Date: 7/16/25 6:01 pm From: julian hough <jrhough1...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
James,
I would reach out to the CA committee and ask for reasons why the bird was rejected so that you have some constructive feedback.
Separation of rubescens and japonicus is really tough in a vagrancy context and the birds are more variable than I think is appreciated (especially rubescens). I’m not too familiar with japonicus, but leg color is variable between both races/species and while I think there are some pro-japonicus features such as the slightly larger, dark malar and slightly whiter, more defined wing bars and more defined upper part streaking, the legs look dull and supercilium looks buffish.
I think this is a tough ID, but I think the CA committee would have done their due diligence and would have valuable insight and feedback that perhaps would be helpful on these tough individuals?
Best,
Julian
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, 8:31 PM, James Pawlicki <jmpawli10...> wrote:
I am curious what members of this group would call the following pipit
(Anthus) sp. that I photographed in San Diego, California, USA on 21
November 2019. A link to my eBird checklist with nine photos is included
here:
I just recently found out that the report was rejected as a Siberian Pipit
(A. japonicus) by members of the California Bird Records Committee by a
vote of 2 accept-7 reject.
I honestly can’t wrap my head around what the majority of the committee
thinks this pipit is, if not a Siberian Pipit. And if they think it’s a
variant American Pipit (A. rubescens), then are vagrant Siberian Pipits
actually identifiable from American Pipit in North America? Is there
something obviously wrong about this bird for Siberian Pipit that I am
missing? Thoughts?
