confusing sparrow ID please 5 photos (1 Viewer)

[Thayeri]

LOL! It's a darn good thing we are having an identication discussion and not an argument here, Neil... My apologies if my last post was less than tactful, but I am having difficulties seeing this bird as a Swamp Sparrow.

Your points, one by one:

Build: Looks slender to me from the angles seen.

Nape: Looking at the last photo, the nape itself looks gray to me. I am somewhat confused as to why you keep emphasizing this, as Swamp Sparrows also have gray napes, connected to gray breasts, by gray sides of the neck that can often be larger than Clay-coloreds. If you want to vote Swamp Sparrow, it would seem to me that the last thing you would want to do is complain that there isn't enough gray on this bird...

Unstreaked Underparts: Very light, unclear whether real or digital artifact, could easily be first basic plumage, see third CCS link above.

Bill: I don't like the bill color for Clay-colored, but there are certainly photos of CCSs with dark appearing culmens, and if you look at the last photo again, the lower mandible appears lighter.

Now your turn... care to answer my objections to your candidate species and
provide supporting photo links?

 

[streatham]

Thayeri,

With regards to Clay-colored what about the tail shape and length or do you have an answer for that being wrong as well. You can also see some somewhat rufous color in the wing on all pics - which also rules out Clay-colored.

Luke

I'm off to the pub now - lets sort this one out by the time i'm back eh

 

[prairiemerlin]

I must say, the nape is confusing.... all the Clay-colored's I've seen have had light, whitish-gray napes.

Also, for those who have Sparrows of the United States and Canada, the photo of a juvenile Swamp Sparrow is an almost perfect match for this bird.

 

[Thayeri]

Hi Luke!

On the simple comparisons for beginners, Chipping would be the more common Spizzela, and Song Sparrow would be the more common Melospiza. Does this bird look like a Song Sparrow? If I had to choose between Chipping genus (Clay-colored) and Song genus (Swamp), I would say the bird is closer to Chipping.

As to the "sheen"-- hmmm... that buffy continues to appear in all four out of the five photos where parts of the supercilium stripe, face, and/or breast are in shadow. I don't believe it is a false color from being blown out by the light.

Tail length and shape? The tail is being held at an angle, the question being how great that angle is. The length would therefore be anyone's guess -- except we have a clue, in how much of the undertail covert we can see. The more covert we can see, the more downward the angle of the tail. Since we can see very little undertail covert, the tail is therefore likely being held a good bit closer to the horizontal than the vertical, and is therefore longer than it appears here. As to notch's there is a slight one here, but as you know, that is not a reliable characteristic for photo IDs of sparrows, the notch can change, appear or disappear depending on how the particular bird is holding their tail at the time.

Now, you want to look at the little bit we can see of the side of the wing -- good idea! We can see some of the inner median coverts, the inner greater coverts, and the edge of the primaries. Look at any one of the eight Swamp Sparrow photos at the National Zoo site I linked to above: they all have strong red on the median coverts, the greater coverts and the edges of the primaries. Why can't we see that strong red in all three areas on this bird, as we are certainly seeing enough of the wing? Now, if you to the bottom of the three links for the Clay-coloreds, top photo -- see that touch of light red on the innermost greater coverts? The exact same -- and only -- spot that we see a touch of red on this bird.

Now, on the flip side, I'm still waiting on photo links for slender Swamp Sparrows with buffy supercilium stripes, very light buffy breasts, faces and breasts without even little bit of gray in them, no gray in the neck sides, and no red in the median wing coverts or primary edges...

Hope you had a great time at the pub, and I may open one here in your honor! B

Edited to add one more thing on the tail -- notice how the outer edges of the retrices are reddish in all the Swamp Sparrow photos, and in the 2nd photo from the National Zoo where the tail is at a comparable angle, how we can see the reddish edge even on the underside? How come we can't see it on this bird? There just seems to be a tremendous amount of gray and red that has somehow done a vanishing act from top to bottom and side to side on this "Swamp Sparrow"! :eek!:

 

[Bluetail]

OK, I've no field experience of either of these species, but...

The thing that's worrying me about Eteune's bird is the dark patch before and above the eye (which, though paler than the supercilium, is present in all photos and therefore real) and the heaviness of the lateral throat stripe (what we Brits call the malar stripe).

The patch in front of the eye is best evaluated in pic #4 where the bird's head is turned towards the light. Clearly this is rubbish for Clay-colored Sparrow, but it's not an ideal fit for Swamp Sparrow either. Nevertheless, Swamp does show a similar pattern, as can be seen in the links that Thayeri posted earlier and even better in the birds here: Note the slightly yellowish tone to the fore-supercilium on Royse's two October birds, especially the first; this can also be detected in Eteune's photos (as Luke has already mentioned).

That heavy lateral throat stripe is no good for Clay-colored either, which, in all the photos I've looked at on the net, has a lateral throat stripe weaker than the moustachial stripe. However this Swampie is not a bad match.

Take into account the bill colour, tail shape and all the other points mentioned by Luke and Neil and this really does add up to a convincing Swamp Sparrow for me.

 

[Andy Wraithmell]

Its a Swamp Sparrow. Beginners struggle with them down here where we get lots of them.

 

[atricapillus]

Clay-colored Sparrow??? Those petite Spizallas with gray napes, completely unstreaked buffy underparts, long tails, short pink bills?

If you look closely in photos number 2 and 3, you can see some rufous on the wing.

________________________
I would weigh in on Swamp Sparrow also. Not sure why it looks so washed out on underparts (except lighting), but the pointy tips to tail feathers indicate hatch-year status. The tail corners are rounded (certainly not squared off). Gray center crown stripe. Except for being washed out, it looks pretty much like I expect a basic-plumage Swamp (in this case 1st basic).
CHEERS, JOE G

 

[eteune]

so, I guess I'm still not sure then since there seem to be such strong opinions both ways. The bird actually did have a very light, clean breast, it wasn't just the lighting or exposure. I guess I am confused because I have other pictures of Swamps that look very different and more gray. Why is this one so different?
thanks,

Ed

 

[Andy Wraithmell]

so, I guess I'm still not sure then since there seem to be such strong opinions both ways. The bird actually did have a very light, clean breast, it wasn't just the lighting or exposure. I guess I am confused because I have other pictures of Swamps that look very different and more gray. Why is this one so different?
thanks,

Ed

possibly due to the light and the posture of the bird in the picture but you can take it from me (whatever thats worth) that it is a Swamp Sparrow. Ive never seen a Clay-colored that looks remotely like that and Ive seen hundreds if not thousands of Swamps that do especially in the fall.

 

[eteune]

so fall plumage or juvie?

 

[prairiemerlin]

Its a juvenile. Take a look at this:

 

[eteune]

Thank you very much for all the ID help. It's really great for a new birder such as myself and sparrows can be so confusing sometimes.

Ed

 

[Thayeri]

Yeah, those darn beginners, they don't know nuthing. Like that Roger Tory Peterson, that know-nothing who insists on his Swamp Sparrows being stout, dark and rusty with gray breasts. And says that if you want to seperate a Spizella from a Swamp, just look for the buffy supercilium stripe, cuz Swamp's don't have them.

Then there are those novices at National Geographic, who insist the primary field marks of a Swamp Sparrow are "grey face, rich rufous upperparts and wings".

Someone needs to set that beginner, David Sibley, straight as well. Paints all his Swamp Sparrows with those gray faces, long gray supercilium stripes, gray lores, gray breasts, bold rufous wings, and when there's a median stripe? Paints it gray as well. Shows a definite lack of imagination on his part, sticking to that monotonous gray and rufous theme, just like every other field guide.

Funny part is, I routinely see Swamp Sparrows by the dozens at various wetlands here, their being prolific local breeders and all. But ya know, if I just ignore those darn restrictive guides with their constraining field marks and so forth, and start letting my non-juvenile Swamp Sparrows lose those grey breasts and grey faces and dark rufous wings and stout structure and go all solidly buffy and pale and slender -- why, I could probably double or triple the number of Swamp Sparrows that I see! Maybe even see thousands of them! Like a real expert!!!

3

And Ed, you are the only one who can answer your own question, as you are the only one who actually saw it. I would suggest asking yourself two kinds of questions:

1) Are those five photos unfair optical illusions that misrepresent the bird? Did the bird actually have a grey breast and predominately grey face? Did it actually have dark, boldly rufuous wings that powerfully contrasted with the pale body whenever you got the slightest glimpse of even their edges?

2) If the bird is fairly presented, then you have another dilemma. You have the most respected, authoritative field guides published on North American Birds in agreement that the fundamental field marks of Swamp Sparrows are dark rufous wings, grey breasts and predominately grey faces. You have 15+ linked photos of Swamp Sparrows of various ages and plumages, every one of which meets those standards, because they are, well, Swamp Sparrows. You have your five photos which meet not one of those three standards. And you have a small group of people in an open internet forum, whom you've never met and know nothing about, assuring you that those details aren't problems, and only beginners would worry about such technicalities. Reconcile that gap however you choose of course...

Or you can just follow the motto of one of your neighboring states, and say "Show Me". Show me a high quality photo of a definitive Swamp Sparrow, that has:

1) No grey in the breast
2) No grey in the face
3) A supercilium stripe that is buffy from one end to another
4) Buffy lores
5) Palish inner median coverts that aren't rufous, palish inner greater coverts with just a touch of red, and not particularly dark primaries that don't have rufous edges.

(And don't let them show you a true juvenile, which are heavily streaked and would have molted by the end of September anyway. That July photo that Brown Creeper provided has dense, fine streaking throughout the breast and head, nothing like your bird, and Joe G. is certainly right in this bird being in basic plumage, though not in the species.)

Since this such a routine plumage that any experienced birder would see by the thousands, such links should be abundantly available! Funny though, such a simple request, I made it at the beginning, and none have been produced...

 

[KC Foggin]

Let's try to remember that there are all levels of birders here at BirdForum and that every I.D. request is not a request for an "I'm right and you're wrong" kind of statement. Pointing out specific I.D. characteristics is great and helps the new birder and the not so new birder. What is not so great is insisting on having the last word on the subject.

 

[prairiemerlin]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here...

 

[Thayeri]

It does look that way.

(And the "beginner" and "thousands" references were in response to #26 and #29 by Limeybirder which I did not care for, not to what you wrote...)

 

[Xenospiza]

Now this is an entertaining thread!
I think it is good for a (real) beginner to see that the experts can be wrong. Who's wrong here I can't judge yet (luckily I saw only Swamp Sparrows in summer plumage).
Surely, the last word has not been said: I still want a really convincing ID (gonna check my Buntings and Sparrows later)!
Otherwise, maybe Brown Creeper and Thayeri can meet up halfway on the Wisconsin Lake Superior shore and fight it out?

 

[Bluetail]

OK, I’ve tried to summarize the points made for and against so far. I hope I’ve not misrepresented anyone.

The points advanced in favour of Swamp v. Clay-colored:

1) Malar stripe is not strikingly white
2) Nape lacks clean grey
3) Buff underparts not sufficiently warm-toned
4) Tail too short and wrong shape
5) Bill is dark, lacking pink tones
6) Bill is too long for a spizella
7) Streaked sides
8) Lateral crown stripes are dark, rusty brown, not lighter, tannish brown
9) The greater wing coverts are rufous
10) Dark moustachial stripe appears very weak
11) Lateral throat stripe is heavier than the moustachial stripe
12) Face pattern shows darker patch before and above the eye
13) Yellowish fore-supercilium
14) ?
15) ?
16) ?

Thayeri’s responses to the above points:

1) ?
2) Nape does looks grey (but see 15 below)
3) ?
4) Photo is misleading
5) Some photos of clay-colored appear to show a dark culmen
6) ?
7) Photo may be misleading. Compare the streaking on this Clay-colored Sparrow
8) ?
9) Why can’t we see strong red in the median coverts, greater coverts and primary edges? The touch of light red on the outer greater coverts is consistent with Clay-colored [on this point, see my comment below]
10) ?
11) ?
12) ?
13) ?
14) Build looks slender, not robust and closer to Chipping Sparrow than Song Sparrow – thus a spizella
15) Where are the Swamp Sparrow photos with buffy supercilia, light buffy breasts, grey-less faces and breasts, no grey in neck sides, no red in median wing coverts or primary edges?
16) Why aren’t the outer edges of the retrices reddish?

I’ll try to offer a comment or two on the last three points:

14) Since we can really only see the underparts of this bird and can’t see the mantle at all, any assessment of how robust or otherwise the bird becomes a value judgement, but to me the belly looks rotund enough to suggest a robust build.

15) Indeed, we could do with some photos of Swamp Sparrows in 1st basic plumage in order to show how it differs from the links so far posted. According to Byers, Olsson and Curson’s Buntings and Sparrows, first-year non-breeding Swamp Sparrows are similar to non-breeding adults, but have noticeably less grey and rufous in the head. The crown has very little or no rufous and the narrow median stripe may be buffier. The supercilium and nape are brownish- or buffy-grey, not pure grey. Eteune’s bird does not show red primary edges because Swamp Sparrows do not have red primary edges. In any case the rufous tones are much reduced in non-breeding birds.

16) Swamp Sparrow does not have rufous edges to the retrices. If has buff edges to rufous-brown feathers (with the rufous reduced in non-breeeding plumage perhaps?) That does not appear to be inconsistent with Eteune’s bird, given that the tail is in shadow.

 

[Grousemore]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here...

And that is a perfectly reasonable position.

It would be a great pity to lose any contributor to ID Threads,(particularly North American ones, which in the past have been sparsely posted to)due to an inability to accept differing opinions.

 

[Thayeri]

Hi Jason, Google images has 619 "hits" for a search under "Swamp Sparrow" OR "Melospiza georgiana", undoubtedly many of them are for first basic birds. However, no need, you already provided an excellent link to the Royce site (which I've liked for some time), that I reproduce below:

http://www.roysephotos.com/SwampSparrow.html

As you note, the bottom two birds, seen in October, are the most like this bird of any of the Swamp Sparrow photos seen, and that is because they are first basic plumage. As such, they lack the extensive and deep grays of their elders, and mix some brown and buffy in, which is undoubtedly what your Byer's text refers to. They are definitely worth studying in detail, pursuant to this thread.

But... they still have a good bit of grey, is my point, and is why this feature is so emphasized in the field guides. Look particularly at the gray supercilium stripe behind the eye, the gray lores (but not supralorals), the gray beneath and before the eye, and the grey in the upper breast. We have excellent views of these same features in the subject bird. As I have mentioned before, I do not believe that it is the lighting that is somehow turning gray to buffy, as the buffy remains in those key areas, whether seen in light or shadow. Two other possible theories for the false colors that seem to be required for the Swamp Sparrow theory, that of color cast problems or blown highlights, can each be refuted through looking at the shadowed views of the white belly, the buffy upper breast band, the buffy lores,the solidly buffy supercilium stripe, and even that slight but distinctive buffy band separating throat from breast. Excellent views, no gray, and the recurrance of those colors in the shadows refutes the "sheen", "blowing out" and "washed out" theories. How do you "wash out" gray, which is a shade lacking color, while retaining a buffy color???

The other thing is if you look at the second photo from bottom, at a highly comparable angle to Ed's photos -- notice how prominent the rufous is at the shoulder, the greater coverts, and the edges of the primaries. Even in shadow, we really ought to be able to see that rufous in the photos of the subject bird. When I blow up the photos in Paint Shop Pro and look for that elusive dark rufous -- I find tawny instead along the edge of the primaries, which is more compatible with CCS. Along the uppermost edge of the pixels where it catchs the light just bit, as well as the bit of "shoulder" -- solidly brown, not rufous.

(Also notice how you can see the rufous edges to the primaries and tail feathers on just about every Swamp Sparrow on that Royse page?)

Couple last quibbles, in your four, you forgot to mention the undertail coverts, and in your seven, you didn't mention my link to a photo of a first basic CCS with light streaking...