ML601908431

Age

Not specified

Sex

Not specified

Observation details

I observed the bird with a few others from inside the fence at this preserve in Lake County at (28.8454202, -81.9534930). The bird was just on the other side of the fence in Sumter County at (28.8451885, -81.9537612). I left the golf course area where everyone was located when I arrived to view from the preserve. Viewing here was much more convenient, with much closer looks and without the concern of observing from restricted property at the course. While the bird was technically in Sumter County at all times, eBird has a defined protocol for birding near geopolitical boundaries where checklist locations are based on the observer’s position rather than the bird’s position. Detailed information on that can be found here if anyone is interested: https://support.ebird.org/en/support/solutions/articles/48001059718/edit#anchorBirdingBorders. Based on that, including the PAGP on a checklist at the preserve is appropriate according to eBird protocol. The bird remained in the area indicated by the GPS coordinates above from my arrival at 7:00PM until I left around 8:15PM. Besides what I noted in the field, I compared my photos of the bird to photos on Macaulay when I got home. My observations are as follows: The plumage on this bird showed a few characters that favored Pacific as opposed to American Golden-Plover, spotted and patch black-white undertail coverts (made sure to get a photo of this), and more whitish area along the flanks/sides at the base of the wings when in flight (The black should extend all the way over the flanks/sides and touch the axillaries at the base of the wings in AMGP…see flight shot). The white stripe running down the neck/breast didn’t really strike me as narrower, but I’m sure the variation in this is quite subtle. I feel like there could be some overlap on these plumage field marks between a breeding female or molting American Golden-Plover vs. Pacific however. Looking at the structure of various parts, there are a couple other things that also favor Pacific. Most notably, the primary extension only reaches the end of the tail and maybe slightly further, and only 3 or so primary tips seemed to be visible when at rest due to the longer tertials on the wings. There should be 4-5 primaries visible on an American Golden-Plover with folded wings. Besides that, the bill did look a slight bit heftier after comparing my photos of this bird to many American Golden-Plover. The legs did extend beyond the tail when in flight I noticed, but this is seen in American Golden-Plover from browsing photos in flight in Macaulay, but maybe not quite as much projection on average as Pacific since they are supposed to have slightly shorter legs. Ultimately, I don’t think there are any characters on this bird that scream Pacific Golden-Plover by themselves compared to an American Golden-Plover in molt, but all the subtle field marks favor Pacific over American which makes a strong case for the former. The two species are extremely similar, so the ID itself should be subtle too. Photos of the bird foraging and a flight shot are TBA.

Technical information

Model

NIKON D500

ISO

500

Focal length

500 mm

Flash

Flash did not fire

f-stop

f/5.6

Shutter speed

1/640 sec

Dimensions

4240 pixels x 2825 pixels

Original file size

876.61 KB