Re: Gulls, gulls and more gulls

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paulae2156@aol.com: "Re: Re[4]: The Conowingo Gull and the Records Committee"
• Previous message: Kathy Klimkiewicz: "Re[4]: The Conowingo Gull and the Records Committee"
• Maybe in reply to: Fran Saunders: "Gulls, gulls and more gulls"
• Next in thread: Norm Saunders: "Re: Gulls, gulls and more gulls"

     That could be a possibility but an even greater one is that everyone 
     wasn't necessarily looking at the same individual with so many other 
     gulls in the area.
     
     Cheers,
     Kathy Klimkiewicz


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Gulls, gulls and more gulls
Author:  mdosprey@ARI.Net at NBS-Internet-Gateway
Date:    2/13/98 7:49 PM


     
Rick Blom wrote:
     
>         In a year or two, when the committee has voted on this
>         record, and  published the results, there will be another opinion to 
add to
>       the debate. It may even be a better opinion, although that it 
>       not always the case.
> 
All right then, after some thought I have another 
opinion....Since some of us were so certain of some of the 
field marks and since there seems to be a confusion of field 
marks, could the bird be a hybrid?
     
Fran
     
--------------------------------
Fran Saunders
Maryland Ornithological Society
State Web Site Director
saunderf@ari.net
http://www2.ari.net/saunderf/mos/mos.html
     
     

• Next message: Paulae2156@aol.com: "Re: Re[4]: The Conowingo Gull and the Records Committee"
• Previous message: Kathy Klimkiewicz: "Re[4]: The Conowingo Gull and the Records Committee"
• Maybe in reply to: Fran Saunders: "Gulls, gulls and more gulls"
• Next in thread: Norm Saunders: "Re: Gulls, gulls and more gulls"