Date: 7/17/25 11:31 am From: julian hough <jrhough1...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
Jim,
I agree that the bird is a good japonicus candidate, but my experience is limited and I don’t know the nuances of Alticola which may be slightly closer to japonicus, which perhaps is swaying me more since I see rubescens.
If Alticola and japonicus are closer then it’s tricky. But I do think this exhibits some good japonicus features, but the leg color is apparently on the darker end of the spectrum. Is this perhaps the main reason why it just fell short on the scoring? Had the legs been brighter and paler, would that have pushed the committee into “Accept” zone?
It would be good to know if the committee felt the malar, breast streaking and wing bars to be OK for japonicus. That would be a good benchmark to have at least.
Getting input from Andy Birch and Cin-Ty would be more illuminating than what I could offer you here on this bird, which is just an opinion that isn’t that well-informed! 😃
Thanks for sharing an interesting bird to ponder!
Julian
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, July 17, 2025, 2:17 AM, James Pawlicki <jmpawli10...> 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:
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
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:
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?
