#703 - Dream Yr update (long)
GREGORY.B.MILLER@bge.com
Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:54:51 -0400
Howdy all!
Sorry for the delay in posting. Apparently, my post from
yesterday morning never went through. If it does somehow make it
in the interim, sorry, it's duplicate information.
Tick #703 comes from Jamaica Bay this weekend (but it was
not the Broad-billed Sandpiper--see below)! On Sunday morning,
some European birders found a Curlew Sandpiper near bench #8 on
the West Pond. Excited with the news, I asked them where it was
and they offered to help refind it. Several other birders saw
the bird, looked at the bill, and dubbed it a basic-plumaged
Dunlin (including myself). I even walked up around the corner
for a second look at the bird where I was pleasantly surprised to
meet California birding friend Tom Grey. But I should have been
more careful with my ID...
Five hours later, almost all of the other birders had left,
except Tom and I. We had pointed out the Dunlin to at least a
dozen other birders. I took an obligatory look again at the
bird. The supercilium didn't look quite right--it was white and
distinct. How had I overlooked this before?. It was feeding in
belly-deep water, too (Curlew Sandpipers sometimes feed in deeper
water than Dunlins). Hmmm.
I looked at the bird more intently. Suddenly, a breeze blew
up the wing tips revealing a white rump. A white rump? On a
Dunlin? No way. But did I see only a portion of the rump or the
whole thing? I waited and was rewarded. The entire rump was
white. Trying to control my excitement, I looked at the legs.
This was either gonna be a Stilt Sandpiper or a Curlew Sandpiper
with a white rump. The legs were jet black in their entirety and
shorter than the Stilt Sandpipers we had seen on the other side
of the pond. Now I'm almost certain.
Back to the bill--the feature that originally led me to
believe it was a Dunlin. Tom and I studied the bird as it fed
and then bathed. Several times we viewed the bill with a perfect
side profile. The bill was very slightly curved the length of
the bill, with the curvature increasing near the tip. Without
the side profile, however, it was easy to pass off as a Dunlin
bill.
The back was medium grayish; the wings were a shade darker.
The underparts were unmarked and pure white. Only faint
streaking was at lower end of neck. Some whitish feathering
extended upwards in front of the shoulder. In good light, a
faint tinge of reddish appeared on the sides of the neck and
crown. Bill, iris, and legs were all black. The bird never
raised its wings or flew the whole time, so I could not verify
the wing striping or lack thereof.
This was the first basic-plumage Curlew Sandpiper I've ever
seen and the only one which I've ever intially mistaken bill
shape. My only other experiences have been with molting birds
and fairly obvious bills (but maybe the bills were more obvious
because I knew they should be with the hard to err on reddish
splotches on the already identified Curlew Sandpiper?). I would
love to hear what some of you have to say about bill shape who
have more experience with this bird...
Some of you may be wondering about the Broad-billed
Sandpiper. And especially those of you who get BIRDCHAT who saw
the post on Saturday evening of a Maryland birder who reportedly
saw the bird on Saturday afternoon. Well, that Maryland birder
was me. But you will not hear the now-familiar CHA-CHING of this
lister for his dream year for this bird.
First of all, I was not 100% certain of its ID, having
missed seeing the most important field mark--the split
supercilium. There was a suggestion of one, I just could not
make it out with the view I had. But I saw enough on the bird to
merit calling Lloyd Spitalnik Saturday evening. He felt certain
enough with my description to post the message to BIRDCHAT. Even
if I was 100% certain, this ultra-rarity would not make my
yearlist without New York Birder's Seal of Approval. To my
knowledge, no one there with the necessary clout has seen the
return of this bird.
Secondly, I have no photographs. I can't believe I did not
even take a camera or camcorder. I rushed out the door with
scope and binoculars, my only intent was seeing the bird. This
oversight in preparation, however, turned out to be a grievous
error--one I'll regret for a long time to come...
About 50% of the birders I talked to felt the upper split of
the supercilium was faint. The other 50% thought it was obvious.
Of the "obvious" group, about 10% said if you saw the bird you
could not possibly miss it. Many people asked me about the
details of my sighting. After hearing, many thought that I had
definitely seen the bird, some were dubious, and a couple birders
even replied, "You did not see the bird".
<caution ahead. I'm on my soapbox> I had to chuckle inside
at the latter response. I'm always surprised at this sort of
reply. How did they know I was close enough or not to even see
this feature or what about the heat distortion, etc? (they
didn't ask) Were they going to totally write off a bird with
this unusual a description, even if it was not "the" bird, just
because someone saw it who they did not know? Oh, well. I hope
I never reach this exalted status as a birder <grin>. And it'd
really be nice if the bird showed up in the morning when all the
other important birders are checking for it instead of making
appearances in the heat of the afternoon at low tide when only
unknown, derelict, out-of-state listers are present... Sorry
folks. I shouldn't be so caustic and waste everyone else's time
here. I'm sure they did not mean to convey such arrogance. <off
soapbox>
Finally, I'm getting my sketches and notes on the bird
scanned and will have them posted at my website (hopefully by the
end of the week). It was a fun weekend of birding at a terrific
locale. Other good birds included a Eurasian Widgeon, a Merlin,
and a couple of Hudsonian Godwits.
-Greg Miller
Lusby, MD