Content preview: ?voice can be used as a very reliable and easy field mark?
This is certainly true in the US where you typically see them in flocks
during
migration. Not so useful when I saw the bird in SA several years ago, when
there was one dowitcher among hundreds of other noisy waders. ID then
becomes
very challenging. [...]
Content analysis details: (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust
[150.101.137.141 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:41:16 -0500
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1
Subject: Birding-Aus Digest, Vol 13, Issue 12
X-BeenThere:
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "BIRDING-AUS is a forum for anyone with an interest in Australian
wild birds. " <birding-aus.birding-aus.org>
List-Unsubscribe:
<http://birding-aus.org/mailman/options/birding-aus_birding-aus.org>,
<=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <=help>
List-Subscribe:
<http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org>,
<=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To:
Sender: "Birding-Aus" <>
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cloud3.emwd.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - cse.unsw.edu.au
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - birding-aus.org
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cloud3.emwd.com: acl_c_authenticated_local_user:
mailman/mailman
=93voice can be used as a very reliable and easy field mark=94
This is certainly true in the US where you typically see them in flocks dur=
ing migration. Not so useful when I saw the bird in SA several years ago, w=
hen there was one dowitcher among hundreds of other noisy waders. ID then b=
ecomes very challenging.
Paul Coddington
On 13 Nov 2014, at 3:30 am, wrote:
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:58:10 +1100
> From: "cgregory123 ." <>
> To: birdingaus mailing list <>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Long-billed Dowitcher on Lake Tutchewop
> Message-ID:
> <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8
> =
> Here is an interesting article on the difficulty of distinguishing between
> the Long and Short-billed Dowitcher species and a guide on to how to go
> about it in the field.
> =
> http://www.surfbirds.com/ID%20Articles/dowitchers1005/dowitchers.html
> =
> I've picked out a couple of points the authors make.
> =
> "To make matters worse, many birders, including seasoned birders, rely on
> habitat preference as a "field mark". Not only is this an useless field
> mark during migration when both species occur side-by-side and in habitats
> that they are not "expected" to be in, but it also masks any information
> regarding local movements of dowitchers between habitats."
> =
> "One difference, as pointed out by Putnam (2005), is that Long-billeds mo=
lt
> their primaries during transit whereas Short-billeds wait until they arri=
ve
> at their wintering grounds to molt their primaries."
> =
> "The best field mark for distinguishing the two dowitcher species is voic=
e.
> Short-billed gives a "call *tututu*, a staccato series of low, musical
> notes a bit faster than but similar to those of a Lesser Yellowlegs"
> (Paulson, 1993). Long-billed typically gives a higher pitched *keek* or
> *peep* call often repeated several to numerous times in rapid succession.
> The difference in voice is regarded as a nearly fail-proof field mark, and
> over the course of our studies."
> =
> Cheers
> Chris Gregory
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
