Posted by David Fix (206.13.45.114) on July 29, 2002 at 21:28:40:
I have found this an interesting bird because it showed me how my mental image of a Savannah Sparrow is off the mark. Looking at it without reference to a book, I saw nothing 'off' with what Sibley (the one guide I've looked at) suggests is actually an impossibly streakless Savannah Sparrow (I'm speaking of the flanks). He shows all major variations on the Savannah theme with multiple streaks extending all the way down the flanks. This bird has but one narrow row of streaks (or one long streak, whatever--we know multiple feathers are involved). Based only on this mark, I would say my hip-shot guess of Savannah has to be wrong...and how many thousands have I looked at pointedly? // The rusty wash indicated by Sibley for the lowermost flanks of Baird's cannot be seen at all in this image. Nevertheless, the mention made by other posters of the warm, ochre-buff nape overlain with fine streaks is also compelling; again, Sibley indicates that essentially no Savannah should show this. Phil's comment on the apparent hind-face dark mark is well-taken. I'm not one to parse photographs or scanned images with interior feather patterns in mind and a half-dozen books on my lap, because so very few IDs of North American birds hinge strictly on this. One feature Sibley shows for Baird's Sparrow which is not supported (although not strongly contraindicated) is that the bird in the image does not show the conspicuous whitish tips to the tertials evident in Sibley's portraiture. Altogether, though, I would now ask why is this not a Baird's? This is a bird I looked at closely and thoroughly in Manitoba six years ago, but for which I obviously retain no meaningful memory. OBVIOUSLY, were this bird to perch up in front of me and give me even a two-second view, I would be on it as not a Savannah Sparrow! Given the plasticity of postures and the vagaries of a given image, any truly subtle jizz elements hinted at cannot be relied upon. What a fun lesson.