Date: 7/17/25 11:09 am From: Peter Pyle <ppyle...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
As a member of CBRC I can vouch that we are still slogging our way through this ID challenge. We only outright accepted 5 of 20 Siberian Pipit records in this recent batch, and members were all over the place in their votes. This situation will beg for a good re-evaluation after these first rounds of records (including another batch of 27 records that we voted on last year) have finalized.
In researching for my votes I did spend an afternoon at Macaulay and agree that many migrant and wintering birds in Asia would not be looked at twice in California, and I also found some birds in North America can have very dark underpart streaking, such as these from Texas and New Mexico:
In my assessment I came away with the following conclusion: "I did find that heavier back streaking was a much better feature for SIPI than underpart streaking, and that leg color is at least a good supporting character and ~diagnostic for SIPI if bright pale pink."
On back streaking I did vote for the San Diego bird, but in other cases I was on the opposite side of a 2-7 vote.
FWIW, cheers, Peter
On 7/16/2025 11:17 PM, James Pawlicki wrote: > 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: > > file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ > 55/05/0A528E41-FA0B-4E25-AE38- > C187CB476547/Birch%20et%20al. %202024%20British%20Birds.pdf > > 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 >> >> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html
