In regards to this hummingbird, I have been in contact with Sherri Williamson (Author of Peterson's Hummingbirds of North America), a known authority on the subject (I believe most people would agree) and it appears that Tyler Bell has had the same idea. Since this find is being made public, it may interest the readers of this list to know that the identification of this bird is not without controversy.

Things about this bird have been bothering me from the beginning, but especially after I saw George Jett's images taken on New Year's eve since the lighting was much better than on some of the early photos. When it was captured and measurements were taken that all fell within the norms for Rufous, I decided to send the images on to Sherri. Her first response to me was similar to the one below. She stated that at first glance the bird appeared to be a very dull imm. female Rufous, but on closer look there were a number of things that were out of place in the plumage of this individual. I have forwarded her other images as well as the measurements taken in the hand. She has stated that she will pass them to others for more opinions. I know that other authorities have also been contacted directly by those involved with the identification of this bird and hopefully their opinions will be posted here as well. 

I have copied Sherri's response to Tyler below since I was included in the discussion: 

"Hi, Tyler,

I'm cc'ing Ed Boyd as he's been sending me photos of what I belatedly realized 
is the same bird you asked about.

As your measurements show, this is definitely not a Broad-tailed - the tail's 
far too short. However, the markings aren't consistent with a pure Rufous, and I 
believe it's most likely a Rufous X Calliope for the following reasons:

* lack of rufous in face and lower back/uppertail coverts
* way too much green in the tail, especially in R2 (which should be extensively 
rufous basally in Rufous)
* short R1s producing double-rounded tail shape
* primaries broader and more curved than in Rufous.

So you can see what I'm talking about on the primaries, I added a composite 
image to Flickr showing the mystery bird's wing compared to Rufous and Calliope:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2164260451_28bb5c0aaa.jpg?v=0

Comparing this bird's linear measurements to SABO's banding data for CAHU, the 
wing chord equals the maximum we've recorded for HY females (n=7, mean = 43.1). 
The culmen and tail are out of CAHU range compared to our data (culmen mean = 
15.3, tail mean = 23.0), but this is common when there's significant disparity 
between the measurements of the parent species. Both values are near published 
means for RUHU (Calder 1993).

The measurements of the AHY-M CAHU X RUHU hybrid documented on this page show a 
similar relationship to the parent species' measurements:

http://www.trochilids.com/hybrids/colwell.html

...while this hybrid male is more similar in measurements to Calliope:

http://www.trochilids.com/hybrids/batchelder_ruxca.html

If there's any lingering doubt, voice may be helpful as in this ID controversy:

http://tzunun.home.mindspring.com/sonogram.htm

Though I know this isn't nearly as exciting from a birding standpoint as 
Maryland's first Broad-tailed, it's quite likely the first documented *female* 
hybrid of this combination.

Regards,

Sheri L. Williamson
Bisbee, Arizona
www.fieldguidetohummingbirds.com

James Tyler Bell wrote:
> Paul & Sheri:
>  
> I hate to keep hounding you both but you are the experts that I can turn 
> to in a pinch. A friend of ours noticed a hummingbird at her feeder this 
> afternoon on the western shore of the Chesapeake in Maryland. The 
> initial ID was Selasphorus and it looks like that's a pretty good fit. 
> We had a debate after the hummingbird departed at dusk and can't decide 
> whether it's Rufous/Allen's or the much more unlikely Broad-tailed 
> Hummingbird, which would be a first record for Maryland. Would you do me 
> the favor of looking at the photos that I took at this web site and 
> offer an opinion. If it is a Rufous, the homeowner, will likely 
> only offer visitation to a select few county listers. If it's an Allen's 
> or Broad-tailed, then it poses a more difficult decision.
>  
> http://flickr.com/photos/8671193@N08/
>  
> Apologies in advance for the large file size on the photos. I had the 
> camera set to the largest jpeg setting and uploaded them directly from 
> [the owner's] computer without shrinking them. They're about 3 meg each.
>  
> Thanks in advance,
> Tyler
> 
> 
> Tyler"

* * * * * * * * * * * End of Sherri's message

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Mark Hoffman <> 

> For those interested in pics of the subject bird, they are at: 
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/wcbirding/ruhu_20071230 
> 
> Click on the images for a larger version. 
> 
> Mark Hoffman 
> 
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: Jane Kostenko 
> 
> > An adult female hummingbird was banded and identified as a Rufous 
> > Hummingbird on January 1, 2008. The bird was discovered on December 28 
> > by a casual birder and is making frequent daily trips to a private feeder 
> > in northern St. Mary's County. 
> > 
> > Because of the residential nature of the property, the homeowners 
> > understandably require that they be present for any viewings and will 
> > make individual arrangements by email with birders to do so. 
> > 
> > Please respond OFF LIST to either  or 
> >  and we will forward your request to the 
> > homeowners. 
> > 
> > Jne Kostenko 
> > California, MD 
> >  
> > 
>