Posted by Dave Irons (152.163.201.82) on October 14, 2000 at 20:37:45:
I have pulled up this set of pictures too many times to count and I continue to be baffled by the bird most respondents have called a Bewick's Wren. I am not seeing several of the marks that many of you are using to call this a BEWR. Alvaro mentions shorter outer retrices, white tail spots and barring on the wings. Is my monitor that poor? To me the tail looks quite squared off and I see nothing I would call a tail pattern other than a couple of lighter looking areas underneath. As for barring on the wings, based on what little amount of the wing surface is visible I think it is a stretch to be certain they are barred.
Structurally I have a couple major problems with this bird being a Bewick's Wren. The bill (even though we are seeing it fairly straight on) looks fairly short, somewhat thick and does not appear to have any curvature whatsoever. A wren bill should appear longer, slightly curved and relatively thinner. Secondly, Bewick's Wren as with most wrens should appear to be fairly long-legged with an extensive amount of the tarsi showing when perched. To me this bird shows very little exposed leg. Finally, the crown of this bird seems fairly short and evenly rounded front to back. To me Bewick's Wrens have a long fairly flat crown.
I would agree with several others who have commented that young Bewick's don't have as defined a supercilium as adults. However, this bird shows very little evidence of a supercilium behind the eye where it should be most obvious on a Bewick's Wren.
As I stated in my original post this bird is a stumper for me. This may indeed be a Bewick's Wren but it just does not look right structurally.