Need assistance....again (1 Viewer)

Of all days to play with a new aperture setting. Of course all the pine needles in front don't help either.

Belly and neck were completely unmarked - just yellow. Juvenile Phoebe?

Edit: What an idiot I am. Yes Andy there is a photo ....now.

Hmm, could be KC - any chance of a photo?

I think you're right KC, looks like an Eastern Phoebe to me.

Agreed.

KCFoggin said:

Belly and neck were completely unmarked - just yellow. Juvenile Phoebe?

Click to expand...

Hi KC,

I would agree with the others in this being an Eastern Phoebe, though it is in some post juvenile feathering (either formative or adult basic plumage). The yellowish wash is a feature of freshly molted phoebes of all ages.

Chris

Hi all.

Maybe not the right place, but for those of you who have not heard of the term 'formative' used by Chris here, regardin plumages, have a look here:

http://www.birdpop.org/DownloadDocuments/MAPSChat7.pdf#search="formative moult+peter pyle"

JanJ

JANJ said:

Hi all.

Maybe not the right place, but for those of you who have not heard of the term 'formative' used by Chris here, regardin plumages, have a look here:

http://www.birdpop.org/DownloadDocuments/MAPSChat7.pdf#search="formative moult+peter pyle"

JanJ

Click to expand...

Thanks Jan, very informative. Where can I learn more about moult sequences etc ? Also I have noted that primaries are sometimes counted from the inner & sometimes the outermost, which is very confusing. Is there a rule about this?
Halftwo

Thanks guys and thanks Jan and Chris for the explanation.

halftwo said:

Thanks Jan, very informative. Where can I learn more about moult sequences etc ? Also I have noted that primaries are sometimes counted from the inner & sometimes the outermost, which is very confusing. Is there a rule about this?
Halftwo

Click to expand...

Hey Guys,

Thanks JanJ for posting the link to the MAPChat paper. I am a true believer in attempting to reform ornithological terminology whenever necessary, so I am a real proponent of the Humphrey-Parkes molt terminology as modified by Howell et al. It needs to get as much exposure as possible to gain acceptance by the masses. Since the Birdforum audience is predominately European, I generally try to include reference to terminology in common usage there (e.g., post-juvenile, first-winter, etc.) along with the H-P terminology.

Regarding numbering primaries, there has long been the convention in North America to number primaries following the general sequence that they are replaced during molt (descendent molt). This is an oversimplification of course, but primaries are generally replaced from the innermost outward to the outermost (molt progresses distally). By contrast, secondaries are generally replaced from the outermost inward to the innermost (ascendant) and are numbered accordingly. In the UK and Europe, there has been more mixed usage. My first encounter with the alternative approach of numbering primaries from the outermost inward was in Peter Grant's gull book. This approach was apparently commonplace in 19th century writings. I have not personally encountered this methodology in any recent writings, so I think that the descendent numbering approach is gaining favor. The Olsen/Larsson Gull book and Forsman's Raptors of Europe are two recent examples that follow the decendent numbering approach. A clear historical explanation of the two approaches is available as a PDF here:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v113n04/p0968-p0969.pdf#search="descendant molt"

Chris