Idaho Bird Records Committee Rarities Report Form

Species: Least Flycatcher (2 singing individuals)

Reporter: Jay Carlisle

989 W. Sherwood, Boise, ID 83706

jaycarlisle@boisestate.edu

Other Observers: Heidi Ware

Date Report Prepared: 6-18-10

Date Sighting Occurred: 6-15-10

Locality of Observation: Richfield diversion off Big Wood River, Lincoln County

Habitat: Cottonwood stands along river

Conditions: partly cloudy & cool (50’s), wind < 10mph

Did you take notes? no

Did you consult a field guide or other reference work? no

What guide(s) or reference(s) did you consult?

Description: Both birds were heard singing their distinctive & repetitive/monotonous ‘Che-bec’ song. When we observed the first bird, we could also see that it was a ‘compact’ Empidonax – relatively short wings & tail – and that it had a short bill that was not narrow but also not especially wide.

Behavior: The first bird was first heard singing and then seen repeatedly foraging & singing in Cottonwoods. The second bird was only heard singing.

How and when did you positively identify the bird, and what clinched the identification for you? The song was the clincher. The short wing & tail extension were also helpful.

How did you eliminate similar species, and what were they? Other Empidonax flycatchers are all candidates but the song, the small bill, and the short wings AND tail eliminate other species. Of the species most likely to confused, Dusky has a longer, narrower bill and a long tail; Hammond’s has a narrow bill and long wings; and Willow has a larger bill and no obvious eye ring.

Experience with this species (and similar species): I have observed 100s to 1000s of all the western Empidonax (and smaller #s of all the eastern species as well) both in the field & in the hand (via migration banding). Thus, I’m very familiar with the songs, calls, plumage, and structure of the Empidonax.

General birding experience: extensive; 14+ years in US and Latin America

Were photo(s), video, and/or audio obtained by you? (If yes, please include or attach) No.