other words, they are
> intermediate, but are perhaps more COFL-like than PSFL-like. It would take
> stat. analysis to quantify where they are in the spectrum. Male position
> notes (MPN) all tend toward COFL. Two or more gave clearly two-parted
> calls. The ones I noticed in the field were the bird Charlie Wright
> reported at the first creek ford in S. Frk. Coppei Creek, WA, and one
> along Old River Rd on the west bank of the C. d'Alene north of Kingston,
> ID. Specifically, this bird is about halfway between mile posts 3 and 4
> where there are large cottonwoods and a quiet channel by the road. When I
> looked at spectrograms, though, many other birds had MPNs that were COFL
> in form, with perhaps a less distinct break between the low and high part.
> You can see examples of that on the web site. Others were typical of birds
> from the inland NW. None of the MPNs were like those of coastal PSFL
> populations.
>
> There is a distinctive song phrase 2 in the inland NW. It is intermediate
> in form between the PSFL and COFL standards, although it occasionally
> turns up in the core COFL area. All birds recorded on this trip had that
> intermediate form of song phrase 2.
>
> Song phrase 3 in this sample had an emphasized second note, which is
> COFL-like.
>
> Pitch overall tended to be intermediate, which, along with the form of
> song phrase 2, is the main reason for not calling these pure COFLs.
>
> In the inland NW, song and the MPN do not covary exactly. In the region I
> just explored, the MPN is more COFL-like than the song. You can't really
> identify a bird as a COFL on the basis of MPN alone. Also, birders who are
> relying on a low-amplitude break in the MPN can be led astray in a couple
> of ways. (1) Some MPNs are perfect COFL except for not having an audible
> silence in the middle. (2) Song phrase 2 of PSFL and the intermediate
> areas does have a silent break. Birds often call mid-morning with Song
> Phrase 2 rather than MPN, or they may mix the two. In my experience,
> calling with phrase 2 is at a faster pace than calling with MPN.
>
> All of the above is based on subjective impressions, although I do
> estimate frequencies by inspection of graph axes. I know I am going to
> have to do discriminant function anaylsis before I publish this. That
> said, my current opinion is that the entire interior NW is a hybrid zone.
> I think it is an over-simplification to call all these birds PSFL. There
> is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with calling them all WEFL. Please see
> the website for amplification of these opinions.
>
> I would like to thank the many people who gave me directions to WEFL
> sites, especially, for this trip, Paul Sullivan, Charles Swift, Lisa
> Hardy, and Charlie Wright.
>
> Good birding and good empiding,
>
> Arch McCallum
> Eugene, OR
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters