Hello All,
        Yesterday, I had 2 brief looks at a Baypoll type warbler.  The first
look was long enough to get it narrowed down to baypoll.  The second look
was from an underneath angle and confirmed that the bird had dark legs.
Other features I noted include a yellow-green head and back (greener on the
back), 2 strong white wingbars, white underneath from chest to tail.  I did
not note any streaking on the flanks or chest and the sighting was to quick
to pick up on any of the finer points such as eyerings or eyestripes.  I was
left with a decent 'gizz' feel for the bird.
        So I consulted Dunn and Garrett's Warblers, where I found the
statement under Blackpoll Warbler (Bare Parts) that immature Blackpolls have
duller, darker legs and the picture of an immature on pg 390 that shows a
bird with very dark legs.  So my question is how reliable of a field mark is
the leg color in separating immature Bay-Breasted and Blackpoll warblers?
        Also, I seem to recall an article (maybe in Birding?) that tackled
this ID problem.  Does anyone know what issue this was in?

Thanks for any help,
Glen Lovelace III
Seaford, DE