LOUISIANA
REPORT FORM
|
1. English and Scientific names: Red-necked Phalarope, Phalaropus lobatus |
|
2. Number of individuals, sexes, ages, general plumage
(e.g., 2 in alternate plumage): |
|
|
|
3. Locality: |
|
Specific Locality:
pond on north side of |
|
4. Date(s) when observed:
October 17, 2011 |
|
|
|
5. Time(s) of day when observed: 2:15 – 3:45 PM |
|
|
|
6. Reporting observer and address: Jeffrey W. Harris, |
|
|
|
7. Other observers accompanying reporter who also identified
the bird(s): Kevin Morgan |
|
|
|
8. Other observers who independently identified the
bird(s): Paul Conover |
|
|
|
9. Light conditions (position of bird in relation to shade
and to direction and amount of light):
The bird was positioned between us and the afternoon sun, making it
highly back lit. This made discernment
of details of back and face nearly impossible. |
|
|
|
10. Optical equipment (type, power, condition): 10 x 50 binocular; spotting scope with
variable magnification eyepiece |
|
|
|
11. Distance to bird(s):
80-100 yards |
|
|
|
12. Duration of observation: concentrating on the bird was during a
30-40 minute period; periodic looks thereafter while counting other birds. |
|
|
|
13. Habitat:
agricultural pond in rice growing country. Note:
this was the only pond with water in the immediate vicinity because of
drought conditions. |
|
|
|
14. Behavior of bird / circumstances of observation
(flying, feeding, resting; include and stress habits used in identification;
relate events surrounding observation):
The bird was observed feeding along the western shore of this
pond. It swam along the shoreline,
with frequent reversals of direction.
It probably covered almost 2/3 the length of this pond during our
observation period. The bird never
made the circular swimming often seen in phalaropes, but the quick and snappy
turns followed by reaching for food items was unlike other birds on the pond
(e.g. dowitchers, yellowlegs, large plovers).
As it swam, the head was held forward of the body as if leaning into
the direction of movement, and there were frequent pumps of the neck and head
as if to get momentum (kind of like an American Coot swims). |
|
|
|
15. Description (include only what was actually seen, not
what "should" have been seen; include if possible: total
length/relative size compared to other familiar species, body bulk, shape,
proportions, bill, eye, leg, and plumage characteristics. Stress features
that separate it from similar species):
Our view was mostly of silhouette in nature – the distance and back
lighting were too great to overcome with our optics. We saw a bird that seemed slightly smaller
than a Lesser Yellowlegs swimming erratically on the water without the legs
being visible. The bird had a short
thin neck with a smallish head (relative to the proportions of a
dowitcher). On a couple of occasions,
a dark eye line was apparent as the bird turned and sunlight managed to
strike the face in a way to illuminate it.
We focused heavily on bill length and determined that it was not longer
(and probably slightly smaller) than the head width of the bird in
profile. It was thin and not as thick
as shown for the Red Phalarope. On
several occasions the bird fully extended its wings over the body as if to
fly or to stretch, revealing a white line bordered by darker areas on either
side. |
|
|
|
16. Voice: none |
|
|
|
17. Similar species (include how they were eliminated by
your observation): The short bill
length was too short for a Wilson’s Phalarope, which has a bill nearly 1.5
times the head width in our estimation.
The white markings in the wing suggested either Red-necked or Red
Phalarope, but we concluded that the bill was too thin to be a Red
Phalarope. We also had the luxury of
knowing the initial ID by Paul Conover. |
|
|
|
18. Photographs or tape recordings obtained? (by whom?
attached?): nothing usable to defend
the ID (we were just too far from the bird) |
|
|
|
19. Previous experience with this species: none |
|
|
|
20. Identification aids: (list books, illustrations, other
birders, etc. used in identification): |
|
|
|
a. at time of observation:
Sibley, Peterson and National Geographic field guides; as well as The
Shorebird Guide by O’Brien et al. |
|
|
|
b. after observation:
same as above; plus The Birds of North America at Cornell website |
|
|
|
21. This description is written from: _____ notes made
during the observation (_____notes attached?);_____notes made after the
observation (date:_____); ___X__memory. |
|
22. Are you positive of your identification if not,
explain: Our observation was less than
ideal. So, without some a priori knowledge, I would estimate
that our ID could only be about 80-85% reliable. If nothing else, our report can extend the
dates for which the bird was observed. |
|
|
|
23. Date: October
20, 2011 Time: 8:00 PM |
|
|
1
in transitional to non-breeding plumage (there seemed to be a dark patch on
the neck that would not be there in non-breeding plumage)