Big Day, and Blogging hiatus

Upcoming events: I'll be out on a fossil-fuel-free big day this coming weekend, bicycling around Concord, Massachusetts (hoping for 100 species) and I'll try to post a report about that next week. You can sponsor me through Bird Studies Canada, or through Malkolm Boothroyd's Bird Day Challenge.

-----------------========-----------------

The Blog: When I started this blog last August I didn't have much of a plan, or much time, but it has evolved and grown, and the whole experience has been great. Thanks to all who have contributed, publicly and privately. For the last month or so I've had no time to work on it at all, and I expect to be equally busy for the next few months. If I find time I will post occasionally, but I look forward to having more time for it, hopefully by the end of the summer. In the meantime, why not go outside and watch some birds?

More on Texas Border Wall

Prompted by some good discussion I've read on TexBirds and elsewhere: I want to stress the point that the danger to birds is not so much the height of the wall, but more the wide swath of habitat that would be cleared for the wall and service roads. Chachalacas, Pygmy Owls, Green Jays, etc will fly over a wall, but they're less likely to cross 100 yards of barren gravel. This project might as well be a 4-lane highway.

So let's try to take immigration completely out of the picture for a moment and imagine that, instead of a wall, the federal government was proposing to build a 4-lane expressway along the river from Brownsville to Laredo. Wouldn't there be a unified grassroots uprising against it? What if they revealed that it would cut right through parts of the LRGV Wildlife Corridor, which has been so carefully patched together and cultivated over the last 20+ years? And what if there would be no exit or overpass anywhere near the Sabal Palm sanctuary and other sites, effectively cutting those places off from the existing road system? And, on top of all that, what if they announced that, in order to speed construction, all environmental review would be waived? Wouldn't we all be outraged?

People may feel conflicted or uncommitted about the border wall because it is tangled up in hot-button issues of immigration and National Security. But those issues are irrelevant to the birds. The reality is that the wall (like an expressway) would be catastrophic for birds and birding in the valley (and what's bad for birding is generally bad for the birds), and we need to speak out to demand that those concerns be addressed. Congress allowed all this to happen, and they can change it, but they need to hear from lots of us. See http://noborderwall-take-action.blogspot.com/

Border Fence puts Texas birds and birding at risk

Revised 8 Apr 2008 -

Do something: Write or call Congress. See the No Texas Border Wall campaign and their suggestions for action with several petitions to sign and instructions for contacting government officials. Defenders of Wildlife has a handy form here for writing to your representative.

---------------------------

The proposed border wall (1) from Texas to California has been hotly debated, but birders should be aware that aside from local residents (2), as a group, we will be among those most strongly affected by it. Problems include:

• the destruction and fragmentation of habitat - imagine building a four-lane highway through the area (3).
• current plans call for the wall to be erected between US birders and several of our most popular birding sites - such as the National Audubon Society's Sabal Palm Grove, The Nature Conservancy's Southmost Preserve, and parts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge - relegating those places to the Mexican side of the fence, with no plans for visitor access (4)
• over 30 environmental laws were summarily waived on 1 Apr 2008 (no joke), so that construction of hundreds of miles of border fence would not be slowed down by the nuisance of considering endangered species, clean water, Native American burial sites, etc. (5)

Border security is important, but for whatever help this wall will provide (6), the need for secure borders should not trample environmental laws. We must be able to increase security while still maintaining the natural and cultural heritage of the border region.

---------------------------

Notes:
1) In the subtleties of language, calling this a fence implies a neighborly sort of boundary marker. It is really a wall, actually two walls - at least 15 feet high, solid metal and concrete, with a road on either side (see photos here).

2) Local residents are overwhelmingly opposed to the wall. An article in the Texas Observer with the local viewpoint and other issues is here

(3) from a Houston Chronicle article here "Federal wildlife officials said they are concerned the waiver of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws will threaten the survival of a number of animals by allowing the fence to be built through a 90,000-acre wildlife corridor they spent $100 million assembling in South Texas."

(4) A refuge official says that over two-thirds of National Wildlife refuge land in the Valley will be negatively impacted, either directly or indirectly. Not to mention that access to the river will be limited, and a number of homes, businesses, and historic sites will be on the other side of the planned wall.

(5) Defenders of Wildlife press release here

(6) only 70 miles of wall are planned along 300 miles of the Rio Grande. Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster told the Houston Chronicle here "I'm just a yahoo from Eagle Pass, Texas, but this is just the absolute height of folly"

More info:
8 Apr New York Times story about the legal issues of the waiver is here
A detailed 4 Apr story in Newsweek is here
The 7 Apr New York Times story about the issue here
A Houston Chronicle story is here

Defenders of Wildlife press release here and lots more in the "Related Information" sidebar

Variation in Wild Turkey

Here's an example of one of the countless thousands of questions that are still out there waiting to be answered about North American birds. I went to Texas in February (for the opening of the fantastic new Clif Moss Nature Education Center of the Corpus Christi Public Library) and I had a chance to see some Wild Turkeys nearby. As expected they had whiter tips on all the body feathers than northeastern birds, but they also seemed thinner and smaller-headed than the Turkeys that frequent my backyard in Massachusetts, and when I got home I immediately saw what the difference was.

sketch copyright 2008 - David Sibley

The Massachusetts Wild Turkeys have feathering extending all the way up the neck, while the Texas Turkeys have a long stretch of the upper neck bare (here's a quick sketch I did that first morning at home). This is logical, presumably an adaptation to the cold weather in Massachusetts, but in a quick review of some sources (the BNA account) I found no mention of neck feathering as a geographic difference. I thought maybe it was just a winter feature; maybe the Texas birds had already lost their "winter coat", and the Massachusetts birds would lose their neck feathers for the summer. They may still do that, but as of today (2 April 2008) they look the same.

As usual, this just brings up more questions: Is this going to be true year-round? What are the patterns of variation? Do all southern birds - Florida, Texas, Arizona - lack neck feathers? Does it change gradually from north to south or is the change more abrupt? and lots more....

Audubon's mysteries: Carbonated Swamp-Warbler

One of the enduring mysteries of North American ornithology involves several species which were painted by Audubon in the early 1800s but never seen again. The most striking and appealing of these birds is the Carbonated Swamp-Warbler, and since the painting was published ornithologists have debated whether this could be a rare and now-extinct species, a hybrid, or merely a fantasy created by Audubon.

Audubon wrote:

I shot the two little birds here represented, near the village of Henderson, in the State of Kentucky, in May 1811. They were both busily engaged in searching for insects along the branches and amongst the leaves of a dogwood tree. Their motions were those common to all the species of the genus. On examination, they were found to be both males. I am of opinion that they were each young birds of the preceding year, and not in full plumage, as they had no part of their dress seemingly complete, excepting the head. Not having met with any other individuals of the species, I am at this moment unable to say anything more about them. They were drawn, like almost all the other birds which I have represented, immediately after being killed; but the branch on which you see them was not added until the following summer.

Despite his definitive statement that he shot two specimens, and painted them from life (well... death), there has always been speculation that Audubon may have invented these birds, or painted them from memory rather than from specimens. Audubon frequently stretched the truth, and many of his untruths are well-documented, although as Jonathan Rosen suggests in a New York Times book review they are "more like the improvisational ''stretchers'' of Huck Finn than the calculated inventions of a man on the make".

While viewing some of Audubon's original paintings at a New York Historical Society exhibit several years ago I noticed that the paintings ranged from very lovingly detailed (e.g. Carolina Parakeet) to more cursory and simplistic (e.g. Bicolored Blackbird and others painted from specimens brought back by Townsend). It occurred to me that the painting style and quality of details might provide clues to Audubon's mystery birds. The recent launch of a complete collection of high resolution scans of Audubon's plates at the University of Pittsburgh (available here) prompted me to take a closer look at this painting.

A brief survey of the painting reveals several factual errors:

• Dark stripes on the back of the lower bird are pointed at the front, broader and diffuse at the rear - opposite of the normal feather arrangement on songbirds
• Median secondary coverts (the shorter wingbar) should have the lower feathers overlapping those above; both birds have these feathers overlapping incorrectly
• Median secondary coverts on the lower bird are too long
• Too much yellow shows in a broad wedge above the forewing on the lower bird, unlike any known songbird; there is no way the feathers painted on the upper bird could be rearranged to look like the lower bird
• Uppertail coverts of the upper bird are shaped and arranged incorrectly
• There is a general lack of detail, a sort of vagueness of structure to the wingtips and tails, both birds lack primary coverts (which should be visible) and the tails are unusually short with very narrow feathers (unlike any known wood-warbler).

One could give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that these could all be due to carelessness or inexperience. I can imagine that there must have been times when he was distracted from his painting by biting insects, weather, hunger, illness, or other concerns. But checking some of his other early paintings (Chestnut-sided Warbler plate 59, Cerulean Warbler plate 49, Purple Finch plate 4, Song Sparrow plate 25, etc) shows that these are all more detailed, with correct arrangement of coverts and streaks. There are always things to nitpick, but in each of these paintings the overall draftsmanship is painstakingly accurate, and smacks of authenticity. The Carbonated Swamp-Warbler painting is subtly lacking, which leads me to conclude that Audubon was probably not looking at a bird as he painted.

This is all merely speculation and circumstantial evidence - weighing possibilities. There is no way to know for certain what Audubon painted (unless the Carbonated Swamp-Warbler were to be rediscovered and confirmed). It's possible that this species did exist, a hyper-specialized wood-warbler, like Kirtland's, that was extinguished by the first clearing of forests in the early 1800s. It's possible that Audubon did see them, and simply painted them poorly. Or that he saw one and tried to recreate it from memory some time later (lying about the two specimens to bolster the credibility of his painting). But given that the only evidence of the species' existence is Audubon's painting and written account, that evidence needs to meet high standards. I think the quality of the painting casts some doubt on his claim that he was working directly from two specimens, and then that casts doubt on the existence of the species.

A reprieve for Red Knots

Great news: New Jersey's governor Corzine yesterday signed into law a moratorium on the harvest of Horseshoe Crabs in that state (press release here). This is great news for Red Knots - politicians have finally recognized the dire situation and put the needs of a species ahead of the seasonal income of a few fishermen. This moratorium protects the knot's primary food source during spring migration. Hopefully other states (especially Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) will follow New Jersey's example, and hopefully this action has come in time to allow the crab and knot populations to recover. See my previous post for background on the Red Knot's troubles.

Greater Redpoll photos

Maybe I should change the name of this blog to "All about Redpolls", but I've received a few photos that I wanted to pass along, making the point that "Greater" Common Redpoll is not just an eastern specialty. The AOU checklist and the BNA account report that this subspecies winters regularly from Labrador west to Manitoba, and has been recorded from Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, as well as Colorado!

So here are two photos from Seth Cutright of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin showing an apparent "Greater" (on the upper right). Notice the slightly larger size, larger bill, dark color, and heavy streaking especially on the nape, flanks, and throat. If this is really a "Greater", it would apparently be the first for Wisconsin, although that may not be too surprising considering the distribution of other records.

Photo copyright Seth Cutright, used by permission - click to enlarge

And (below) here it is again on the top right, turning away but showing the large size, heavy flank streaking and dark undertail coverts.

Photo copyright Seth Cutright, used by permission - click to enlarge

Cathy Mountain of Fort McMurray, Alberta also sent me a series of photos from her feeder, and among them is another apparent "Greater" Common Redpoll (far right). The large size, dark color, and heavy streaking is pretty obvious. This would apparently represent a first for Alberta, but that should not be too surprising if the subspecies really winters regularly in Manitoba.

Photo copyright Cathy Mountain, used by permission - click to enlarge

So I would urge anyone who sees Common Redpolls to watch for larger birds and try to document potential "Greater" redpolls. This subspecies appears to wander widely to the west of its breeding range, and could seemingly turn up anywhere within the winter range of Common Redpoll (at least west to the Rocky Mountains).

Another note on Hoary:
Trained observers will notice that the photo above shows several Hoaries. In fact it was Cathy Mountain's photos from Alberta that prompted me to check CBC results for my post about winter range of Hoary Redpoll. Fort McMurray is obviously within the core of the winter range of Hoary, as the following photo shows.

Photo copyright Cathy Mountain, used by permission - click to enlarge

I guess there are at least eleven Hoary Redpolls in this picture! (when I said "ten" yesterday that was just an error in addition). The seven in the foreground and one back left are so white they are pretty unambiguous - the kind of Hoaries that are seen only rarely east of the Northern Plains region. (I'm also counting the two central birds with tawny head and faint flank streaking as Hoary, as well as the partial bird visible at the top left.)

Notes:
More of Seth Cutright's redpoll photos

Greg Sargeant reports that there is a "Greater" Common Redpoll in Rhode Island, photo here, which may be the first ever noticed in that state.