Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2013 (records 01 through 20)

2013-01 Hoary Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 9 Feb 2013 No, ID Photos support Common Redpoll more than Hoary Redpoll based on bill size, extent of flank streaking, etc. Although the face and neck are light, the back is too dark and doesn't seem particularly "frosty".
Bob B. 3 Jan 2013 No, ID This is a very typical Common Redpoll
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 No, ID  I would accept this as a Common Redpoll.
The buffy tan edging on the back scapulars should rule out a Hoary Redpoll (as well as other characters).
Ryan O. 8 Jan 2013 No, ID This is a relatively pale redpoll but I believe it is a pale Common Redpoll and not a Hoary Redpoll. The bill is pretty small, and may be in the range of overlap. However, the sides and undertail coverts are well streaked, and the undertail coverts in particular show broad, bold streaking, which is I think indicate that this is not a Hoary Redpoll. Photos of the exposed rump would be helpful, but what we can see of the uppertail in photo B also looks too dark and well marked for a Hoary Redpoll. This page is an index to a wide range of excellent redpoll identification tips:
Ron R. 24 Feb 2013 No, ID This individual looks like a common redpoll. Most striking are extensive streaking on undertail coverts and lack of pale rear scapulars. The overall color of this bird is not outside the range for a pale common redpoll.
Terry S.. 16 Jan 2013 No, ID The bill seems too large and the Face does not have the "pushed in" look. The amount of streaking on the sides of the breast and on the undertail coverts seems too extensive for a Hoary Redpoll.
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 No, ID Clearly a redpoll; likely a female. The bill/forehead profile (Photo B) look more CORE, the streaking on the flanks (photo B) looks more CORE, the back feathers (photo D/E) are not as frosty as I would expect for a HORE and more like female CORE.
Mark S. 16 Jan 2013 No, ID This is a tough call, and I'd like some discussion on this record. I'm inclined to think that this is a Hoary, but the heaviness of the streaking on the flanks troubles me, as well as the shallowness of the forehead. Supporting Hoary is the apparently white rump (not the best view of this), and the undertail coverts with only a few thin streaks.

This individual may be in the not-safe-to-call zone between Common and Hoary.
David W. 8 Jan 2013 No, ID This is another one of these individuals that falls into the overlap zone between the two, poorly differentiated Redpoll species. Especially the females, which lack the red wash to the breast, can be very difficult to sort out to their respective species/subspecies.

However, I think this bird's bill size falls into the Common redpoll camp rather than the Hoary. There's quite a bit of streaking in the undertail coverts too. Everything else seems to be intermediate between an exilipes ssp of the Hoary and the smaller pale races of the Common (presumably nominate ssp.), though the bird does seem to be fairly pale in its background tone. Again, I wish I could see the rump of this bird in the photos to be more certain.

In summation, I am having a hard time ruling out the Common redpoll as a possibility.

 

2013-02 Lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 8 Jan 2013 Acc Good description.
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc scant description, definitive photos
Ryan O. 8 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ron R. 24 Feb 2013 Acc Nice photos and sufficient description.
Terry S.. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
Mark S. 16 Jan 2013 Acc Description and photos support this i.d. though I wish the legs could be seen.
David W. 8 Jan 2013 Acc  

   

2013-03 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 12 Jan 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 8 Jan 2013 abst [own record]
Ron R. 1 May 2013 Acc Good photos and description clearly id this species.
Terry S.. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
Mark S. 16 Jan 2013 Acc Only a few of the individuals in the photos are clearly identifiable, but the ones I can see appear to be Common Redpoll, as the observer notes in the written description.
David W. 8 Jan 2013 Acc  

  

2013-04 McCown's Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 12 Jan 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc good description
Ryan O. 8 Jan 2013 abst [own record]
Ron R. 24 Feb 2013 Acc A difficult ID. However, the observer carefully notes field marks that should eliminate other longspurs.
Terry S.. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  
Mark S. 16 Jan 2013 Acc Good Description.
David W. 8 Jan 2013 Acc Excellent write-up.

 

2013-05 Hoary Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc The description of the white rump and "frosty" head and back in combination with the photo convince me this is a Hoary Redpoll.

2nd round:  

23 Mar 2013 Acc My overall impression of this bird based on the description and photo is that it is a Hoary Redpoll, so no change from my original vote to accept.
Bob B. 12 Jan 2013 Acc This one actualy looks good. Both the photo and the description support the ID. It appears, if accepted, that this will be only the second record for Utah, and the first with an actual photograph.

2nd round:  

11 Mar 2013 Acc The comments concerning the bill are certainly pertinent. The overall pattern otherwise to me is much more compatable with Hoary than Common. I don't believe tha differentiation is between Hoary or Common, but is between a hybrid and Hoary. I wish we had some different views of the face, because one can certainly be fooled by limited views. However I am going to stick to my original vote on the second round.
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc Even the photo appears to be a bit over-exposed (and thus lighter), I like this bird as a Hoary Redpoll (appropriate streaking, light edging on scaps, etc.)
Ryan O. 10 Jan 2013 Acc It would be nice to have a profile shot of the beak and a clearer view of the undertail coverts and rump, but this looks pretty convincingly "frosty" to me. Written description also mentions unstreaked rump and undertail (although fine streaking can be easy to miss).

2nd round:  

18 Mar 2013 Acc Votes of "No" in the first round were supported by concerns about the size of the bill, but bills that are open like in this photograph typically give a much larger impression than the same bills when closed, and the angle is very difficult for accurately judging the size of the bill or its shape ("pushed in" or not ). The record would be stronger with a profile photo or at least written description of the bill shape, but given the angle of the photo and the fact that the bill is open, I am essentially disregarding impressions of bill size and shape from the photo and relying on the other features, which to me seem clearly in line with Hoary Redpoll. In addition, there is a range of overlap in bill size between the two species, so bill shape is only diagnostic at the extremes anyways.
Ron R. 24 Feb 2013 No, ID The bill on this bird appears much too large for hoary redpoll. Photo washed out on side so does not allow for good assessment of streaking. I'd like to see further discussion of this bird.
Terry S.. 18 Jan 2013 No, ID The Written description sounds good for a Hoary Redpoll but nothing is mentioned about the bill. The photo seems to show a comparatively large bill and the face does not have the pushed in look.

2nd round:  

30 Mar 2013 Acc I aim changing my vote on this because others reviewers' comments convince me that even though the photo seems to show a large bill the upper mandible is small and the large size impression is probably due to the bill being open and lower mandible extended. Everything else for this bird indicates Hoary Redpoll.
Jack S.   2nd: 26 Mar 2013 Acc This bird is sufficiently pale in the key areas for a Hoary Redpoll: faint streaking on flanks, no streaking on undertail coverts, white rump that was larger and whiter than accompanying redpolls, auricular with little definition, ...etc).

The upper mandible also looks small to me.
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc I am a little troubled by the size of the bill in the photo, but that might simply be a function of the angle. I could go either way on this record, but the write-up sounds convincing.

2nd round:  

1 Apr 2013 Acc  

 

2013-06 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 10 Jan 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc very nice record
Ryan O. 10 Jan 2013 Acc It's nice to see the eBird checklist linked inside the rare bird report. I don't know why I hadn't thought of that before.
Ron R. 24 Feb 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  
David W. 10 Jan 2013 Acc  

  

2013-07 Lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 16 Jan 2013 Acc The description and photos are good even though we don't have a description or photos of the yellow legs.
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 14 Jan 2013 Acc Record doesn't attempt to eliminate Slaty-backed Gull or several other dark-mantled gulls, but I think the photos are convincing enough given size, etc.
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Leg color not seen. But based on size, mantle color and extensive head streaking, other gulls should be eliminated.
Terry S.. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 14 Jan 2013 Acc I suppose a Slaty-backed gull is ruled out by the size, if this was smaller than a Western.

   

2013-08 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 19 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 15 Jan 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 14 Jan 2013 Acc Written description is sparse but photos are convincing.
Ron R. 24 Feb 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 14 Jan 2013 Acc  

 

2013-09 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 19 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 16 Jan 2013 Acc The number of these birds this winter is rather astounding.
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 16 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 18 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc  

 

2013-10 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 16 Jan 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 16 Jan 2013 abst [Abstain, my record.]
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 18 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc Good photos.

 

2013-11 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 16 Jan 2013 Acc Definitive photos. Photos are great, but it also would be helpful to have a good written description of review birds on the reports.
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc reported dates on this grebe were 10/26/12 - 11/21/12
Ryan O. 16 Jan 2013 Acc Written description has almost no information, but photos are diagnostic.
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 19 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 16 Jan 2013 Acc Per photos.

 

2013-12 Western Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 16 Jan 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 16 Jan 2013 Acc I'm almost on the fence for this one because there was no attempt to eliminate Slaty-backed Gull, and the eye color, which is very important in eliminating similar species, is not described.  From the photos, I believe this gull had dark eyes, but I'm not certain of that.  The streaking/smudging in the head is difficult to ascertain in these photos, but looks like it is probably too sparse for Slaty-backed Gull.  The bill is pretty thick, but from these shots I'm not sure we can certainly eliminate Slaty-backed Gull on bill shape.  The bill is described as "massive" and "spade-shaped" but Great Black-backed Gull is eliminated for having a "more massive" bill, which is of little help in ruling out several species. The bird was seen in flight but there are no descriptions or photos of the spread wing, which would also help eliminate some potential confusion species.  Kelp Gull was not considered, but should be eliminated by the bright pink legs of this bird.  Also, and importantly for gulls, no hybrids were considered.
Ron R. 12 Mar 2013 Acc Dark tail and eye suggest 2nd winter bird. Rather dark mantle suggests bird is from southern population. Photo shows key marks. No significant marks suggests hybridization with glaucous-winged, although still possible.
Terry S.. 18 Jan 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc  

  

2013-13 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 5 Feb 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 23 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 19 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc Good photos.

  

2013-14 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 5 Feb 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 29 Jan 2013 Acc  
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 19 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc  

 

2013-15 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 5 Feb 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 30 Jan 2013 abst [submitted record]
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Good description and adequate photos clearly identify this species.
Terry S.. 19 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 3 Feb 2013 Acc  
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc  

  

2013-16 Hoary Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 23 Mar 2013 Acc This looks good for a Hoary, even though some details in the photos are difficult to discern such as the extent of the streaking on the flanks. However, the size, shape, and pushed in look of the bill, lightness in the face and back, as well as the description given of the rump and tail area influenced my vote to accept.

2nd round:  

25 Apr 2013 Acc I still think this is a Hoary Redpoll even though it's not a perfect specimen. There is variation in this species just like with Common Redpolls. The photos and description still support Hoary in my opinion, so my vote is unchanged.

3rd round:  

6 Jul 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 12 Feb 2013 No, ID The votes are coming in slowly on this bird and I can see why. This bird is obviously lighter than the average Common Redpoll. I am not convinced at this point that the head and bill shape and size are fully consistent with Hoary Redpoll. There is enough variation in Common Redpoll that the differentiation is not that clear cut. This bird still has more streaking than I feel is consistent with a pure Hoary Redpoll. And then there is the issue of possible hybrids. I would like to see what others say on this bird.

2nd round:  

7 Apr 2013 No ID I still feel there are too many questions about this bird to say that it is definitively a Hoary Redpoll, and will continue to vote no.

3rd round:  

4 May 2013 No ID All of my concerns remain unchanged.
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  

2nd round:  

25 Apr 2013 Acc Description is adequate for a Hoary Redpoll. Streaking is overall very sparse; I don't believe there is too much streaking for a male hoary. and the mantle feathering in the photos appear good for a hoary as well.

3rd round:  

11 Jun 2013 Acc I still like this as a Hoary Redpoll based on the color of the mantle feathers.
Ryan O. 28 Feb 2013 No, ID Bird is an adult male, as indicated by the rosy wash on the breast. Given that it is a male, it should have even less streaking in the undertail coverts and flanks than an average redpoll of its species. This bird still has at least one bold central streak in the undertail coverts and significant streaking in the sides, to a degree that might be consistent with a first-year Hoary Redpoll but that is not consistent with an adult male Hoary Redpoll. In addition, the bill looks too long and robust for a convincing Hoary Redpoll.

2nd round:  

24 Apr 2013 No ID Concerns from first round remain. Given that this bird is an adult male, an important first step in the identification, it has too much streaking in the flanks and undertail coverts for a convincing Hoary Redpoll. I can't eliminate some Hoary Redpoll ancestry (i.e., a hybrid), but the combination of traits on this bird is not convincing for a pure Hoary Redpoll.

3rd round:  

11 Jun 2013 No, ID Seutin et al 1992 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4088152), found two characters were strongly indicative of age and sex in redpolls (regardless of species): the extent of red in the breast and the darkness of streaking in the flanks. The extent of red on the breast puts this bird in the category of male, probably adult (ASY) male given the extent of red here, regardless of species. Sibley says the same, "If it has pink on the breast it’s a male (most 1st winter males have pink on the breast according to Pyle 1997), and identification of males is generally a little easier, but since males of both species tend to be paler than females, a male Common can often stand out as the palest bird in the flock. A male Hoary should look really pale." [His emphasis.]
This is an excellent compilation of photos of redpolls of several species, subspecies, and sexes: http://peregrineprints.com/zzz_Article_Redpolls.htm Note that the only males (red on breast) with as much streaking in the flanks as this bird are all Commons, and that even young Hoary males with very limited red have significantly less streaking in the flanks than the bird in question here. For example, see the adult male Hoary labelled "Photos #1: Snowmonster" which has less red than our bird, but WAY less flank streaking.
Here are more excellent examples for comparison of reliably identified redpolls: http://aba.org/nab/v65n2redpolls.pdf Compare to Fig. 13, for example, an adult male Hoary Redpoll. This bird has less red on the chest than our bird, yet way less streaking in the flanks. (Also, the bill is significantly smaller.) Figure 11 shows another adult male Hoary Redpoll (of a different subspecies): again, with even less pink than our bird and still way less flank streaking than our bird. Figure 15 is yet another example. The key point is that all of the adult male Hoary Redpolls have smaller bills, less flank streaking, and yet less red on the breast compared to the bird we are voting on. Some Hoary Redpolls do have flank streaking that is equivalent to our bird: for example, Figs. 10 and 26. But each of these birds with comparable streaking, and ANY Hoary with this much flank streaking, is not an adult male, and lacks the red our bird shows.
Looking at the flank streaking alone, this bird could certainly be a Hoary Redpoll. However, we can't just look at any one field mark alone. The amount of flank streaking on this bird, if it were a Hoary Redpoll, would indicate a young bird, probably a young female, as adult males never have flanks so boldly marked. But, given the extent of red on the breast, this has to be an adult male. That is THE most reliable mark for determining the age and sex of any redpoll. And given that it is an adult male of one of these two species, the flank streaking just doesn't fit Hoary. The combination of the red on the breast and the extent of flank streaking only fits an adult male Common Redpoll, or possibly a hybrid, but not an adult male Hoary Redpoll.
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 No, ID While the description suggests a hoary redpoll, the photos are not as convincing. Most troubling is the relatively large head and bill and lack of feathering covering the bill.

2nd round:  

3 Jun 2013 No, ID Comments from first rounds still apply. Also, I feel Ryan does an excellent job summarizing the ID issues.
Terry S.. 24 Feb 2013 Acc With a complete description of key field marks including the rump, under tail coverts bill shape and size plus good photos of the bird I think this is an acceptable record for a Hoary Redpoll

2nd round:  

4 May 2013 Acc  I still believe this is an acceptable sighting. To me, the bill seems small and within size range. The other field marks also are all there for this record.

3rd round:  

12 Jun 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 31 Mar 2013 No, ID Like record 2013-16, this bird is sufficiently pale in the key areas for a Hoary Redpoll however the bill looks too large to me and I'm voting 'No' for that reason.

The bill size/shape is easier to judge here (compared with 2013-05) with at least two comparison photographs of Common Redpolls with the bird in question.

2nd round:  

16 Apr 2013 No ID  

3rd round:  

11 Jun 2013 No, ID  
Mark S. 3rd: 11 Jun 2013 No, ID I spent too much time contemplating this record for the first round, and then the deadline arrived while I was crushed with work, so missed the vote entirely. I didn't feel it was right to jump in in the second round, but it looks like there's a bit of a deadlock, and with good reason. Craig has encouraged me to go ahead and vote, and David called me a woos, so here's my 2¢.

Excellent points all around. Ryan's analysis is correct, and we should expect this bird to be even paler, with less streaking, if it's a "typical" Hoary. I also agree with Ron that the bill doesn't seem to fit Hoary very well, in either size or amount of feathering at the base. But the rump and under tail coverts are pretty clean and white, and there is a "frostiness" to the mantle.

To add to the mix, considerable evidence suggests that there is only one Redpoll species, and I even read one commentary that suggests that Hoary Redpolls may be under-counted because Common is the default species assigned to Redpoll sp. because, well, they're more common, in a marvelously bit of circular reasoning.

In short, this is a mess. If we had an individual that was clearly "at the Hoary end of the spectrum," taxonomic concerns notwithstanding, we could call this a Hoary. But this individual is clearly not at either extreme of the cline, and even though a case could be made for a slight leaning towards Hoary, there are some characters, such as the bill and the flank streaking, that are more on the Common side.

Is it a hybrid? Can you have a hybrid within the same species?

Like I said, tough record. To err on the side of caution, I'll vote no, inasmuch as I don't think a positive i.d. has been established for this bird.
David W. 1 Feb 2013 Acc Although I am a bit troubled by the relative size (compared to others near it) of the bill in one of the photos, perhaps the photo is somehow distorted. The observer states that the bill was smaller than its Common feeder mates.

This individual appears to have a very pale rump and undertail coverts, plus the overall frosty coloring. All that is consistent with a Hoary.

2nd round:  

8 May 2013 Acc The Redpoll superspecies strikes me as more of a spectrum than a group of clearly defined forms. Differences between the subspecies and even within the subspecies themselves are significant, with a lot of overlap on the "key" fieldmarks that are meant to differentiate them. I will admit that I am somewhat skeptical that the taxonomy of the redpolls has been entirely settled (despite evidence that they tend to be mostly selective in their breeding habits). That being said, I think this individual falls into the Hoary end of the spectrum.

3rd round:  

11 Jul 2013 No, ID I found Ryan's impassioned discussion interesting and helpful. I disagree that the male photos point to a Common (I think the males of the Common shown in Holden's article all have darker flank streaking than this bird, which looks more like the Hoary shown in the "Classic example #1" near the bottom of the article--2nd from end, but the point is well taken). I continue to be bothered by the bill, which seems large, perhaps due to missing feathers near the base--as both species often have more feathers there. Other factors point to Hoary, in my opinion.

So I don't know. And, like Mark, I'll vote NO because I am not completely convinced either way. Let future generations decide for themselves.

   

2013-17 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Feb 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 5 Feb 2013 Acc Great Picture
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Ryan O.   abst [submitted record]
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 24 Feb 2013 Acc Great photo
Jack S.. 11 Mar 2013 Acc Excellent documentation and photographs.
Mark S. 3 Apr 2013 Acc Clearly a Redpoll, and just as clearly not a Hoary.
David W. 5 Feb 2013 Acc Great photos.

  

2013-18 McCown's Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 6 Apr 2013 Acc  

2nd round:  

25 Apr 2013 Acc This bird seems too pale to be a Lapland Longspur
Bob B. 14 Feb 2013 Acc I am impressed with this observers careful analysis of the details of this bird. This is not an easy ID. To me the pictures are not quite as clear cut as some of the reporters are indicating, but I still feel this is the correct ID

2nd round:  

7 Apr 2013 Acc  
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc good collection of photos to help identification

2nd round:  

25 Apr 2013 Acc If this were a first-winter Lapland I would expect to see more rufous edging on the coverts.
Ryan O. 28 Feb 2013 Acc  

2nd round:  

24 Apr 2013 Acc The auriculars on this bird are more marked than average for McCown's, but not outside the range of variation (for example: ), and the large pink bill is diagnostic for McCown's. Young Lapland Longspurs universally, I think, have more rufous in the greater coverts.
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 No, ID I feel this bird may well be a pale first winter Lapland londspur. The dark bordered auriculars (photo G), relatively dark tail (photos F and I), suggestion of rufous in greater coverts and tertial edges (photo F), large pale bill (photos B, G and H), broad bold supercilium (photos G and H), broad malar stripe (photo B) and buffy breast (photo B) are all consistent with Lapland longspur, and in combination would rule out McCown's and chestnut-collared.
Terry S.. 24 Feb 2013 Acc Very good documentation a diagnostic photos
Jack S.. 17 Mar 2013 Acc This is a well-documented sighting with lots of photographs and a careful analysis. I think this is good for McCown's Longspur.

The bird's plain face, broad supercilium, larger pinkish bill, brown crest and breast band, and pale belly suggest a 1st winter MCLO. Photo C shows a shorter tail, a moderate primary projection, and brown med coverts with a lighter color fringe that also point to a MCLO.

2nd round:  

16 Apr 2013 Acc  
Mark S. 3 Apr 2013 Acc Overall paleness eliminates all except McCown's and Chestnut-collared. None of the photos show the tail pattern/primary projection well enough to be conclusive either way, although some of the views of the tail look a bit more like Chestnut-collared, but I can't trust the incomplete view. However, the head and breast pattern look much better for McCown's, especially the wide supercillium and the relatively unstreaked breast.

2nd round:  

24 Apr 2013 Acc I think that the views of the tail, though poor, show too much white at the base for a Lapland Longspur, and the bird seems too pale overall for that species as well.
David W. 18 Feb 2013 Acc I think the only species with which this could be confused is the Chestnut-collared longspur (tail alone eliminates the other longspurs). The reasons I believe this bird is a McCown's rather than Chestnut-collared are as follows:

1. Tail pattern is not definitive based on the photos, but photo I seems to show a tail pattern more consistent with a McCown's.
2. Face pattern seems more consistent with McCown's, especially the auriculars & supercilium.
3. The belly is white rather than buff, and the flanks are unstreaked.
4. Bill is described as "Big thick bill." It also appears to be pink rather than dark in photo G.
5. Primary projection length appears longer than Chestnut-collared should be (see esp photo c), especially when one considers that most photos show the bird bending forward, therefore presumably pulling its wings forward relative to its tail.
6. Primary projection pattern is more consistent with McCown's because the interval between the longest and next longest is nearly as great as the interval between the second and third longest extensions.

I wouldn't bet my first born on this ID, but I think I'd go so far as the dog (and he's one fine dog).

2nd round:  

24 Apr 2013 Acc  

  

2013-19 Western Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 6 Apr 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 20 Feb 2013 Acc Excellent description by Ryan O'Donnell and discussion of all other gulls ruled out. I too saw and photographed what I am sure was the same bird on 02/18/2013.
Rick F. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Ryan O. 28 Feb 2013 abst Abstain (includes a sight record submitted by me).
Ron R. 11 Apr 2013 Acc (2013-19a)  Nice photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Mar 2013 Acc Excellent documentation and photographs.
Mark S. 3 Apr 2013 Acc Excellent documentation and photos. (ignoring the potential implications of recent research on gull species)
David W. 18 Feb 2013 Acc Despite the Spartan description, I think the photos do indeed show a Western gull.

 

2013-20 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 3 Mar 2013 Acc  
Bob B. 20 Feb 2013 Acc  
Rick F.   abst [submitted record]
Ryan O. 28 Feb 2013 Acc  
Ron R. 1 Mar 2013 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 24 Feb 2013 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Mar 2013 Acc Excellent documentation and photographs.
Mark S. 3 Apr 2013 Acc Can't judge for the whole flock, but the identifiable photos show Common Redpoll.
David W. 18 Feb 2013 Acc