Date: 7/16/25 11:18 pm From: James Pawlicki <jmpawli10...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
Hi Julian-
What I have heard recently from others is that the bird was likely scored
by CBRC committee members using a numeric scoring system published in a
recent British Birds article that addresses American vs Siberian Pipit ID,
which should be accessible at the following link:
Apparently most folks scored it below a 20, which is the cut-off for
Siberian Pipit (anything equal to or greater than 20 is considered a
Siberian Pipit). I personally scored it a 21 (1,4,5,0,1,5,0,5), thus
falling in the Siberian range, but barely.
Regardless of the scoring, I am thrown by photos in the literature of
Siberian Pipits taken within range that appear to be nearly exact matches
for this bird phenotypically (and in some cases individuals that look even
less distinct from American Pipit, as Nick Lethaby had alluded to in his
comments). This includes the medium (not bright) pink leg color, which many
Siberian Pipits appear to show. Looking at the article further, everything
about the bird besides the leg color and perhaps the density of streaking
across the upper breast appears to be at the japonicus end of the scale,
and in combination would seem out of range for rubescens.
I do plan on requesting individual committee member comments, but this has
certainly been a learning experience thus far.
James
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 6:00 PM julian hough <jrhough1...> wrote:
> 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 <https://more.att.com/currently/imap> >
> 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:
>
> https://ebird.org/checklist/S61639541 >
> 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?
>
>
> James Pawlicki
> San Diego, California USA
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html >
>
