Hi Fred:

One thing I think I can say with a high degree of certainty ... it's 
not a Greater. Check out photo Scaup/scaup011308 018.jpg where it is 
looking directly at you. The nail on the bill is extremely narrow. A 
Greater would have a very notable much wider nail.

Now, note that I did not say that it was a Lesser ... just that it's 
not a (pure) Greater ...

Time to consider the dreaded "H" word ... ???

Phil


At 11:08 01/13/2008, Fred Pierce wrote:
>Having received another email voting for Greater Scaup, I decided to
>postpone breakfast and go photograph the beast. It was still moored near the
>pavilion. Unfortunately the photos aren't too sharp, no doubt due to
>condensation - I was to hungry to worry about it:
>
>http://www.avialantic.com/nature/bird_photos/scaup
>
>I'm flip-flopping back to favoring Greater, but still not sure. All the
>Lessers I've seen have had the head crease quite pronounced whereas this one
>only shows it sometimes. It was actively diving though, which Sibley shows
>tends to flatten the head. The front view seems more like a Lesser to me. I
>dunno.
>
>I included the link that Phil sent me which shows the two together. Would
>that they were always so cooperative.
>
>As an aside, I think feedback on ID's should be posted to the group, since
>we all tend to learn from these discussions, don't we? Although I'm pretty
>casual in my birding, I do try to be conscientious in my postings, since
>people use the info for various tabulations etc. and don't mind at all being
>questioned.
>
>Anyway, doesn't the greater/lesser stuff do damage to the Lessor's
>self-esteem? Especially if it's referred to as "just a Lesser." I think a
>less demeaning appellation is in order.

==================================
Phil Davis      Davidsonville, Maryland     USA
                 mailto:[log in to unmask]
==================================