Date: 7/19/25 10:15 pm From: James Pawlicki <jmpawli10...> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Pipit sp in California
Andy-
Thanks for your detailed response and analysis of the San Diego bird. The
identification of Siberian Pipit certainly seems more involved than I
originally took it to be, and some of the historical literature of the form
that I consulted shortly after I identified the bird back in 2019 seems a
bit outdated. The bird certainly fooled the local eBird reviewers for years
as it was considered appropriate for Siberian Pipit from the start, and on
that premise I was asked by a former California BRC member to submit it to
the CBRC with the notion that it would be included in the official state
database. In any event, I'm still left wondering how identifiable the
species truly is as a vagrant when you have an individual that looks
superficially like a plate in a well known field guide and passes the
scoring system in your article (with the caveat that it scored low and
should be well studied and photographed, though there were 9 photos
included), and yet is still not considered an acceptable California record
from a vagrancy standpoint. I certainly do not question any of the small
nuances that you noticed were "off" for the San Diego bird being a Siberian
Pipit, but with the above items considered, that is definitely a tall order
to fill. Even more interesting was that the committee accepted three sight
only reports that had no photos to even analyze/score.
James
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 2:10 PM Andrew Birch <
<0000171b9d979956-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> The British Birds article was intended as a guideline foridentification of
> Siberian solely in a vagrancy context and the scoring chart providinga
> framework to try to help weed out difficult Americans. Especially,
> thosemonochromatic, paler, grayer birds that tend to have white tips to the
> covertsand very pale underparts which highlight the bold underpart
> streaking and malarpatches that American can often show.
> As already mentioned in this thread, fall and winterin-range Siberians
> show a decent amount of variability just as their Americancounterparts do
> and some are best left unidentified in a vagrancy context egthis Dec’ bird
> from China would struggle to gain acceptance. It’s got pale pinklegs and
> extensively streaked below, so I don’t think there’s a reason toquestion
> whether it’s actually a vagrant American. However, it’s very buffbelow as
> are the spade-shaped median covert tips
> https://www.shanghaibirding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/pipit-buff-bellied018.jpg > American in fall and winter is perhaps one of the mostvariably-plumaged
> North American passerines and there is no single diagnosticfeature to
> separate the two as there is overlap on all features. The paler,more
> contrasting American types were found with a higher incidence from TX
> andNM. Plate 190 in the article from TX is an example of such a bird and
> below area few links of birds from TX and NM that approach Siberian in
> various respects.The first link, I feel is a “look” that is not far off the
> San Diego bird andis a “look” that other candidate japonicus have had from
> Texas and Illinois.All could score around 20-21 (just in Siberian
> territory) and interestingly,all have paler grayish upperparts (rather than
> brown), thin grayishflank streaking and rather dark legs which is a poor
> combination for a vagrantSiberian.
> https://flic.kr/s/aHsjPSd986https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/614494189 > (also note the extensive back streaking and reddish-brownlegs)
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/629840750https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/612020404 > (heavy malars and necklace)
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/611192616https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/519131511plus > a couple of recent birds from my local CA flock bothwith white underparts,
> bold underpart streaking, necklaces and moderately largemalar patches:
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/625980063https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/614001275 > However, in general, most Siberians are safely IDable in avagrancy context
> (even with fairly average photos) such as these birds:
> https://ebird.org/checklist/S32705221https://ebird.org/checklist/S60892194 > https://ebird.org/checklist/S60856489Or even birdsthat are less
> well-streaked below. This one has muddy but pinkish legs and thephotos need
> some color correction but note the spade-shaped white tips to themedian
> coverts and the dark outer web to the distal end of R6 (see Fig.
> 11).Despite being quite white below, the upperparts are brown rather than
> gray: https://ebird.org/checklist/S4249237.
> The San Diego bird I could also score between 20-21. At 21,it could well
> be a Siberian but per the article “Anycandidate vagrant Siberian Pipit that
> falls at the lower end of the scale(20–21) should be scrutinised carefully
> in the field and the identificationsupported by multiple photographs in a
> variety of postures. Assessment of legcolor, size of malar patch, extent of
> upper-breast streaking and necklaceshould be scored conservatively and with
> care.”
>
> I agree its underpart color, malar, upper breast streaking, streakingon
> sides of upper breast and color and definition (from what we can see)
> ofmedian covert tips can all work for Siberian. However, for a bird at the
> lowend of the scale that requires extra scrutiny, I think there are a few
> additionalfeatures that personally make me pause. It’s darker legs does
> mean it’s goingto need to be quite typical on other features.
>
> * Perhaps, it’s the dulllate afternoon lighting being misleading but the
> upperparts convey a paler, grayishtone. To my eye, it’s closer in tone and
> color to the TX bird https://flic.kr/s/aHsjPSd986 or plate 190) than it
> is to the cooler brown of an “average”Siberian
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/629139865 (also including the Turkish
> bird that is in the SDchecklist). Compared to many Americans, Siberian has
> a cooler brown tone andbecomes colder and grayer by late autumn but the SD
> bird seems a bit too paleand gray to my eye (vs plate 176 and 177).
>
> * I also think thepaler upperparts of the SD bird are making the mantle
> streaking seem strongertoo and it’s not more strongly streaked than a
> couple of the example Americanslinked to above eg
> https://flic.kr/s/aHsjPSd986orhttps://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/614494189.
> Backstreaking can be hard to assess in the field and is also variable
> between bothspecies but it can be quite extensive on many Siberians (plate
> 177) and theyoften exhibit “paler tramlines” between the dark streaking.
> This Jan’ Siberian has“paler tramlines” contrasting with the brown back (
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/629139870) or this different individual
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/628704704 and also the Turkish bird (in
> the SD checklist).
>
> * Aside from the large dark malar and streaking around the upper breast,
> the rest of the underpartstreaking is quite weak and seems contrastingly
> thinner, grayerand spottier not just on the flanks.
>
> * And lastly, theshape of the distal end of the median covert tips aren’t
> spade-shaped on the SDbird as they are on all the Siberian examples linked
> in this email eg theTurkish and the Japanese bird
> https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/629139865 plus all of the North
> American vagrants linked to above.
>
> Of course, the SD bird could absolutelybe a Siberian but based on the
> available photos, I personally think there’s sufficientroom for uncertainty
> in a vagrancy context.
> Best, Andy BirchLos Angeles
>
>
>
>
> Archives: https://listserv.ksu.edu/birdwg01.html >
