This gull may be the same one I saw on January 28 at the Cedar River mouth, though the written description differes somewhat. I saw red and dark marks on the bill, I described the size as similar to Glaucous-winged, not Thayer's, and I though the bill looked a bit thick for Glaucous, but the following points may still apply. I reported the bird I saw as a Glaucous Gull, but apparently the eBird reviewer didn't agree with me because it doesn't appear to be in the results when you search for Glaucous Gull. The checklist is at https://ebird.org/checklist/S63920585

I still think it's a Glaucous Gull. I would say it's definitely not any form of Iceland Gull. It's too bulky and big for that, particularly glaucoides. Glaucous Gull and glaucoides Iceland Gull have similar mantle colors, and both are paler than most other species. Kumlien's should be a little darker, closer to Thayer's. The gull in question has a very pale mantle.

As I mention in the comments on the eBird checklist, some of the primaries looked to be tan, which gave me some hesitation, but I looked closer at my photos, and it appears that the tan is on parts of the primaries that are covered by other primaries when the wing is folded. (Sorry, that was a long sentence.) So I think we're seeing a bird that's between second and third cycle (though red on the bill might throw a wrench in that hypothesis), and the parts of the primaries that are more exposed have been bleached to white.

The bird was small and compact, but I don't think it was outside the range I've seen in quite a few birds in northern Alaska. Otherwise, I didn't see anything else that was clearly *not* Glaucous. The eye was obviously pale, and I figured the influence of other species should have affected the eye and/or primary color. So I'm sticking with Glaucous.

John Puschock
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20200213/039264fc/attachment.html>