Thanks for the reply! Which features in particular lead you to that ID?Hi, sadly, it's a female Black-throated Blue Warbler.
I do see your point(s). In particular the position of the white mark on the wing edge, which did strike me as being far too far forward to be (as on black-throated blue warbler) the base of the primaries. It does fit the position of the alula or tiny p1 or whatever it is (as shown on your link). The diffuse lower half of the broken eye-ring then makes sense too. I'm guessing that the yellowish on the underparts is enough to rule out warbling vireo, but I'll leave that to you; I'm aware that warbling vireo is not as straightforward as it looks in the books.Here are a few things that incline me toward PHVI:
My reading of the issues is that, in Philadelphia vireo, and in a video of this quality, one would not be able to distinguish that a bill is a 'vireo bill'. Hence I'm not - personally - dissuaded by that not being apparent.I'm not seeing a vireo bill
Thanks for the observation. Is there a particular aspect that looks most off to you (e.g. thinness in the side view)? My initial instinct is to agree with @Butty.I scanned through the video in a sort-of frame-by-frame. I'm not seeing a vireo bill. It's a warbler.
In that light, I agree with Microtus.
But... if it walks like a Philadelphia vireo, and quacks like a Philadelphia vireo, and there are good reasons why it's not a black-throated blue warbler... Isn't it then a Philadelphia (or maybe warbling) vireo? Or am I missing something?it challenges my previous experience, and to a certain degree assumptions
Nice observation about the lores. I personally feel that this could be a result of the low resolution, but I could be wrong. About 40% and 60% of the way through the video when the bird has its head turned toward the camera, the lores do look a bit darker.It's either Phila. Vireo or Warbling for me, too. I'm not seeing the lores dark enough for Philadelphia, and it looks like the throat is quite pale to me. I think Warbling should be in consideration here, but I don't know I'd be confident to call this either way in the field. A good number of Phila. Vireo are darker and more colorful than this (and the opposite is true for Warbling Vireo).
This is very interesting, and to me the most compelling argument so far that the bird is not a PHVI. That said, gradients can be difficult to assess under sub-optimal lighting conditions (the same applies to the crown vs. mantle contrast). I'm increasingly feeling that this bird will not be conclusively identifiable to sp."The distribution of yellow as an identifying feature is consistent throughout. With Philadelphia Vireos, the yellowish tones are most intense in the throat and upper breast area. The intensity of yellow here is as high or higher than adjacent areas throughout the underparts. With Warbling Vireos, the opposite is true; the depth of yellowish tone is lowest to the throat and upper breast area and highest along the flanks and undertail."
Thanks for the input! I agree that the giss of the bird is too colorful and contrasting for a WAVI. Would you say that the seemingly too pale throat (50% to 70% of the way through the video) is just a trick of the lighting?That is 100% a Philadelphia vireo. Go frame by frame and note the black under tail and the skinny short tail as definitive clincher that it is not a warbler, aside from the high contrast dark cap with white eye arcs which are also spot on. Warbling Vireo can look a lot like a drab Philadelphia Vireo, but this is a rather bright one.
This picture shows yellow on the undertail coverts, which is good for Warbling, but the bird in your video has white undertail coverts, which would seem to contradict Warbling.To play Devil's advocate, here is a photo I found of a WAVI in shadow showing many similar features: Warbling Vireo Macaulay Library ML262931571