sandpiper help (1 Viewer)

[mdmoshier2]

I saw this bird at the Anahuac NWR north of High Island, TX 7 weeks ago. it has black legs so a least sandpiper is ruled out. Merlin says Baird's Sandpiper with one picture and Baird's vs Semipalmated sandpiper on another picture. I think I see some lighter outline of the black spots but would like some feedback please.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Both birds are semi-p's 👍🏼

 

[tom baxter]

The short blunt tipped bills with very little curvature (almost none), thicker bill and small looking heads, and lack of primary extension beyond the tip of the tail are a few field marks to help arrive at the ID of Semipalmated.

 

[Butty]

lack of primary extension beyond the tip of the tail

Not so with front bird: tail isn't visible.

 

[tom baxter]

Not so with front bird: tail isn't visible.

The primaries are at least the same length as the tail. In many cases of bird identification a bird is said to have short primary projection ie. not past the tip of the tail, when you cannot see the tail. This bird would check the box of short (or maybe altogether lacking) primary projection beyond the tip of the tail. It's still a Semipalmated Sandpiper.

 

[Butty]

I feel that all you're saying there is 'the wings don't look long enough for Baird's sandpiper' - which is fair enough, although when the tail isn't visible (as in this front bird) it's clearly impossible to make any comparison with it - and, aside from crudely comparing with the bird's overall size/shape, there's then no handy way of assessing wing-length rigorously. (In, e.g., passerines of course, primary-projection means something completely different and is defined in a totally different way - so your initial term 'primary extension' might be preferable for waders - though far better still would be if some completely different name had become popular for passerine-type primary-projection. But I digress.)

 

[tom baxter]

I feel that all you're saying there is 'the wings don't look long enough for Baird's sandpiper'

I was attempting to provide a more tangible measurement for the original poster. To simply say "the wings do not look long enough for..." is more subjective than to make a comparison to the other proportions of the bird.

when the tail isn't visible (as in this front bird) it's clearly impossible to make any comparison with it

I don't think you have to be able to see the tail to gather useful information about primary extension. I agree that we can't make 'rigorous' measurements if we can't see the tail, however, without seeing the tail we can determine with reasonable confidence that the primary extension is relatively short compared to say, a Baird's Sandpiper. In a sense, you're right that all I am saying is "I feel the wings don't look long enough for Baird's", but I do think there is value in framing my original statement the way I did for the sake of sharing methodology with the original poster.

(In, e.g., passerines of course, primary-projection means something completely different and is defined in a totally different way - so your initial term 'primary extension' might be preferable for waders - though far better still would be if some completely different name had become popular for passerine-type primary-projection. But I digress.)

I had never paid much attention to this distinction, but I understand your point. I can try to get behind that.