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@...

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@...

So would you be willing to enlighten us with your opinion of my
guesses?

Cliff

I looked over your notes, the stuff in the two
links you sent and remain unenlightened. 

Louisa Evers

elouisa603@…

Take care of the birds and you take care of the world

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 07:32
Cliff Weisse via groups.io <cliffandlisa=octobersetters.com@groups.io>
wrote:

Well,

I’m surprised no one was willing to venture a guess on
the ID of these dowitchers so I’ll go ahead and add my
guesses. Any opinions? Does anyone agree or disagree
with my labels? Why? This is one of my favorite ID
challenges and I’m still waiting for the roads to melt
off so I can get to Island Park Reservoir and pick
through some actual birds but this is going to have to
suffice for now.

Cliff

My guesses are as follows:

Photo #1 – LBDO on left, SBDO on right.
Photo #2 – SBDO
Photo #3 & 4 – SBDO
Photo #5 & 6 – LBDO

.

On 5/1/24 09:17AM, Cliff Weisse wrote:

Now I want to revisit the Birding article. I went out
and tried to apply the new field marks and became
skeptical of their validity so I posted some photos to
the ID Frontiers listserv requesting opinions. I’m
going to put the photos below but withhold my guesses
on the IDs and what the experts had to say for now. If
you’re up for the challenge take a look and try to ID
them and see if you do better than I did. Which do you
think are Long-billed and which are Short-billed?

These photos were all taken on Island Park
Reservoir in Idaho.

Photo #1: This was taken on May 27

Photo #2: This one was taken on May 20

Photos 3 & 4: Taken on May 14

Photos 5 & 6: Taken on May 14

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

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

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