-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Dowitcher, South Carolina, early May (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter njlarsen
- Start date
Joe H
Well-known member
I’m willing to give it a go. I’d first comment that it appears to be in non-breeding plumage, which makes sense since the bird is hanging out in S. Carolina rather than breeding up here in Alaska. There do appear to be some feathers showing in the rear of the bird that look like a partial breeding molt occurred (blue arrows on the attached picture), but note the complete absence of any reddish color on the undersides.
My world guide to shorebirds notes that only few dowitchers can be differentiated between Long-billed and Short-billed in non-breeding plumage except at close range and under ideal conditions. Your picture seems pretty ideal to me, but if you have any showing the neck area, please post them.
One field mark is that Long-billed have a slightly flatter back than Short-billed. In the picture below, I’ve drawn a red mark following the back outline of your bird and a non-breeding Long-billed from Waders of the World. You can see both have a similar sway-backed appearance. The Short-billed illustrations are all more rounded, but it’s not really diagnostic.
For now, it looks more Long-billed (with a fairly short bill) to me, but I’m hoping to see more pictures if you can post them.
My world guide to shorebirds notes that only few dowitchers can be differentiated between Long-billed and Short-billed in non-breeding plumage except at close range and under ideal conditions. Your picture seems pretty ideal to me, but if you have any showing the neck area, please post them.
One field mark is that Long-billed have a slightly flatter back than Short-billed. In the picture below, I’ve drawn a red mark following the back outline of your bird and a non-breeding Long-billed from Waders of the World. You can see both have a similar sway-backed appearance. The Short-billed illustrations are all more rounded, but it’s not really diagnostic.
For now, it looks more Long-billed (with a fairly short bill) to me, but I’m hoping to see more pictures if you can post them.
Attachments
Joe H
Well-known member
Thanks for adding the other two photos. I appreciate the opportunity to try to sus-out an ID for a particularly difficult bird. Your really great pictures are very helpful, especially #2. I have just spent more time reading about separating these two species than I would have ever imagined possible. I found an interesting study here: https://www.aba.org/birding_archive_files/v38n5p34.pdf
According to the article, the points in favor of Long-billed are: Straighter supercilium, “cocked” or upwards tail and shallow loral angle. Points in favor of Short-billed are: The shorter, slightly downcurved bill, throat/chest area a better match (Long-billed is supposed to have a greyish wash here), and greater likelihood that Short-bills summer in the Lower 48.
My initial impression was Long-billed, but given the additional, and sometimes contradictory, material available, mark me down as solidly undecided.
According to the article, the points in favor of Long-billed are: Straighter supercilium, “cocked” or upwards tail and shallow loral angle. Points in favor of Short-billed are: The shorter, slightly downcurved bill, throat/chest area a better match (Long-billed is supposed to have a greyish wash here), and greater likelihood that Short-bills summer in the Lower 48.
My initial impression was Long-billed, but given the additional, and sometimes contradictory, material available, mark me down as solidly undecided.
tom baxter
Well-known member
Salt levels are not a good sole basis for ID but still helpful as a clue. This is a Short-billed Dowitcher, which is definitely the more common species in your location. The bill in the first photo is not within the range of Long billed. It’s short, thick, and heavily kinked at the tip. You can easily find examples of Short billed dowitchers with straight bills, but not Long billed with bills kinked such as this very typical appearance of Short billed.
While it is true that there is a lot of “guff” out there on these two species, there are very reliable cases where species can be identified and some people are genuinely very accurate with their identifications. I do not always know which species I am looking at, but when I see a good profile I have a very high success rate of proper identification. The complex is challenging and most of the “rules” only hold true in ideal cases. Nonetheless, there is some obvious merit to all of the commonly referenced ID traits when used carefully and with experience.
For example, I have recently seen it suggested on this forum that the “loral angle” field mark has been found to not be that helpful. This is not a good evaluation, but it is easy to understand how someone would arrive at that conclusion. It’s just a case by case measure, and in some photos the posture and viewing angle of the bird can render the field mark useless. You can however, learn to have a very accurate understanding of when those times are.
I personally do not ever expect to be able to identify all cases of dowitchers, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever get good enough at it to be correct 100% of the time, but I wouldn’t call the literature “guff”. There is a lot of useful information to be gleaned from the commonly proposed field marks, it just requires a deeper dive into how to use them effectively.
While it is true that there is a lot of “guff” out there on these two species, there are very reliable cases where species can be identified and some people are genuinely very accurate with their identifications. I do not always know which species I am looking at, but when I see a good profile I have a very high success rate of proper identification. The complex is challenging and most of the “rules” only hold true in ideal cases. Nonetheless, there is some obvious merit to all of the commonly referenced ID traits when used carefully and with experience.
For example, I have recently seen it suggested on this forum that the “loral angle” field mark has been found to not be that helpful. This is not a good evaluation, but it is easy to understand how someone would arrive at that conclusion. It’s just a case by case measure, and in some photos the posture and viewing angle of the bird can render the field mark useless. You can however, learn to have a very accurate understanding of when those times are.
I personally do not ever expect to be able to identify all cases of dowitchers, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever get good enough at it to be correct 100% of the time, but I wouldn’t call the literature “guff”. There is a lot of useful information to be gleaned from the commonly proposed field marks, it just requires a deeper dive into how to use them effectively.
Last edited:
