BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim M." data-source="post: 3308376" data-attributes="member: 60675">First, let me suggest that people are throwing the word "definite" and "definitely" around on a close ID, where different authorities give different field marks, rather too much.Second, looking at more photos than just those in the article linked to above, I do find some photos of Saltmarsh with a buffy wash on the flanks and breast--as with the subject bird.  If you have the Beadle and Rising photographic sparrow guide--check out 35.1 and 35.2.  (Sibley actually shows something along those lines in his SM illustration).Third, I agree with Silverwolf that there is no streaking in the super--at least not the type of multiple, thin streaks that I see in SM photos--just what looks like a single stray feather. I also agree that I don't see the type of bold white back braces I see in the subject bird in SM photos.Finally, I see a number of Nelson's photos showing a white throat, so I'm not sure that means much.In any event, given the second point, think I'm going back to my original position of sitting firmly on the fence on this bird.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>