[obol] [Fwd: Re: [BIRDWG01] Dowitcher Article in Birding]

[DJLauten and KACastelein]

More on the Dow article.

Dave Lauten

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Dowitcher Article in Birding
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:32:15 -0700
From: Cin-Ty Lee and Andy Birch <surfbirds at SURFBIRDS.COM>
Reply-To: Cin-Ty Lee and Andy Birch <surfbirds at SURFBIRDS.COM>
To: BIRDWG01 at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

Hi all, we wanted to respond to Ron Pittaway’s recent and highly 
critical posting on ID Frontiers
about our Dowitcher article in the September/October 2006 issue of 
Birding magazine. Many of
you may have read an initial draft on Surfbirds last year and we greatly 
appreciated the feedback
we received from experienced birders all over the world. This, in turn, 
helped shape the article in
Birding magazine.

Firstly, we would like to thank Ron for bringing attention to some 
printing errors.  The figure
captions to the photos on pages 34 and 35 were indeed switched.  This 
represents a typographical
error introduced during page proofing. Regarding the size of the 
photographs and plate, that was
a decision made by the publisher and is somewhat out of our control. 
However, in our discussion
of breeding ranges, Ron has highlighted that we do appear to have 
overlooked some local details
about distribution.

The other criticisms about loral angle are a little confusing as they 
seem to be repeating the
explicit caveats we already gave in the article. We feel that we could 
not have been clearer that the
loral angle is not a feature to be used alone.  All seasoned birders 
know that identifications should
be based on a combination of features as no single one is fail-proof. 
If this had not been our
philosophy, we would not have synthesized all the other plumage and 
structural field marks
known for dowitchers (including Ron’s earlier article that we cited a 
number of times).

In any case, we showed clearly in Figure 1c that there is overlap in the 
loral angle feature.  The
ability to find photographs in that range of overlap is not news. Our 
goal in this manuscript was to
highlight some subtle differences in jizz between the two dowitcher 
species. We all know that jizz
is such a highly qualitative term that it becomes almost useless to 
anyone who does not have
extensive experience with a given species.  We still believe that one of 
the features that lends itself
to this jizz is the placement of the eye relative to the bill.  We 
quantified this jizz feature in our
paper.  As far as we know, this jizz difference (and an attempt to 
quantify it) has never been
mentioned in the literature, and is thus a fundamental step forward. The 
fact that Ron can find
exceptions to this “rule” shows that there is indeed a general trend 
that could be used in
combination with other field marks by experienced birders.

Ron also suggested that the illustrations of covert feathers in Figure 7 
would be of no use for
identifying worn alternate dowitchers. Figures 7c and 7g explicitly show 
worn covert feathers
where the white tips have been worn off.  The reader can use this figure 
and the discussion in the
text to aid in the identification of the photographs on pages 34 and 35.

As for whether subspecies can be reliably identified 100% of the time, 
we opted to take the
conservative approach. The very fact that intergrades exist, as pointed 
out by Ron, suggests that
subspecies identification is not black-and-white.

Finally, we noted that Ron suggested that the artwork that accompanied 
the article was not good
enough for Birding.  Whilst we appreciate that everyone is entitled to 
his or her own opinions
about what constitutes good or bad artwork, we just hope that he is a 
little more forgiving to the
artists that illustrate his articles!

Best wishes, Cin-Ty Lee and Andy Birch


Join or Leave BIRDWG01: 
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01

Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html