It’s a juvenile and it’s a Long-billed. Tail pattern is
irrelevant – the tertial centers are unmarked and that is
diagnostic. Juvys are easy because of the difference in tertial
pattern, internally marked in SBDO, plain in LBDO.

Cliff

And, as I look at it a year later, the fringing
doesn’t look crisp enough to be juvenile? And it seems paler
overall than it should for juvenile SBDO?

On May 4, 2024, at 2:17 PM, scott urban
via groups.io <scotturban610@…> wrote:



The tail striping looks to be about 50:50,
which according to Kaufman is useless.

On May 4, 2024, at 2:05 PM, scott
urban via groups.io
<scotturban610@…> wrote:



Here is an October bird that I put in my SBDO
folder, calling it a juvenile. Thoughts?

<short-billed-dowitcher-juvenile-10-8-23-BC-DSCN3273.jpg>

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at
11:53 AM Cliff Weisse via groups.io
<cliffandlisa=octobersetters.com@groups.io>
wrote:

I’m not sure of the full extent of the variation
in those field marks, which can be complicated by
molt in the case of Pp projection. I did try to
lighten it up to see the tail on the bird labeled
SBDO but it’s just not visible.

Cliff

On 5/4/24 11:39AM, scott urban wrote:

Thank you Cliff, I appreciate your
thoughts!  Regarding the bird I labelled LBDO, I
was relying heavily on the tail striping, with
the black being much wider than the white, which
according to Kaufman is a fairly certain
diagnosis? That, and to the extent that primary
length is actually reliable, it seems shorter
than the other bird, which seems to extend
beyond the tail, even though it is leaning
forward. I wish the tail striping pattern was
visible on that bird! 

 I’m going to sit down and stare at
me pictures this afternoon and if I see any
others that could be useful I will post them!  

On May 4, 2024, at 10:59
AM, Cliff Weisse via groups.io <cliffandlisa@…>
wrote:



Scott,

I’ve actually looked at those photos quite
a few times. Timing is OK for Short-billed
adults but the plumage is worn at this time
of year so I’m not sure you can reliably
identify the breast markings on the one
labeled SBDO as spots. To my eye they seem
elongated, not round spots, so I don’t know
if they’re just partially worn off bars
(which doesn’t mean it can’t be a
Short-billed).

<breast side.jpg>

The markings on the flanks are limited to the
front (and possibly rear?) of the bird which
fits Long-billed – SBDO tends to be marked
more evenly on the flanks. The throat does
seem lightly spotted which would be good for
SBDO but again, I’m not sure that isn’t a
result of wear. Underparts show zero white
background, favoring LBDO. Any chance you have
any more photos? With bill visible?

Conclusion? FWIW, I wouldn’t rule out the
possibility that this is a SBDO but I’m
honestly not comfortable making that call
based only on this photo. This is one I
would have tried hard to flush and hoped for
a call.

Now let’s look at the Long-billed in your
photo. In some ways it might be a better
candidate for Short-billed than the other
one. There is white on the belly, the throat
is lightly marked, and the flanks are evenly
barred front to back. Are they both SBDOs? I
don’t think so but can I say that with
certainty? No.

Cliff

On 5/4/24 09:57AM, scott urban wrote:

Hi Cliff, thanks so much for
sharing this additional info! 

<long-billed-dowitcher-ID-7-16-23-DSCN1172.jpg>

<Short-billed-dowitcher-ID-7-16-23-DSCN1165.jpg>

Attached are two photos from Black’s Creek
last summer, including one that I (still)
feel is SBDO.  Any thoughts you might have
regarding this bird, especially what makes
it NOT a LBDO?  Thx!

On Sat,
May 4, 2024 at 9:00 AM Cliff Weisse via
groups.io
<cliffandlisa=octobersetters.com@groups.io>
wrote:

On 5/3/24 10:36AM, Louisa Evers
wrote:

Just going
to call them all LBDOs.

You nailed it Louisa. The opinions
were unanimous – they’re all
Long-billeds. I read that Birch/Lee
article on Surfbirds the year before
it was published in Birding and I was
really excited. I started using their
proposed field marks and quickly
realized I was finding way too many
Short-billeds. That’s why I posted the
photos to ID Frontiers – I knew I was
getting them wrong and I was willing
to take my lumps to learn.

Forget the Birding article. Except
for the kink in the bill of SBDO
it’s almost useless for field
identification. It was widely and
extensively criticized when it came
out but Birding never published the
criticism. As Scott pointed out, the
first pair of birds in my photos
seems to illustrate the difference
in loral angles proposed by
Birch/Lee but it actually
demonstrates why so many experts
criticized it. Loral angle doesn’t
even work for the photos in their
own article. Here’s an excerpt from
an email posted on ID Frontiers by
Ron Pittaway, one of the experts
listed in the article:

“7. Loral Angle ID: The loral
angles shown on page 36 used to
distinguish the two species are of
questionable value. Loral angles
should not to be trusted in the
field and are of limited value in
photos. According to the graph on
page 36 the diagnostic loral angle
is less than < 12 degrees for
Long-billed Dowitcher and greater
than > 27 degrees for
Short-billed Dowitcher. Most
birds, however, including the very
examples in Figure A (18 degrees)
and Figure B (22 degrees) fall in
the wide 12 ­ 27 degrees overlap
zone. If the bird’s head is turned
a tiny bit the loral angle is off.
The loral angle suggests precision
and objectivity; however, it is
variable and subject to incorrect
interpretations. For example, the
bird labeled a Long-billed (it’s a
Short-billed as discussed in # 1
but corrected online) on page 34
keys out incorrectly to be a
Long-billed using loral angle.
Jean Iron and I went through The
Shorebird Guide (O’Brien et al.
2006) keying out dowitchers using
loral angles. Some Short-billed
Dowitchers keyed out as
Long-billed and vice versa. Try it
yourself. This would be a good
project for a birding class to do
in the classroom using photos and
comparing results.“

Based on comments in eBird
checklists birders are still,
understandably, being led astray by
that article. Hence this post. If
you don’t want to end up getting
even more confused about dowitcher
ID (like I did), go back to the old
field marks. They still work. Once
you have good understanding of them
many SBDOs are pretty straight
forward to identify, but many
aren’t. When you think you have a
Short-billed try to flush it and
hope it calls to confirm the ID. If
you’re not comfortable being unable
to ID, or misidentifying, some
individuals then dowitcher ID is not
for you. Just call them all
“Dowitcher sp” because you will
undoubtedly get some of them wrong. 

I don’t want to discourage anyone
from trying to ID dowitchers. It’s
still one of my favorite things to
do. I love that it’s hard to figure
them out and that it adds to our
understanding of species
distribution during migration. And
they’ll let you walk right up to
them for in your face views. My
guess is SBDO is more regular in SW
Idaho than the one accepted record
in eBird suggests. If you want to
find them do yourself a favor and
don’t waste your time on field marks
that don’t work.

Cliff

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

Still have Cassin’s Finches coming in for sunflower seeds. And, saw my first Osprey of the season earlier today & 2 more since. Others: Swainson’s Hawk, Spotted Towhee, Song Sparrow, DE Junco, Tree Swallows, White Pelican, RB Nuthatch & Red-naped Sapsucker. 

Brian Carrigan 
Blackfoot 

I’m not sure of the full extent of the variation in those field
marks, which can be complicated by molt in the case of Pp
projection. I did try to lighten it up to see the tail on the bird
labeled SBDO but it’s just not visible.

Cliff

Thank you Cliff, I appreciate your thoughts!
 Regarding the bird I labelled LBDO, I was relying heavily on
the tail striping, with the black being much wider than the
white, which according to Kaufman is a fairly certain diagnosis?
That, and to the extent that primary length is actually
reliable, it seems shorter than the other bird, which seems to
extend beyond the tail, even though it is leaning forward. I
wish the tail striping pattern was visible on that bird! 

 I’m going to sit down and stare at me pictures
this afternoon and if I see any others that could be useful I
will post them!  

On May 4, 2024, at 10:59 AM, Cliff
Weisse via groups.io
<cliffandlisa@…> wrote:



Scott,

I’ve actually looked at those photos quite a few times.
Timing is OK for Short-billed adults but the plumage is worn
at this time of year so I’m not sure you can reliably
identify the breast markings on the one labeled SBDO as
spots. To my eye they seem elongated, not round spots, so I
don’t know if they’re just partially worn off bars (which
doesn’t mean it can’t be a Short-billed).

<breast side.jpg>

The markings on the flanks are limited to the front (and
possibly rear?) of the bird which fits Long-billed – SBDO
tends to be marked more evenly on the flanks. The throat does
seem lightly spotted which would be good for SBDO but again,
I’m not sure that isn’t a result of wear. Underparts show zero
white background, favoring LBDO. Any chance you have any more
photos? With bill visible?

Conclusion? FWIW, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that
this is a SBDO but I’m honestly not comfortable making that
call based only on this photo. This is one I would have
tried hard to flush and hoped for a call.

Now let’s look at the Long-billed in your photo. In some
ways it might be a better candidate for Short-billed than
the other one. There is white on the belly, the throat is
lightly marked, and the flanks are evenly barred front to
back. Are they both SBDOs? I don’t think so but can I say
that with certainty? No.

Cliff

On 5/4/24 09:57AM, scott urban
wrote:

Hi Cliff, thanks so much for sharing this
additional info! 

<long-billed-dowitcher-ID-7-16-23-DSCN1172.jpg>

<Short-billed-dowitcher-ID-7-16-23-DSCN1165.jpg>

Attached are two photos from Black’s Creek last summer,
including one that I (still) feel is SBDO.  Any thoughts
you might have regarding this bird, especially what makes
it NOT a LBDO?  Thx!

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at
9:00 AM Cliff Weisse via groups.io <cliffandlisa=octobersetters.com@groups.io>
wrote:

On 5/3/24 10:36AM, Louisa Evers wrote:

Just going to call them all
LBDOs.

You nailed it Louisa. The opinions were unanimous –
they’re all Long-billeds. I read that Birch/Lee
article on Surfbirds the year before it was published
in Birding and I was really excited. I started using
their proposed field marks and quickly realized I was
finding way too many Short-billeds. That’s why I
posted the photos to ID Frontiers – I knew I was
getting them wrong and I was willing to take my lumps
to learn.

Forget the Birding article. Except for the kink in
the bill of SBDO it’s almost useless for field
identification. It was widely and extensively
criticized when it came out but Birding never
published the criticism. As Scott pointed out, the
first pair of birds in my photos seems to illustrate
the difference in loral angles proposed by Birch/Lee
but it actually demonstrates why so many experts
criticized it. Loral angle doesn’t even work for the
photos in their own article. Here’s an excerpt from
an email posted on ID Frontiers by Ron Pittaway, one
of the experts listed in the article:

“7. Loral Angle ID: The loral angles shown on
page 36 used to distinguish the two species are of
questionable value. Loral angles should not to be
trusted in the field and are of limited value in
photos. According to the graph on page 36 the
diagnostic loral angle is less than < 12
degrees for Long-billed Dowitcher and greater than
> 27 degrees for Short-billed Dowitcher. Most
birds, however, including the very examples in
Figure A (18 degrees) and Figure B (22 degrees)
fall in the wide 12 ­ 27 degrees overlap zone. If
the bird’s head is turned a tiny bit the loral
angle is off. The loral angle suggests precision
and objectivity; however, it is variable and
subject to incorrect interpretations. For example,
the bird labeled a Long-billed (it’s a
Short-billed as discussed in # 1 but corrected
online) on page 34 keys out incorrectly to be a
Long-billed using loral angle. Jean Iron and I
went through The Shorebird Guide (O’Brien et al.
2006) keying out dowitchers using loral angles.
Some Short-billed Dowitchers keyed out as
Long-billed and vice versa. Try it yourself. This
would be a good project for a birding class to do
in the classroom using photos and comparing
results.“

Based on comments in eBird checklists birders are
still, understandably, being led astray by that
article. Hence this post. If you don’t want to end
up getting even more confused about dowitcher ID
(like I did), go back to the old field marks. They
still work. Once you have good understanding of them
many SBDOs are pretty straight forward to identify,
but many aren’t. When you think you have a
Short-billed try to flush it and hope it calls to
confirm the ID. If you’re not comfortable being
unable to ID, or misidentifying, some individuals
then dowitcher ID is not for you. Just call them all
“Dowitcher sp” because you will undoubtedly get some
of them wrong. 

I don’t want to discourage anyone from trying to ID
dowitchers. It’s still one of my favorite things to
do. I love that it’s hard to figure them out and
that it adds to our understanding of species
distribution during migration. And they’ll let you
walk right up to them for in your face views. My
guess is SBDO is more regular in SW Idaho than the
one accepted record in eBird suggests. If you want
to find them do yourself a favor and don’t waste
your time on field marks that don’t work.

Cliff

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

Scott,

I’ve actually looked at those photos quite a few times. Timing is
OK for Short-billed adults but the plumage is worn at this time of
year so I’m not sure you can reliably identify the breast markings
on the one labeled SBDO as spots. To my eye they seem elongated,
not round spots, so I don’t know if they’re just partially worn
off bars (which doesn’t mean it can’t be a Short-billed).

The markings on the flanks are limited to the front (and possibly
rear?) of the bird which fits Long-billed – SBDO tends to be
marked more evenly on the flanks. The throat does seem lightly
spotted which would be good for SBDO but again, I’m not sure that
isn’t a result of wear. Underparts show zero white background,
favoring LBDO. Any chance you have any more photos? With bill
visible?

Conclusion? FWIW, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that this
is a SBDO but I’m honestly not comfortable making that call based
only on this photo. This is one I would have tried hard to flush
and hoped for a call.

Now let’s look at the Long-billed in your photo. In some ways it
might be a better candidate for Short-billed than the other one.
There is white on the belly, the throat is lightly marked, and the
flanks are evenly barred front to back. Are they both SBDOs? I
don’t think so but can I say that with certainty? No.

Cliff

Hi Cliff, thanks so much for sharing this
additional info! 

Attached are two photos from Black’s Creek last summer,
including one that I (still) feel is SBDO.  Any thoughts you
might have regarding this bird, especially what makes it NOT a
LBDO?  Thx!

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 9:00 AM
Cliff Weisse via groups.io <cliffandlisa=octobersetters.com@groups.io>
wrote:

On 5/3/24 10:36AM, Louisa Evers wrote:

Just going to call them all
LBDOs.

You nailed it Louisa. The opinions were unanimous – they’re
all Long-billeds. I read that Birch/Lee article on Surfbirds
the year before it was published in Birding and I was really
excited. I started using their proposed field marks and
quickly realized I was finding way too many Short-billeds.
That’s why I posted the photos to ID Frontiers – I knew I
was getting them wrong and I was willing to take my lumps to
learn.

Forget the Birding article. Except for the kink in the
bill of SBDO it’s almost useless for field identification.
It was widely and extensively criticized when it came out
but Birding never published the criticism. As Scott
pointed out, the first pair of birds in my photos seems to
illustrate the difference in loral angles proposed by
Birch/Lee but it actually demonstrates why so many experts
criticized it. Loral angle doesn’t even work for the
photos in their own article. Here’s an excerpt from an
email posted on ID Frontiers by Ron Pittaway, one of the
experts listed in the article:

“7. Loral Angle ID: The loral angles shown on page 36
used to distinguish the two species are of questionable
value. Loral angles should not to be trusted in the
field and are of limited value in photos. According to
the graph on page 36 the diagnostic loral angle is less
than < 12 degrees for Long-billed Dowitcher and
greater than > 27 degrees for Short-billed Dowitcher.
Most birds, however, including the very examples in
Figure A (18 degrees) and Figure B (22 degrees) fall in
the wide 12 ­ 27 degrees overlap zone. If the bird’s
head is turned a tiny bit the loral angle is off. The
loral angle suggests precision and objectivity; however,
it is variable and subject to incorrect interpretations.
For example, the bird labeled a Long-billed (it’s a
Short-billed as discussed in # 1 but corrected online)
on page 34 keys out incorrectly to be a Long-billed
using loral angle. Jean Iron and I went through The
Shorebird Guide (O’Brien et al. 2006) keying out
dowitchers using loral angles. Some Short-billed
Dowitchers keyed out as Long-billed and vice versa. Try
it yourself. This would be a good project for a birding
class to do in the classroom using photos and comparing
results.“

Based on comments in eBird checklists birders are still,
understandably, being led astray by that article. Hence
this post. If you don’t want to end up getting even more
confused about dowitcher ID (like I did), go back to the
old field marks. They still work. Once you have good
understanding of them many SBDOs are pretty straight
forward to identify, but many aren’t. When you think you
have a Short-billed try to flush it and hope it calls to
confirm the ID. If you’re not comfortable being unable to
ID, or misidentifying, some individuals then dowitcher ID
is not for you. Just call them all “Dowitcher sp” because
you will undoubtedly get some of them wrong. 

I don’t want to discourage anyone from trying to ID
dowitchers. It’s still one of my favorite things to do. I
love that it’s hard to figure them out and that it adds to
our understanding of species distribution during
migration. And they’ll let you walk right up to them for
in your face views. My guess is SBDO is more regular in SW
Idaho than the one accepted record in eBird suggests. If
you want to find them do yourself a favor and don’t waste
your time on field marks that don’t work.

Cliff

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...

-- 
Cliff and Lisa Weisse
Island Park, Idaho
cliffandlisa@...