Voting Comments 76-B-07

Voting Comments

Record #: 76-B-07

Short-billed Dowitcher

1st Round: 6-1
2nd Round: 2-5

1^st Round (6 Accept, 1 Reject)	2nd Round (2 Accept, 5 Reject)
010-02-2007. Sturts -- Accept Voice, description, and photographs all point toward the identification as a Short-billed Dowitcher is correct.	02-01-2009. Sturts--Reject, specific identification not established I'm changing my vote because of additional identification information provided by Cliff 1. Call notes are not always reliable. 2. An evaluation of the photographs by Greg Gillson, that in his opinion both 46-B-06 and 76-B-07 are worn adult Long-billed Dowitchers
10/3/2007. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established First I'd like to comment on the state of molt. I believe these birds are in worn alternate plumage and do not show signs of active molt. It's typical for dowitchers to retain varying numbers of basic wing coverts in alternate plumage and I think that's what we're looking at here. The rest of the upperparts clearly show alternate feathers. I can't see the tertials on one of the birds but it's possible that they are displaced by wind (observer states that it was windy). The bird in the bottom photo (the one facing right) appears to be a typical worn Long-billed Dowitcher. Points in favor of Long-billed include: mid flanks with few or no markings while breast and rear flank have some black markings remaining squared off ends of black centers on wing coverts (not sure this mark is diagnostic but it appears to be solid) very wide black bars on tail that are more than 2X the width of the white bars which is diagnostic for Long-billed (even in this overexposed photo which should make the white appear more extensive) Now for the second individual. This bird appears to have fairly intense rufous underparts despite the fact that the description is to the contrary. The white undertail coverts with black spots seems good for Short-billed. The tail appears to have black bars wider than the white but I think it is still within the range for Short-billed. I can't make out the shape of the centers of the wing coverts or the extent of flank markings. The written description of breast markings shaped like "chevrons" doesn't help. Given the lack of detail visible in the photo and the limited plumage description in the written report I'm not comfortable that Long-billed Dowitcher can be eliminated by plumage based on the documentation presented here. The description of the call is problematic for me. No distinction was made between species when comparing the call to that of a Yellowlegs. To my ear Greater Yellowlegs has a call quality more similar to Long-billed. Also the description says "a 3-note rising dee-dee-dee". I've never heard of a Short-billed call "rising", either in pitch or volume. The rising nature of the call combined with the written description of "dee" for each syllable at least suggests the possibility of a Greater Yellowlegs that was not seen at the time. For these reasons I'm not comfortable with this record and am voting to reject it.	1/28/09. Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established One of the birds is a Long-billed, the other looks like a Long-billed. Call described is not consistent with known calls of SBDO and describes Greater Yellowlegs fairly well, especially the "rising" nature of the call.
010-06-2007. chuck trost -- Accept While the described calls were not how short-billeds sound to me, the description and pictures seemed adequate for this species. The tail pattern especially was convincing to me.	02-02-2009. chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established I'm changing my vote, mostly due to Cliff's comments. The tail barring looks more like a long-billed to me and the rising "dee-dee-dee" call bothers me too.
010-12-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Accept The vocalizations described are diagnostic for Short-billed Dowitcher.	02-01-2009. Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established I've changed my vote to reject this one, based on very helpful and instructive comments about Long-billed and Short-billed Dowitcher identification by Cliff Weisse and Greg Gillson.
10/22/07. Charles Swift -- Accept Voice is diagnostic. Photos are supportive. I don't see the molt mentioned but the primary extension appears good as well as the "stripey" upperparts and pointed but worn alternate coverts. [Interesting that most of these reports are of the more difficult alternate plumage birds - where are the easy juveniles!]	2/1/09. Charles Swift--Reject, specific identification not established I'm switching my vote to reject. This is a very similar situation to record 46-B-06 and my comments for that record apply here.
11-04-2007. Carlisle -- Accept Voice diagnostic but I could not discern any certain plumage criteria.	2-3-09. Carlisle--Accept I struggle with the dee dee dee description but calls can sound like different letter combinations to different people. I also struggle with the tail pattern and other points that Cliff mentioned ... BUT, I'm not comfortable assessing the plumage criteria in these photos and the call is diagnostic.
13 Nov 2007. Darren Clark -- Accept Well-written report that details the physical description of the bird as well as the vocalization of the bird.	02-06-2009. Darren Clark--Accept Same comments as previous.