Posted by Phil Pickering (208.46.229.114) on September 04, 2002 at 18:08:58:
In Reply to: August dowitcher quiz posted by Bruce Deuel on September 04, 2002 at 10:31:32:
Based on what is getting to be extensive photo study, my impression is that both are valid marks for the "average" bird, both presumably relating to the longer wings of Short-billed. I've looked more at primary projection beyond the tertials, and my impression is that an average Long-billed shows very little, while the extension is more obvious on a typical Short-billed (looked mainly at caurinus). Unfortunately, the differences are apparently not substantial enough to consistently cover individual variation, or variation due to posture, molt, or whatever so that neither mark is likely to be diagnostic in a photo of a single bird. Perhaps they are best used as supporting marks in cases where the individual shows extreme tendencies, such as a Long-billed with the primary tips falling well short of the tail, rather than even. As previously stated, the current individual appears to show a primary projection beyond the tertials that would be, at the least, more supportive of Short-billed.
The June 2001 quiz also leaves me confused about the significance of body molt timing in California. However, after some perhaps unneeded waffling, I'd return again to the fact that, for whatever it's worth, in 40+ photos I am unable to find a Long-billed in any plumage or state of molt that shows anything like this bird's combination of lack of color on the underparts, and such extensive solid, thick underparts spotting (not just basic plumage gray markings, but darker solid spots, some of which extend well inward towards the feather bases). Could it be as simple as that? I'm also unclear on the significance of the amount of feather replacement on the belly. The amount of spotting shown by this bird seems extreme for even a full alternate Long-billed, and my impression is that basic-plumage birds of either species typically lack belly spotting of the solid type shown by this bird (am I wrong?)
Cheers,
Phil