[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Field Note on Calliope Hummer



Birders:
    I spent quite a bit of effort writing, and then editing, a proposed
General Field Note for The Chat on the female Calliope Hummingbird that
spent the winter a few years ago at a feeder near Hampstead. Many of us
saw the bird.

The field note was sent to several reviewers out of state who are
familiar with Calliope Hummingbird, and they indicated that there were
some discrepancies in the field marks as described. At least one person
stated that they believed the bird I described was not a Calliope.
He/she suggested that Rufous or Allen's was not completed ruled out.
He/she, or another reviewer, stated that they probably would not have
accepted the report if he/she were on the records committee.

In theory, I could have gone ahead and told Will Cook to publish the
report, as it was suitable for publication. But, as at least two
reviewers have concerns about the proper ID, I will withdraw the paper.
Some folks would want to see the paper published anyway, to get the
facts of the bird out there in print (no matter what it was). I do not
wish to do that. The real problem, as I see it, is how one describes a
female hummingbird. One reviewer didn't like my use of the word
"emerald" green. I used that word to differentiate it from bronze green,
or yellow green, etc., as the bird appeared to have a bluer green than
on most hummingbirds. Also, how do you describe the length of the bill
in a hummingbird? How do you describe any degree of curvature of the
bill? How do you describe the very pale rusty flank color that was
buffy-looking at certain angles?

I think most folks agreed on the ID as Calliope, but some were concerned
because of the medium-length bill (books say Calliope has a short bill).
Yet, if you look at supposed photos of female Calliope in Audubon guides
and the Western Stokes guide, I see a medium length bill (the bill
length of the male is short). As I recall, the bird at Hampstead
appeared to match the field marks of the supposed female Calliopes in
these photo guides.

The NC Bird Records Committee accepted this bird as a Calliope, after
accepting the photo of the immature male a year or two earlier at a New
Bern feeder. I do not know if the Committee would want to re-review the
Hampstead record in light of the reviewers comments. I think most of the
Committee members saw the bird. I personally would take the reviewers
comments with some grain of salt in that they did not see the bird in
question, and they are comments on my description of field marks, which
would differ from Will Cook's description, or Jeff Pippen's description,
or Jack Peachey's, or anyone else's who also saw the bird! After all, my
description differed from theirs, and we certainly were looking at the
same bird.

The only photo that I saw of the bird showed a pale reddish or pinkish
color to the underparts caused by the sun reflecting off the red feeder.
The true color of the back could not be discerned from the photo. Thus,
the true color of the underparts and the back are not shown in the
photo.

I shall leave it to you whether you want to keep Calliope on your state
or life list. I saw the bird well, especially away from the feeder.
There is no question in my mind that the bird was a female Calliope,
though I have little experience with it out West (several males and one
female). I am experienced with Rufous, and have seen a few female
Allen's, Costa's, Broad-tailed, etc. Based on what I have read about
Calliope marks, plus seeing photos of females of all of these species in
a number of field guides, I remain convinced the bird was a Calliope.

If someone else wants to try publishing the field note, go ahead. But, I
think you will run into the same roadblock that I did. I simply do not
feel comfortable publishing a field note that may cause some hummingbird
experts to say "That doesn't sound like a Calliope to me" or "I don't
think that was a Calliope they saw".

Imagine someone describing a mystery female hummingbird. You are reading
one person's description of the bird (which would certainly differ from
another person's description of that same bird). You have not seen the
bird, but you are asked to make an ID of the female based on a
description.  Could you really confirm someone's ID of such a bird?
Might not some parts of the description run counter to what you perceive
as the field marks?  Female hummingbirds can certainly be identified in
the field, but descriptions of them are so subtle that one must choose
the wording so carefully, such as the exact shade of green on the back,
or the exact amount of spotting on the throat, and whether the spots
were brown, black, gray, etc., that it may be asking too much for
outsiders to review such descriptions. What if persons on a California
pelagic trip saw a white-rumped, dark storm-petrel that they identified
as a Band-rumped, and sent me details to review? I have seen 100+
Band-rumpeds, and know them from Wilson's and Leach's. Let's say the
description from the one person who sent details had some things that
differed from what I perceive as field marks of the flight style, shape
of the bird, size of the bird, etc. I might have concerns about the ID,
but yet most or all of the birders on the boat say it was a Band-rumped.
They were there to see the flight style, size, subtleties of coloration,
etc., that might not have been expressed perfectly in the written
description that I saw.

Certainly, we do want experts to review such reports, and we do value
their opinions. But, in many cases, it's a matter of "You have to see
the bird in person" to make the call, not a call made by someone who
never saw the bird.

Harry LeGrand
--
Harry LeGrand
NC Natural Heritage Program
1615 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1615
(919) 715-8687 (work)
FAX: 919-715-3085
e-mail: harry.legrand@ncmail.net