ML438462911

Age

Not specified

Sex

Not specified

Media notes

These photos were taken during our second encounter of what we thought to be the first of two Dusky Flycatchers seen today, here photographed by Curtis A. Marantz on 16 April 2022 at the Lake Tamarisk communuity, Desert Center, Riverside County, California.

Observation details

Our first encounter with a Dusky Flycatcher involved a bird in a flowering Palo Verde tree near the north end of Shasta Drive that quickly flew across the road toward the northeastern corner of the golf course. Our views of this bird were good, but only of the back and relatively brief. This bird was silent. Shortly later, we tracked down a “whitting” Empidonax in desert scrub off the north end of Shasta Drive, maybe 100 meters from where the first bird disappeared. This bird was more cooperative, and we were able to get relatively good views and a few photos before it disappeared. I suspect this was the same individual that we had seen earlier, but we could not be sire this was the case. Hours later, Waggoner, saw another, silent Dusky Flycatcher that I missed in trees just west of the north end of the southern lake that was certainly a different individual, so our total for the day was at least two and possibly three birds, two of which I saw and one of which I photographed. The first bird was seen only from behind, when I noted a small flycatcher with a bill that appeared long and slim for an Empidonax, but I was unsure whether the tip was pointed or slightly hooked. This bird had a rounded to slightly peak crown on a head that did not appear so large relative to the bird’s size. The neck was short and inconspicuous, and the body was relatively slim and having a posture that appeared to be roughly diagonal with the tail held downward in the plane of the body. The wings were relatively short, with a primary projection that appeared to be less than one-half the length of the exposed secondaries, and somewhat rounded wingtips. The tail also appeared to be relatively long, slightly flared distally, and seemingly jagged at the tip. This bird did not appear to move its tail either up or down, but instead, it was sedate, at least during our brief period of observartion. I cannot recall seeing this bird’s legs or feet. When seen from behind in the sunlight, this bird appeared to have an olive cast to its back, yet it appeared paler than I may have expected for this species. I cannot now recall if the head contrasted as more grayish than the back, but if so, the contrast was minimal. There was a narrow eyering that was well-defined and whitish in color, but apart from not expanding conspicuously behind the eye, its shape was unremarkable. The wings were darker and browner than the back, and they had two wingbars that appeared to be dull whitish to light gray and contrasting with the dark brown bases of the feathers. The wingtips appeared to be brown and maybe slightly lighter than the bases of the coverts and secondaries. I also noted a striped pattern to the remiges that represented a contrast between the whitish to light gray edges and the dark brown centers. I cannot now recall either if there was a dark band below the lower wingbar or if the pattern on the primaries and secondaries differed, but I did think the edges to the innermost secondaries were broader and more conspicuous than those on the other feathers. The upperside of the tail was dark brown, and at least from behind I was unable to see white edges to the outer feathers. Although it was clear that this bird had a paler throat, I cannot recall noting the underparts on a bird that I saw only from behind. The bill appeared to be at least mostly blackish, including what I could see of the lower mandible. The eyes were dark, but I was unable to see their precise color, and I cannot now recall even seeing the legs or feet on this bird. My second encounter with this species in scrub off the north end of Shasta Drive was more prolonged, but with the bird now in shade, and given that I tried to get photos, I did not study the bird as carefully. I again noted that structural characters noted above, but also that the upperparts appeared a bit darker and more olive, and that the head and neck contrasted as more grayish. In the shade, the wings appeared somewhat darker than they did when I saw the bird in the sunlight, and as such, the wingbars and markings on the remiges appeared bolder and better-defined, though again representing two wingbars combined with a striped pattern on the remiges that was bolder on the innermost secondaries than on the other feathers. I was also able to see the underparts, when I noted that the pale gray throat contrasted with a darker and more olive wash to the breast and sides, which further contrasted with the pale yellow of the belly and flanks. Given the paler flanks, this bird lacked the “vested” appearance of a Hammond’s Flycatcher and I thought the underparts overall were paler than those of the Hammond’s Flycatchers that we saw this same day. I again noted that the bill was slim and at least mostly black in color with minimal paling at the base of the lower mandible. The eyes were dark, but I was unable to discern their precise coloration, and I cannot now recall noting the color of the legs or feet, though I did see them.

Technical information

Model

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Lens

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

ISO

800

Focal length

400 mm

Flash

Flash did not fire

f-stop

f/8.0

Shutter speed

1/640 sec

Dimensions

1966 pixels x 1270 pixels

Original file size

4.1 MB