Date: 7/17/25 4:14 pm From: Killian Mullarney <ktmullarney...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
Norman,
I dare say one of the 'buff-bellied' pipits you have linked in your email
would quicken the pulse of any American birder who might come across such a
bird in North America! While I am aware of a recent record of *japonicus *in
the Netherlands, I don't think *rubescens *has ever been recorded in your
country. All of the birds you have identified as "Buff-bellied Pipits" are
of course Rock Pipits *Anthus petrosus*, which despite being ostensibly a
blackish-legged pipit, often has quite light, dirty pinkish legs outside
the breeding season. Similarly, the bird in the second link, which you
identify as a "Siberian Buff-bellied Pipit" is a handsome (European) Water
Pipit,* Anthus spinoletta*.
Cheers, Killian
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:03 PM N. Deans van Swelm <norman.vanswelm...>
wrote:
> We see pale-legged pipits sometimes, no idea where they come from, could
> it be Greenland or NE Canada perhaps?
>
>
> https://radioactiverobins.com/archive/wagtails-eastrn-othr%20white-/pipits-3Buff-breasted%20Pipit%20Anthus%20rubescens.htm >
>
>
> https://radioactiverobins.com/archive/wagtails-eastrn-othr%20white-/pipits-Siberian%20Buff-bellied%20Pipit%20Anthus%20r.japonicus.htm >
> Best wishes, Norman
>
> > Op 17-07-2025 20:13 CEST schreef Killian Mullarney <
> <ktmullarney...>:
> >
> >
> > How refreshing to read ( in Peter Pyle’s contribution to this interesting
> > thread) that “voting members were all over the place in their votes”!
> > Sometimes, that’s the best we can do with such challenging issues…
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Killian Mullarney
> >
> >
> > On Thu 17 Jul 2025 at 19:07, Peter Pyle <ppyle...> wrote:
> >
> > > 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:
> > >
> > > https://ebird.org/checklist/S49716058 > > > https://ebird.org/checklist/S154551261 > > >
> > > In addition, some Asian birds that otherwise look fine for Siberian can
> > > have duller pink legs:
> > >
> > > https://ebird.org/checklist/S84738003 > > > https://ebird.org/checklist/S82409297 > > >
> > > 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 > > >
> > > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html > > >
> >
> > Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html >
