Subject: [Tweeters] Ridgefield wader and mini-rant
Date: Sep 8 07:17:18 2006
From: dave templeton - crazydave65 at inbox.com


hola:

with regard to item the last, i assumed dennis was being self-deprecatory. it's presumptuous of me to make this comment (put another way, nobody on this list needs any help from me in self defense), but i read the statement and noted it includes the word 'we' in the operative phrase, which we, i presumed, included the writer himself. if it's a condescending statement, it's directed inward as well as out. the statement as a whole reminded me of a comment from the then curator of the dudley herbarium of stanford university and author of an exhaustive flore of the local costal mountain range during a particularly heated discussion about a plant, 'it's important to bear in mind the plants really don't care what we call them. taxonomy is a mechanism for helping humans think about things and doesn't change anything.'

regards,

dave tee
the provinces (fall city)

crazydave65atinboxdotcom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cameron_cox at hotmail.com
> Sent: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:49:57 -0500
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: [Tweeters] Ridgefield wader and mini-rant
>
> Interesting discussion. Couple of points which will not be brief because
> I
> struggle with brief.
>
> 1. This bird is not a Little Blue. I think most have agreed on this, but
> I
> just wanted to reiterate the point. I base this on a couple of things.
> While I am very hesitant to use words like ?never? when it comes to
> bare-part coloration of small white herons, I think it can safely be said
> that Little Blues never (dangerous word!) shows sharply contrasting,
> bright
> yellow facial skin. It is still developing and does not extend across the
> entire lores, but it is present. All other ?nevers? about bare-part
> coloration in recently fledged herons will likely get you in trouble at
> least some of the time. Bill color largely does not matter on very young
> herons.
> Also, I see a bit of a tuft on the nape. Not much of one, but first-year
> Little Blues usually have smooth napes and, while it is often hidden,
> most
> Snowy Egrets, both first-year and adults in winter, seem to be able to
> show
> at least a hint of a tuft some of the time. So the presents of a tuft
> indicates Snowy, the apparent lack of one indicates nothing.
> Also the eyes of this bird are bright, clear lemon yellow. Little Blues
> of
> all ages have irises that are just a touch cloudy or pale greenish.
> I agree that the lack of gray on the primaries is a strong argument
> against
> Little Blue. Though while I personally have never failed to see the gray
> when I have looked for it, it can be very subtle and washed out on some
> birds.
> So while I believe Little Blue can be positively eliminated, I?m not
> completely ready to say that it is definitely a Snowy.
> 2. Is there any evidence for Little Blue? I believe that the answer to
> this
> is yes though some would view the evidence as circumstantial. Both
> Wilson
> Cady and the Sullivan?s have photos of the bird with its neck
> outstretched
> and the head cocked downward. Little Blues do this all the time. I
> would
> consider it to be their most common feeding posture. Snowy?s stretch
> their
> necks out like this usually only when disturbed and looking around. When
> their heads are up their bills are usually held on the horizontal plane,
> not
> cocked down. They very rarely feed with their necks outstretched for any
> period of time. While they often feed actively as has been mentioned
> already, when the feed slowly they keep changing the position of the head
> and neck or leave them coiled. Typical feeding postures included bring
> the
> head close to the water, drawing it back slowly, coil their neck, uncoil
> it,
> and cock the head from side-to-side. They like to mix up these postures
> and
> change them regularly. Usually the only time they hold it outstretched
> for
> long is right before they make a strike. The fact that both Wilson Cady
> and
> the Sullivan?s have photos with the neck outstretched and seemingly
> frozen
> is interesting.
> The shape of the neck is also interesting. Notice that from the body to
> the
> head, the neck of this bird tapers gradually, becoming thinnest near the
> throat. While this is typical for Little Blue, in Snowy Egret the neck
> tapers quickly and is parallel-sided and equally thin for most of its
> length. Do a Google image search on Snowy Egret look for photos of birds
> with their heads up, and you will see that this is true. When feeding
> these
> species usually walk differently. Little Blue drag their feet, leaving
> them
> in the water. Snowy is a high-stepper and, in all but the deepest water,
> usually pulls their feet out of the water and steps back down. In the
> Sullivan?s photos it appears that this bird did a bit of both. As Alvaro
> Jaramillo pointed out on ID-Frontiers, the shape of the bill probably
> isn?t
> much use because the bird is so young that the bill is still growing, so
> I
> will ignore it. In my mind, this bird is likely from California. Little
> Blue is scarce in most of CA, breeding in small numbers in the San Diego
> area. This is exactly the kind of situation where hybridization is more
> likely to occur. A Little Blue might not have been able to find a mate
> of
> its own species and resorted to breeding with a Snowy. I am not saying
> that
> this bird is a hybrid or even that I think that is a hybrid. I
> personally
> think that it is probably a weird, likely sick, Snowy Egret. However I
> cannot fully eliminate a hybrid so I?ve said all this to basically say
> nothing. I don?t know what the freaking thing is!
>
> 3. Finally- Dennis?s statement copied below:
>
> >Just think if birders expended the same amount of brain power trying to
> >understand heron >coloration (why Little Blues change color with age,
> >Reddish Egrets come in two color morphs, and >Great Blue Herons in
> certain
> >areas of the Caribbean are white, while Great and Snowy Egrets don't
> >show
> >such variation) as we did trying to figure out how to identify them.
> >Wouldn't that kind of >understanding be great?
>
> I take some exception to this statement. There is an underlying tone to
> it
> that is condescending to birders. It is subtle and probably
> unintentional,
> but it is still there. Statements like these make it difficult for
> birders
> and academics/biologists to be friends and play nicely together. I can
> find
> no reason why trying to work out the reasons behind color morphs or the
> lack
> thereof in herons is morally superior or a better use of time than trying
> to
> learn to identify them more accurately. There is still something to be
> learned in either field. The difference is birders are much better
> suited
> to contributing to identification than to researching color morphs in
> heron
> or any such similar subject. The question of heron morphs is better left
> to
> the realm of science. Researching such a subject would require vast
> amounts
> of time and energy. Much more than most birders have to give. It would
> require dropping virtually all other aspects of birds and concentrating
> on a
> single set of subjects. In short, it sounds like a project for an
> ambitions
> grad student.
> In my opinion the constant evolution and refinement of bird
> identification
> is a fascinating subject on par with studies of bird behavior, bird
> intelligence, ect. All are driven by the desire to know more. There
> seems
> to be a widely held, quiet belief among academics that any pursue labeled
> ?science? holds the moral high ground over all other pursuits. The
> statement above seems to reflect that belief. It strikes me as neither
> correct nor realistic. However, should a birder have an interest in
> pursuing such a subject should receive the full backing of the birding
> and
> scientific communities.
>
> To illustrate my point about the value of birders and field
> identification,
> I am copying an excerpt from something I received recently from Charlie
> Wright. I hope you don?t mind, Charlie!
>
> >From Charlie:
> [This weekend I watched a typical juv SemiSand (Semiplamated Sandpiper)
> at
> extremely close range with 8 female Western Sandpipers. They flew around
> a
> lot and the Semi could be readily picked out in flight by its relatively
> smaller head and shorter neck. Admittedly, this was at much shorter
> distances than most flight IDs would be made, so it?s unlikely this is
> very
> useful, however I thought it was interesting and warrants further
> observation.]
>
> I feel there is incredible value in the above statement and have a lot of
> respect for people that make this kinds of observations while keeping
> them
> in a realistic and useful context.
>
> Respectfully,
> Cameron Cox
> Seattle, WA
> Cameron_cox at hotmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters