Posted by Phil Pickering (208.46.229.137) on October 04, 2001 at 20:39:56:
Not to contradict anyone's conclusion because this is clearly a very tough bird to figure out, but I would wonder if some commenters might not be underestimating the strange effects both the photographic and scanning processes can have on true-to-life colors. If film is overexposed, overheated, or old there can be a pronounced color shift. This shift may affect the appearance of some colors more than others. Likewise, scanning may cause a seemingly disproportionate shift of colors. Speaking from a photographic background, I think that the fact that the mullein color appears fairly accurate does not necessarily indicate that the colors of the bird wouldn't be shifted. In particular, I suspect that the neutral gray on a Gray Flycatcher would be prone to color shifts due to overexposure or other causes.
Overall this photo has a strange look to me, maybe because it is so high-contrast, that suggests that something isn't quite right. This is also suggested by the fact that the blue cast on the paler areas of the bird is also present on the legs (on my monitor at least). Since the legs should appear more neutral black or grayish, perhaps the areas of the plumage with a blue cast were also more neutral gray or whitish in reality. In fact, the overall appearance of the bird's color does seem a bit closer to neutral in the additional photos, which seem somewhat more accurately exposed to me.
I bring this up because I'm having a particularly hard time fitting a Phainopepla into this bird. The head appears too large in proportion to the body, and both the body and tail seem too short. The eye seems too centrally placed - not forward enough for a Phainopepla (Dave Fix's point about the centrally placed eye on a Gray Fly is a very good one). The eye also seems too large in proportion to the head. Also, my guess would be that a Phainopepla should show at least a bit more pronounced peak to the crown feathers, even if it was missing its crest. The forehead also seems too short, with a break in angle virtually level with the top of the eye, while Phainopeplas have a longer forehead that continues well above the eye without a break. Perhaps most telling is that the wingbars seem much too close together for a Phainopepla - in other words the greater coverts seem too short.
I don't have the experience to comment on immature Phainopepla plumage, but do they at any age or stage of molt show the exact pattern of an empid? (including pale eye-ring, supralorals, outer edges to the tail, etc.) Also, do they typically drop their tails below a level plane with the body (as is typical of Gray Fly)? I'm also ignorant about the nostril issue, but can their appearance really be judged accurately enough at this resolution to rule out Gray Fly? I'd agree that the bill length of this bird may be on the short end for a Gray Fly, but IMHO it is within their range of size.
I throw these comments out there because I've blown it several times with these mystery birds (and others), partially because I started out by assuming that the colors in the scan were an accurate rendition of the typical colors seen in the field for the candidates involved - when they were in fact way off. Perhaps this is another one of those birds where the apparent colors can't be trusted? While Phainopepla is certainly an insightfully abstract suggestion for this bird, I'd suggest that if it is a Gray Flycatcher, it wouldn't necessarily have to be an aberrant one, just an inaccurately portrayed one.
Cheers,
Phil