Canadian Flycatchers (1 Viewer)

Two different birds taken in Southern British Columbia recently, can anyone help with the ID.

Thanks

There are tough little fellows to I.D. to species. Southern British Columbia is vast area and it might help if to narrow it down to the nearest few hundred kilometers and particular ecology. There's a lot of overlap in flyatchers but some are more prevalent or only found in some regions of southern B.C.

For example in southern B.C. you're more likely to see a Least Flycatcher in the Rockies, a Willow in the southern Interior, etc. To complicate matters, it's even important to know if it's the 'southern' south of the interior, beause in the 'northern' south it could be an Alder Flycatcher.

Do you know the nearest town or, if there wasn't one, the nearest park,lake or road you were on?

cayoncreekman said:

There are tough little fellows to I.D. to species. Southern British Columbia is vast area and it might help if to narrow it down to the nearest few hundred kilometers and particular ecology. There's a lot of overlap in flyatchers but some are more prevalent or only found in some regions of southern B.C.

For example in southern B.C. you're more likely to see a Least Flycatcher in the Rockies, a Willow in the southern Interior, etc. To complicate matters, it's even important to know if it's the 'southern' south of the interior, beause in the 'northern' south it could be an Alder Flycatcher.

Do you know the nearest town or, if there wasn't one, the nearest park,lake or road you were on?

Click to expand...

These were taken near Vancouver / Seattle, my thought was Willow but was just hoping to check that I had not missed something else. I did not hear these call otherwise that would have helped with the ID.

Thanks

Mark

MarkHows said:

These were taken near Vancouver / Seattle, my thought was Willow but was just hoping to check that I had not missed something else. I did not hear these call otherwise that would have helped with the ID.

Thanks

Mark

Click to expand...

What about pacific slope flycatcher?

Filip

Empidonax are really tough. A lot of experts are loathe to give a definitive ID without hearing them or seeing them in the hand, and taking location into account. At first glance looks good for Willow... Alder... Least... Pacific Slope... No doubt an expert will study the pics and give you an answer. Good luck. :t:

MarkHows said:

Two different birds taken in Southern British Columbia recently, can anyone help with the ID.

Thanks

Click to expand...

______________________-
Howdy,
I am inclined to call the first a Willow Flycatcher because of the narrowness of the eye-ring and general low contrasts. Not sure Alder can be excluded.
The second I would consider a Hammond's/Dusky type. The long primary extensions might suggest Hammond's. The angle is poor, so the short looking tail may just be an angle effect, but if real would suggest Hammond's also. However, the bill looks long and "thinny" with a dark tip to an otherwise pale (lower) mandible--suggesting Dusky. The head is roundy rather than more squared, also suggesting Dusky. So except for the somewhat long look to the primary extensions, the collection seems to favor Dusky Flycatcher.
Not sure to what level of certainty can place IDs in Empidonax flycathers, but these are my leanings.
CHEERS, JOE G

It's safe to narrow them down to about six species. I don't think there would be anything other than a 'guesstimate' after that.

The issue with other criteria is that a lot of literature simply repeats other sources and isn't based on original studies. Much of the terrain is really difficult to access and it's almost imposible to know from just the visuals what's a variation on a species. A distinct bird song or call is the best marker but even those have a lot of variation in our flycatchers. The mountain ranges tend to run north/south from Alberta to the Pacific and fauna groups are isolated from each other. Unique ecosystems have evolved on the slopes and in the valleys. An entymologist or lepidopterist can can find new species of spiders, moths, etc. on every outing especially where there is no road access. Puting some of British Columbia's flycatchers into a distinct species is sometimes based on broad generalizations.

Howdy,
I would agree that it would be difficult to be definitive on a particular species, but the possibilities for each of these can be narrowed to much less than 6 species
The first almost has to be either Willow or Alder. Its (1) pretty big-billed, (2) back brownish not greenish or yellow or gray, (3) whitish throat and belly, and has a (4) narrow eye-ring. Pacific Slope and Yellow-bellied are excluded by (2), (3) and (4); Hammonds', Gray, Least and Dusky by (1) and (4), Acadian by (4). This leaves only Willow and Alder [Alder can be late migrants, so range not useful in early June]. characters (1-4) are pretty definitive for this superspecies pair.
The second is not a good picture, but it can be seen to have a 1/2 dark-tipped lower mandible on a thin bill. This pretty well excludes Pacific-Slope, Yellow-bellied (also by by lack of green tones in back), Willow, Alder and Acadian. The distinct front of eye-ring also excludes Willow and Alder.
We are now down to Least (some of which can have dark in distal lower mandible), Dusky, Hammond's and Gray. And here, it may become less definitive. The general rounded head shape tends to disfavor Hammond's and Least. Gray should show much less than the distal half of the mandible dark, and a much less distinctive eye-ring, and much less contrast in wing bars and tertial edgings. I think Gray is safely excluded. The contrasting pale edgings on tertials may favor Least. The bill looks a bit too long for Hammond's and too slight for Least, about right for Dusky. The rounded head tends to favor Dusky, although the contrasty pale edgings on tertials, and long primary extensions would not. So down to three species.

It is also important to note that it is tough to call some birds from single photos, [sometime if just from angle or quailty of photo), and it is probably more so for Empidonax flycatchers. A single photo may provide misperceptions on some characters that, when seen from other angles, look different. Multiple photos also help weigh the value of some characters (as when one character appears the same in all 3 photos, while different angles provide different perceptions on another character).

So I wouldn't just throw up my hands, but agree that a definitive ID may not be possible from these photos. But there are probably some real experts out there. Maybe, this will fish them out.

CHEERS, JOE
_______________________________________________________

cayoncreekman said:

It's safe to narrow them down to about six species. I don't think there would be anything other than a 'guesstimate' after that.

The issue with other criteria is that a lot of literature simply repeats other sources and isn't based on original studies. Much of the terrain is really difficult to access and it's almost imposible to know from just the visuals what's a variation on a species. A distinct bird song or call is the best marker but even those have a lot of variation in our flycatchers. The mountain ranges tend to run north/south from Alberta to the Pacific and fauna groups are isolated from each other. Unique ecosystems have evolved on the slopes and in the valleys. An entymologist or lepidopterist can can find new species of spiders, moths, etc. on every outing especially where there is no road access. Puting some of British Columbia's flycatchers into a distinct species is sometimes based on broad generalizations.

Click to expand...

Many Thanks for all the comments, they are indeed difficult to separate and I was going on call for most of the ID's.

I am happy with willow for the first, sorry about the pic quality of the second, they are not always co-operative, dusky would fit

Thanks


Mark