Date: 7/16/25 7:44 pm From: Nick Lethaby <nlethaby...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
Jim,
I used to look at a lot of Japonicus in NE Asia and there is really
significant overlap with rubescens. I certainly saw birds over there that I
would easily pass off as rubescens over here. Obviously rubescens varies a
lot too and I am sure that the CBRC leans towards only accepting birds with
every feature. I know Paul Lehman is ultra-conservative on this species -
too conservative imo although I understand where he is coming from. My
guess is that the lack of pink legs was the main block to acceptance for
your bird, although my recollection is that plenty of japonicus don't have
pink legs.
Nick
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 6:03 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
>
>
> 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 >
