BIRDING TO THE EDG

Sparrows are just plain hard for most! I even have to ask questions to other birds most often to help in identifying these suckers. Like anything else, you need to use structure and size to first eliminate the bulk of the other species possible. Label them down to genus. Most genus' have distinct features that set them apart. I was out looking at the Buff-breasted Sandpiper in the last blog when this guy started jumping at my feet.

I looked at it for about four minutes or so then flashed some photos. The bird had a dainty elongated body, long tail, and roundish head. These attributes automatically put this bird in the Spizella genus of sparrows. Now that has been done, I know I am looking at either Field, Chipping, Brewer's, Clay-colored, and American-Tree Sparrow. These are the members of this genus that would feasibly show up in this area. Let's go through the motions.

First, American-Tree only winters here since it breeds in northern Canada and Alaska. Nevertheless, American-Tree has a much more robust body and usually will exhibit a plainer facial pattern and central breast spot.

We can see here that this bird has a defined eye-ring. Vesper Sparrows also shows up in the area (not Spizella genus), but has a flat head, large bill, well defined eye-ring, and streaking on the flanks and upper breast. We know because of the old plumage (well defined markings) that this is an adult bird, so we would expect a dark line through the eye even if faded, for this bird to be called a Chipping Sparrow. Also, Chipping Sparrows do not have an eye-ring at all. Field Sparrows are a bit stubbier in overall appearance, but we would expect an WELL-defined eye-ring, much buffier underneath and two defined wing-bars.


Clay-colored is a huge possibility here since the bird is clean ventrally, has a gray neck band, and a defined face pattern. Look at the first picture! Clay-colored Sparrows have a extremely well-defined gray nape and neck. This bird's neck is faded so this doesn't bode well for Clay-colored. In the field, I was glad I could see these things at first to eventually confirm that my camera wasn't tricking me too much. I brought my Nikon  8x32 EDG binocualrs with me which have a close focus of around 7.5 feet. I usually don't care about close focus too much, but I needed it then and it was a real comfort to use the EDG bins at that point. I also happened to notice that the face was a bit dull for Clay-colored. Even young birds (first-winter) exhibit a strong pale eye-line, strong pale sub-moustacial stripe, and a contrasting throat.

This leaves us with one possibility after all. Brewer's Sparrow! Do you think this is a Brewer's Sparrow? I was of the opinion that our "drabbest bird in North America," was the culprit, but I consulted the likes of France Dewaghe, Bill Schmoker, Ted Floyd, and Christian Nunes. People whom I know to be very pragmatic when identifying a sparrow. Brewer's Sparrow was certainly in the discussion, but this Brewer's Sparrow was still too defined with it's markings. Ordinarily, those guys are even more drab the pictures elude to. Furthermore, Ted made an excellent comment. What about a hybrid? Would you consider a hybrid in this case after reviewing some of the details listed above for this genus? I would. I think that this could possibly be a Brewers x Clay-colored. The defined gray nape, facial pattern, and warmer tones might indicate a hybrid otherwise this is a bright Brewer's Sparrow. We'll never know!

It amazes me that I had to go through that entire process when I had the bird right in my darn face. Its so frustrating sometimes, but you need to remain patient when making these ID's. Wheeww, okay that was stressful, but fun.....errrrrr.....I'm weird, I know. The chase/challenge is always the reward!

Thanks for reading and I hope I was able to bring some light to Spizella sparrows. Good Birding!

Photos were taken by Mike Freiberg with a Nikon D200 and a 300mm F4 Nikkor lens.

There was no color manipulation in these particular photos. The first picture shows how warm the bird really was.