Posted by Phil Pickering (208.46.229.31) on August 26, 2002 at 21:08:46:
In Reply to: dowitcher test posted by Don Roberson on August 26, 2002 at 17:48:09:
Aha, this works in the majority of photos I have available. There are some exceptions, not all of which could be due to primary molt, but it seems just as, if not more consistent than any other single thing to look at. This bird is towards the middle - the primaries seem to fall more obviously short of the tail tip on most L-b, but it's definitely on the L-b side of things. Like just about everything else having to do with shape, this is presumably not 100% reliable in every photo due to wear/posture/camera angle factors, but I still am swayed towards L-b.
I'm not sure what's going on with primary extension beyond the tertials here, but this bird is certainly not a 'typical' L-b in that respect. Could this bird be molting tertials?
I've also found a few photos of L-b with limited spotting on the belly. The majority do seem to have a trace or none, but it's not a reliable mark for any one bird. I also enlarged this shot, and it appears the remaining upper belly color extends down between the legs on this bird, which would be bad for caurinus of course.
I'm also unable to find a S-b with anywhere near this much bend to the bill tip, so this is perhaps a stronger supporting mark for L-b than I suspected. After staring at this bird a second time, it also appears quite lanky for a S-b, not something I considered at first look.
I still have not been able to find a L-b with this little color and this solid of underparts markings, but I presume it has to be within their range of appearance. This is perhaps another case (as IMO with jaegers) where, to those with experience, shape is a more reliable thing to look at than more oft-cited aspects of plumage.
Cheers,
Phil