| 
       Response to the 
       ¨Pluvialis¨ Plover Hotline Photo 
          
      Message from Bryan Dixon:  (29 Aug 2006) 
       Jean and I believe we may have seen a Pacific Golden-Plover on 
      the north side of the Antelope Island Causeway 1/4 mile east of milepost 3 
      on Sunday, August 27. We observed the bird from 75-100' through a Kowa 
      scope. It had a definite golden coloration throughout the body - not gray 
      - and its wingtips protruded just barely beyond its tail. Back feathers 
      had golden, not white edges, though the greater coverts appeared to have 
      some white edges. Possible it was a golden-colored Black-bellied Plover, 
      as it looked as though it was molting out of a black coloration on its 
      belly. Undertail coverts were decidedly not black. We've never seen 
      Pacific Golden-Plovers before and have little experience with 
      Black-bellied, so we're unsure how much variation there is in golden color 
      or wingtip length. Sorry, no photos. I would appreciate hearing if anyone 
      else noticed the bird. You can contact me at bdixon at xmission.com. 
      Thanks. Bryan 
    
      From Steve Carr:  (31 
      Aug 2006) 
      So - who's going to take a stab at this plover photo? Of course, 
      unfortunately, we can't always tell from a single picture, but there are 
      some features to go by.  
    
      I don't think it's a Black-bellied Plover because of the bill shape and 
      size, the dark cap, the wing tips appear to be a tad longer than the tail, 
      and the general overall coloration.  
    
      The general appearance is of a juvenile. Some things suggesting a Pacific 
      Golden-Plover - the heavy yellowish coloration (although the setting on 
      the camera may affect that to some degree), the wing tip:tail appearance, 
      the darker ear marking. Pacific's are supposed to have somewhat longer 
      legs than American's, and these legs look quite long. Most Americans by 
      now, both  
      juvenile and non-breeding adults, have a lot of whitish speckling on the 
      back, but not much "golden," and they don't show that much yellowish wash 
      in the cheeks (again, possibly a camera artifact). The bill might tend a 
      little toward the American, but maybe not. I've also heard some 
      professional Field Ornithologists say that in the fall/winter, it's often 
      more difficult to tell an American Go-Pl from a Black-bellied Plover, than 
      it is between the American and Pacific Go-Plovers.  
    
      If it's a juvenile Pacific, that would explain its inland straying (not 
      exactly knowing where it's supposed to go). I've seen a fair number of 
      Pacific's in winter plumage in Hawaii, and they looked a lot like this 
      specimen.  
    
      --Steve Carr 
    
      Analysis by Stephen Peterson:  (Fri, 
      31 Aug 2006) 
      
        I have been going over this and going over this and cannot be certain if 
        it is dominica or fulva. Check out this site: 
        
        http://www.birdinfo.com/A_Images_A/AmericanGolden-Plover_image.html 
        From the field separation notes from:
        
        http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/goldenplover2.pdf 
        Juvenile and winter plumages: 
        The upperparts are much more yellow in fulva, dominica is much grayer. 
        In fulva the entire facial area is usually suffused with yellow. (seems 
        to be in our bird?). In dominica yellow is usually absent on the face or 
        confined to a slight wash on the supercilium. Dominica has a solid dark 
        area of variable width from just in front of the eye through the 
        ear-coverts. (kind of looks like that?). Fulva has a pale area 
        immediately around the eye (which it doesn't seem to have in our bird), 
        and the ear-coverts tend to form a distinct post-ocular spot separated 
        from the eye. (seems to be, but cannot be certain on our bird). 
        If I had to bet money on this; it was do or die, I would 
        uncomfortably suggest that our bird is a Pacific Golden Plover, adult, 
        in winter plumage. 
        But then again........................ 
        Fun study! 
        Stephen 
     
      From Cliff Weisse:  (31 
      Aug 2006) 
      I'll throw my two cent's worth into this discussion because I can't 
      resist shorebirds. This bird is not a juvenile. The black on the belly 
      eliminates any juvenile Pluvialis plover. Since it's an adult, or first 
      summer bird(?), it can't be a Black-bellied because it's obviously much 
      too golden in coloration, in addition to the structural points already 
      mentioned. The most important field mark for seperating American from 
      Pacific Golden Plover is the primary projection (the distance the 
      primaries extend beyond the tertials) as well as the number of primary 
      tips visible beyond the tertials. On this individual you can't make out 
      the primary tips to count how many are visible but the projection does 
      look short for an American. The bill looks better for American.  
      Guess I'm not willing to go out on a limb and call this a Pacific but I'm 
      not willing to say it is not one either. Very interesting bird.  
      Cliff 
    
      Analysis by Mark Stackhouse:  (Fri, 
      1 Sep 2006) 
       
      O.K., I think I'm ready to wade into this one (not too shy about it, but 
      wanted to do a little review of the literature first). First, Cliff is 
      right, it's definitely an adult bird - the black remaining on the belly 
      means it's been through at least one breeding season. This is perhaps 
      unfortunate, as the i.d. might be a bit easier if it were a juvenile. 
       
      As far as what type of plover, I think we can safely say it's not a 
      Black-bellied, due to the small, thin bill and overall brightness of the 
      plumage (remember that it's an adult, and all adult Black-bellied  
      Plovers would be much grayer). 
       
      Now, which of the Golden-Plovers? My first impression was American (and I 
      don't think that it was just because that would be more likely). Most of 
      what I can see, and was able to confirm in my "literature review" seems to 
      support this first impression. 
       
      The nature of the photograph makes this i.d. even more challenging. Some 
      of the conventional field marks, wing-tail length, primary extension and 
      number of exposed primary tips cannot be seen well enough in this picture. 
      Also, the bright lighting makes it a bit hard to judge subtle colors, such 
      as how yellow/gold the spots on the back appear. The angle and posture of 
      the bird makes judging the overall length, uprightness of the stance and 
      leg length (all things I've used to pick likely Pacifics out of flocks) 
      difficult. 
       
      So what does this leave us? Not much, but maybe just enough. 
       
      First, there are a couple of structural features which we can see (I 
      always like thing that are independent of plumage/lighting). The bill 
      seems very thin and short - both good for American, as most Pacifics have 
      a somewhat thicker, and especially longer, bill. Also, Pacifics usually 
      look somewhat larger headed, and this bird's head looks rather small. 
      Nothing definitive in this, but suggestive. 
       
      The plumage characters are complicated by the fact that the bird is still 
      molting. However, both Golden-Plovers start molting the head and facial 
      feathers quite early, sometimes even while still incubating, so the head 
      of this bird is probably fully in basic (non-breeding) plumage. There are 
      several plumage characters on the head that can be useful, and they all 
      suggest American in this individual. First, the supercillium is very white 
      (usually a bit buffier in winter Pacific), and, more importantly, is wider 
      past the eye and continues towards the nape rather than sharply bending 
      down and around the auriculars. The effect of this is to make the dark 
      stripe from the crown down the nape very narrow, whereas on the Pacific 
      the dark patch on the nape is wider. This field mark is well illustrated 
      and described in the new shorebirds guide by Michael O'Brien, et. al. Also 
      on the head, the "loral smudge" in front of the eye and the auriculars 
      behind the eye both look quite dark (though this might partly be because 
      the face is in shadow), which is better for American. 
       
      Another good plumage feature in basic-plumaged Golden-Plovers is the 
      brightness of the back, probably due to larger yellow spots on the 
      Pacific, though they may be yellower in some individuals as well. 
      Regardless, Pacifics usually look brighter/yellower than Americans. This 
      is hard to judge on the bird in the photo because of the partial molt and 
      the harsh lighting. However, the new feathers that have come in look to me 
      to be rather dull and unspotted - which again suggests American. 
       
      Perhaps the strongest evidence that this is an American has to do with the 
      molt sequence and timing. In general, the Pacific completes its pre-basic 
      molt a little sooner than American, and the sequencing of parts of the 
      body is slightly different. In particular, Pacific Golden-Plovers molt 
      their underparts before their back, so that in many individuals in 
      September the belly is fully white while the back  
      retains breeding plumage until October. This bird is molting both the back 
      and the belly at the same time, as in American. 
       
      It's not as clean an I.d. as most of us would like (including me), but I'm 
      sticking with my first impression that this is an American Golden-Plover. 
       
      Good birding! 
      Mark Stackhouse 
    
      From Kris Purdy:  (Fri, 
      2 Sep 2006) 
      I'm in agreement with the party of birders that observed the Pluvialis 
      plover on Antelope Island Causeway this afternoon--that it's a PACIFIC 
      GOLDEN-PLOVER. Thanks to Buck and Cindy Russell for refinding the bird and 
      to Susan Saffle for calling me. 
       
      I visited the causeway later this afternoon and observed the bird for 2 
      1/2 hours. Paul Higgins was there in advance and took many superb 
      photographs.  
       
      The bird is definitely an adult and has lots of black splotches on the 
      lower breast and belly and a few spots aft of the legs. Of course, that 
      also indicates the molt is incomplete. I noted several area of worn 
      feathers, including one tertial, the wing coverts below the scaps, and a 
      few scapular and back feathers sprinkled among many more that looked 
      fresh. I believe the remaining flight feathers are also worn because 
      they're a paler shade of brown than the base color of the scapular and 
      back feathers. The notches on those feathers were orange or deep buff 
      against dark brown centers.  
       
      The wingtip projection past the tail is short--perhaps less than 1/4 inch. 
      More importantly, the tertials appeared as long as the tip of the tail. My 
      best look at the primary tips projecting past the longest tertial showed 
      two. But this was very difficult to ascertain. I had excellent light 
      conditions and optics, but the color of the tips is uniform and they 
      blended together.  
       
      By the time I left around 6 pm the bird was not quite a tenth of a mile 
      west of mile marker 5, north side of the causeway, where the rocky/weedy 
      slope of the causeway meets the mudflat. The distance from the pavement 
      was 90 feet according to the distance meter in Paul's lens. The bird likes 
      to rest next to clumps of vegetation and several times was barely visible 
      on the north side of a strip of ragweed. We would not have known it was 
      there had we not seen it walk there.  
       
      Prior to my arrival, Paul saw the bird farther out and it difficult to 
      observe at that distance. Thank goodness it came in about as close as 
      possible to have its picture taken.  
       
      Thanks to all who reported and have participated in the discussion. I was 
      much better prepared to observe the plover carefully due to your 
      contributions. As you know from the analyses this past week, the ID 
      challenges between the Pacific and American Golden-plovers is very 
      difficult. Take with you a healthy dose of skepticism and identify the 
      bird to your own satisfaction. All opinions welcome, including the ones 
      different than mine :^D.  
       
      Kris 
  
      From Joel Beyer:  (Fri, 
      2 Sep 2006) 
      Kathy and I arrived at the Causeway this evening and Paul Higgins 
      kindly pointed out the golden-plover. After 2 hours of intense study, 
      we're leaning toward Pacific. We concur with Kristin's description of the 
      body and tail. We both managed to get a decent look at the primary tips 
      extending beyond the tertials. Kathy counted three, as did I, only I think 
      the longest primary may actually have been two nearly equal in length 
      (very hard to discern). The bill appeared thick, particularly at the base, 
      and fairly long. The entire facial area was yellowish, with a buffy 
      supercillium. The area around the eye was pale, and we observed a very 
      distinct postocular spot separate from the eye. The undertail coverts were 
      an immaculate white. The leg length may favor American - the tibia 
      appeared short, bringing the knee closer to the body rather than midway 
      between the body and ground.  
       
      Hopefully Paul's photos will help resolve this extremely tricky ID. 
       
      Joel  
     
      From Rick Fridell:  (Fri, 
      4 Sep 2006) 
      Hello Everyone, 
      Outstanding photos by Paul Higgins. This is an intriguing bird, and at 
      first look I was almost sold on thinking it's an adult Pacific 
      Golden-Plover.  However.... Outside of typical breeding or (even 
      non-breeding) plumages, distinguishing these species should be based on 
      structural / proportional differences (rather than plumage differences). 
      Therefore, I'm basing the following on looking at Paul's photos for clues 
      on relative proportions. 
       
      The difference in wing-length between the two species has been 
      well-discussed... American GP has relatively long wings projecting well 
      beyond the tip of tail and the Pacific GP has proportionally shorter 
      wings, projecting just past the tip of tail. In addition, American GP has 
      a  
      longer primary projection with three to four primaries typically visible 
      beyond the longest tertial. Another key factor in distinguishing these 
      species is the length of the tertials relative to the tail tip; obviously 
      shorter in American GP and with tertials of the same length or projecting 
      beyond  
      the tail in Pacific. 
       
      So looking at Paul's photos for these clues, reveals the primaries 
      extending just beyond the tip of the tail (photos 1,4,5,6 - a point 
      leaning towards Pacific GP) but the tertials are clearly shorter than the 
      tail (photos 1,4,5,6,7 - a point leaning towards to American GP) ???? (And 
      these 
      characteristics are supposed to be definitive!). Gauging actual primary 
      projection is tough from these photos, but looking closely reveals both 
      the primaries and the tertials to be very WORN. I think feather wear may 
      be reason for the discrepancy in these characteristics. First check out
       
      the last photo of the obviously very worn primary tips, then check out the 
      outline of the right wing in Paul's third photo (of the plover with its 
      wings spread). The wing outline clearly shows worn feathers, shortening 
      the tips of the outer primaries, and overall wing length. I believe this
       
      feather wear accounts for the small difference between wing and tail tips, 
      and artificially (temporarily?) makes this trait appear to favor a Pacific 
      GP. 
       
      Of course I haven't actually seen the bird, and perhaps one could argue 
      the tertials or even the tail are proportionally worn. The tertials do 
      show a lot of wear, particularly in photos 6 and 7, but even with this 
      wear they appear clearly shorter than the tail. 
       
      As to other structural differences, Pacific GP have a proportionally 
      longer bill and legs than American GP. These characteristics are hard to 
      distinguish on a lone bird, but may be helpful in direct comparisons.  
      The long legs of a Pacific GP typically project beyond the tail in flight,
       
      so this may be something to watch for if this bird sticks around. Also the 
      call notes of the two species are diagnostic, with a rising second 
      syllable in Pacific GP (opposite in American). 
       
      Very nice descriptions and photos from the Northern Birders. Well done. 
      Keep the observations and discussions going. You've inspired me to get out 
      of the house and go birding this afternoon. 
       
      Best Regards, 
       
      Rick Fridell 
      Hurricane, UT 
    
      From Ken Behrens:  (Fri, 
      4 Sep 2006) 
      
        
          After following the developments regarding the Golden-Plover(s?) with 
          interest, I went to see the bird yesterday (Sunday). The short version 
          is that it looks like a classic Pacific Golden-Plover to me.
         
        
            
        
          To elaborate... while I have no particular expertise with 
          Golden-Plovers, I do have the advantage of owning The Shorebird Guide 
          - the newest and by far best entry in the shorebird ID market. If you 
          don't have it, go buy it. I will refer to the (excellent) Paul Higgins 
          photos in the order in which they appear on the utahbirds website  
          ( http://utahbirds.org/hotlinephotos/2006/PloverAug2006Two.htm). 
          The following characteristics favor Pacific:
          
        
            
        
        
            
        
          >Long legs and upright posture. Obvious in the photos and particularly 
          in the field.
         
        
            
        
        
            
        
          >During my observations, this bird lifted a foot after almost every 
          small series of steps it took. The bird was captured doing this in 
          photo 1. The behavoir is typical of Pacific and atypical for American.
         
        
            
        
          >This bird has fresh inner primaries (P1 and P2 at least) - shown well 
          in photo 3. Pacific GPs molt their inner primaries on the breeding 
          grounds, suspend molt, and then replace the remaining primaries on the 
          wintering grounds, whereas American GPs molt all their primaries on 
          the wintering grounds (South America). This mark may be the most solid 
          single piece of evidence for Pacific Golden-Plover.
         
        
            
        
          >Large gold spots throughout the back (mantle, scaps, coverts, etc.) 
          and crown.
         
        
            
        
          >Broad dark stripe down nape. Shown fairly well in photo 4, though 
          more obvious in the field.
         
        
            
        
        
            
        
          I'm fortunate to have been in Utah for a couple weeks during the 
          occurence of such an interesting bird.
         
        
            
        
          -Ken Behrens 
        
          Brighton, Colorado 
  
         
       
      
      From Mark Stackhouse:  (Fri, 
      4 Sep 2006) 
        
      David Wheeler and I went out to the causeway today and located the Pacific 
      Golden-Plover without trouble in the previously reported location. Seeing 
      the bird in the field, if I were on the west coast, I wouldn't hesitate to 
      call it a Pacific Golden-Plover. That is good, since I had already reached 
      the same conclusion after reviewing Paul's excellent photos. I also posted 
      a query to the i.d. frontiers group, and (I think the first time I've seen 
      this happen with that group)  
      received a unanimous reply from ten experts that this is a Pacific 
      Golden-Plover. For the record, I'm certain that this is a different bird 
      than the one posted last week with the photo by Keith Evans - look at the 
      difference in the facial markings and the partially molted back as opposed 
      to the Higgins bird which has its back still in breeding plumage. 
       
      There are many features visible in Paul's photos that favor Pacific 
      Golden-Plover, several of which have been pointed out in other posts or 
      which you could infer by reading my earlier post on the Evans bird. I was 
      impressed by how worn the outer primaries are, and wondered  
      whether the short primary extension could just be an artifact of wear. The 
      worn outer primaries are decisive in this i.d., but not for that reason. 
      Although there are a number of coloration features that favor Pacific, 
      including the facial markings and spotting on the back (two pairs of gold 
      spots on the edge of each of the mantle feathers as opposed to only one 
      pair in breeding plumaged American), many of you know that I'm not a big 
      fan of coloration in tough identification problems like this. Structural 
      features, and things like molt sequence, are much more secure as field 
      marks. 
       
      If you look at the third of Paul's photos (the one with the wings spread), 
      you can see that the worn outer primaries contrast with the inner 
      primaries, which are fresh, even-tipped and unworn. The outer-most of 
      these fresh inner primaries is obviously longer than the next outer 
      primary, which is worn (if it they were fresh each primary would be a 
      little longer as you move out the wing). This bird appears to be about 
      halfway through molting its primaries. Neither the Pacific  
      nor the American Golden-Plovers molt their flight feathers during 
      migration. However, the Pacific starts its molt on the breeding grounds, 
      and finishes on the winter grounds after the migration. Americans don't 
      start molting their flight feathers until they reach the winter grounds. A 
      recent paper by Al Jaramillo states that, "...an autumn golden-plover in 
      wing molt in California, and probably anywhere in North America, is almost 
      certainly a Pacific." Because of the severe wear on the outer primaries, 
      this bird is probably a second-year bird, since these primaries would be 
      from the juvenile plumage acquired last summer rather than a pre-basic 
      molt last winter and thus older by several months. 
       
      An interesting bird and a great, well-documented, state-first record. 
       
      Good birding! 
       
      Mark Stackhouse 
    
       Comments from ID Frontiers sent in by Tim 
      Avery: 
       
      Kevin Karlson (one of the authors of the new shorebird guide) posted a 
      little about the PGPL being seen at the causeway, and I think it may be of 
      interest to everyone. Both his emails are pasted below:  [Tim Avery] 
       
      I have enjoyed all the discussion related to plumage of the Utah Pacific 
      Golden Plover that was shared by a number of shorebird experts, but nobody 
      other than Lee Evans referred to the very obvious structural differences 
      between Pacific Golden and American Golden Plover. Without 
      even looking at plumage, it took about two seconds of seeing the first 
      photo to realize that this was not an American Golden Plover. If anyone 
      spends some time studying the shape and structure of these two species, a 
      good number of questionable individual birds may be identified  
      without ever looking at feathers.  For Pacific Golden Plover 
      (compared to American Golden), the combination of a blocky head, large 
      bill and chunky, rounded body gives this species a profile similar to 
      Black-bellied Plover rather than AGPL. American Golden has a pigeon-like 
      head in shape, with a smaller, thinner bill. This smaller head and thinner 
      bill often looks proportionally small in relation to its body than that of 
      PGPL. The shorter rear quarters and primaries of PGPL further adds to a 
      more rounded, shorter body profile than that of AGPL. In some individuals, 
      such as this one, the very long legs, especially the tibia, creates a 
      lanky appearance to the structure of the bird, which is not seen in AGPL. 
      The combination of all these factors often seals the ID of a questionable 
      bird within seconds. Of course, feather analysis will 
      further solidify the ID, and allow for aging of most birds. 
       
      Sorry for this second posting, but I forgot to whole-heartedly agree with 
      Killian that the other bird in question from Utah birds photographed a 
      week earlier is the same individual as the bird shown in this post. You 
      don't need a close-up photo to see the same obvious structural characters 
      of PGPL, especially the very long legs, of the earlier bird. Sometimes a 
      more distant photo allows for better analysis of a birds overall structure 
      anyway. Another interesting point is that the observer stated that 
      "Attached is not a very good photo, but I'm trying to make it an American 
      Golden instead of a Black-bellied juvenile." In my previous post, I 
      mentioned that the structure of PGPL is often more similar to BBPL than 
      AGPL, which caused Keith Evans to 
      struggle with the ID. When you see a problematic Pluvialis plover, see if 
      it resembles BBPL in overall shape, with a blocky head and bulky, rounded, 
      somewhat shorter body shape, with noticeably long legs. If it does, give 
      it more scrutiny. 
       
      Kevin Karlson 
  
       
         
       |