ML35723041

Age

Not specified

Sex

Not specified

Observation details

Downward tail see photo, 1 so so photo, clinging to tree limb of sycamore and foraging on bark and weaving in and out of branches, flew into oak. Small empid, short primaries, no tail movement notes, faint views, 33.749108,-117.582205, no vocalization, did not appear to behave like pac slope. Comments by Doug Willick: most likely a Hammond’s. It has several things going for it, for HAFL, but the “cons” are, to me, the apparent “moderate” (and not long) primary extension, and the lower mandible, which appears to be a dull orange throughout its entirety. As said above, the issue of foreshortening may be at play here with the primary extension, which of course might make them appear a bit shorter than they really area. (The tail appears relatively short to me, but don’t know how much that’s a part of foreshortening due to viewing angle.). As far as the pale lower mandible, I remember looking into this with Jim Pike years ago, as we’d seen HAFL now and then that seemed to us to also have mostly, to entirely pale lower mandibles. One thing I can recall, is that the more one gets underneath an Empid with pale lower mandible, the more pale it appears. So from a side view, many HAFLs seem to have darker lower mandibles, which I guess means the lateral edges of the lower mandible are darker than the bottom of the bill. I also seem to recall Jim learning somewhere (though I should probably ask him if he remembers the details on this still), that for Empids that normally have partially to mostly dark lower mandible, it’s the adults that typically show that, as the young, such as in fall migration, can often show paler lower mandibles than the adults. If so, that might be an answer for that potential discrepancy for the bird being a HAFL. Certainly HAFL (along with WEFL and WIFL) often forage within foliage, whether high or low, whereas GRFL typically forages more like a phoebe perhaps—in that they are often foraging lower down, and not high up in trees or shrubs, and don’t normally spend much time at all foraging inside the canopy of trees or shrubs. From our experience with DUFL (at least from the migrants, or wintering birds we’ve had in the county), they can show foraging behavior like either GRFL or any of the others (foraging inside cover or on the outside, and at either low or moderate elevations in trees or shrubs). On the breeding grounds DUFL can sing from quite high in trees (which I was reminded of this past summer, when birding in the habitat surrounding the Bluff Lake Reserve, above Big Bear). I was surprised how high this one territorial bird got. There are a few features on this bird that could be ok for DUFL (the bill length possibly, which possibly looked just a tad long for a typical HAFL), and the primary extension, although I don’t think this was “short” (as Sibley describes the primary extension for DUFL). But the peaked crown (good for HAFL) isn’t as typical of DUFL, and the apparent compact look to the bird (partially due to largish head and apparent shortish tail) isn’t good for DUFL.

Technical information

Model

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Lens

EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

ISO

1600

Focal length

400 mm

Flash

Flash did not fire, auto

f-stop

f/5.6

Shutter speed

1/500 sec

Dimensions

3000 pixels x 1998 pixels

Original file size

2.8 MB