From south-bay-birds-bounces+south-bay-birds-archive=[[email protected]] Mon Aug 25 11:44:16 2003
Received: from www.plaidworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7PIfQkV028078
	for <[[email protected]]>; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.stanford.edu [171.64.14.116])
	by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7PIdaVK028018
	for <[[email protected]]>;
	Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawmail1.stanford.edu (lawmail1.Stanford.EDU [171.64.212.80])
	by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7PIdHls028418
	for <[[email protected]]>;
	Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: [[email protected]]
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4  June 8, 2000
Message-ID: <[[email protected]]>
From: "Tom Grey" <[[email protected]]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:40:48 -0700
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on lawmail1/stanford(Release 5.0.12 |February
	13, 2003) at 08/25/2003 11:40:54 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [SBB] molting phalaropes, followup
X-BeenThere: [[email protected]]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2+
Precedence: list
List-Id: South Bay Birding  <south-bay-birds.plaidworks.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.plaidworks.com/mailman/listinfo/south-bay-birds>, 
	<mailto:[[email protected]]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[[email protected]]>
List-Help: <mailto:[[email protected]]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.plaidworks.com/mailman/listinfo/south-bay-birds>, 
	<mailto:[[email protected]]?subject=subscribe>
Sender: south-bay-birds-bounces+south-bay-birds-archive=[[email protected]]
Errors-To: south-bay-birds-bounces+south-bay-birds-archive=[[email protected]]

I posted pictures of four molting Red-necked Phalaropes from Shoreline,
speculating that they were three adults and a juvenile, and one of the
adults was a female -- and inviting instruction.

I got some, which is one of the great benefits of this group, and for which
renewed thanks! The consensus of the informed seems to be that they are all
adults, and can't be sexed.

Here's the adult I thought might be sexed female:
 1. http://www.geocities.com/tgrey41/PhalMolting.jpg

There's a remnant of adult rufous breeding plumage on the neck, and I
thought it was more extensive in coverage than males would show. But I was
relying mostly on the pictures of breeding-plumage phalaropes I could find
in field guides and online, as my experience with them is limited and my
experience actually noticing this feature limited even more. There is
presumably more overlap than I was assuming.

Here's the one I thought might be a juvenile:
2. http://www.geocities.com/tgrey41/PhalMolting2.jpg

If this was a juvenile the tertials would be white-fringed and they pretty
clearly aren't. I was going with superficial features of this bird matching
the description of juvenal RNPH plumage in Paulson, p. 356, and the picture
on p. 358 -- darker upperparts than adult basic, well defined mantle
stripe, and the appearance of winter gray feathers starting in the
scapulars. But the absence of the white-fringed tertials seems decisive.

Tom Grey
[[email protected]]


_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
south-bay-birds mailing list      ([[email protected]])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://www.plaidworks.com/mailman/options/south-bay-birds/south-bay-birds-archive%40plaidworks.com

This email sent to [[email protected]]