Strange Little Gull Photo from 1979

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:11:51 EST Matt Hafner wrote:

Hello all,


I'm a teen birder and interested in learning more about bird identification. I've spent some time looking through old American Birds/Field Notes to further my knowledge. I read through the field reports and try to ID the pictures as they appear. I feel that I've learned a great deal about distribution and identification by doing this. However, scanning through pictures has made me ask some questions. The particular bird I would like to ask about in this message can be seen in the May 1979 issue of American Birds on page 276. It is a small gull taken in Ft. Pierce Harbor, FL on Jan. 14, 1979 by Alan Wormington.


I would be interested to know the field marks that make this gull a Little Gull (Larus minutus). My first impression of the bird was that is appeared to be a Ross's Gull (Rhodostethia rosea). The field marks that jumped out at me were the clean white cap, doe eye, and the short, petite bill. Other field marks that led me to Ross's were the primary pattern and overall structure. The primaries appear to have white inside linings as opposed to being completely black. The primaries also appear rather long and the crown peaked. My overall first impression of the bird was that it was a Ross's Gull.

Everyone,


This is the THIRD person to enquire about this photo of Little Gull in American Birds -- in addition to the most recent, I believe it was David Sibley over a decade ago, and Marshall Iliff this year. I was one of the discoverers of the bird and it was certainly a Little Gull, of which I have seen hundreds. I have multiple photos of the bird and these were sent to David Sibley (if my memory is correct) and of course he agreed with the ID as Little Gull.


The only problem lies in the fact that the single photo used in American Birds is a bit misleading and indeed shows incorrectly what the bird really looked like. -- but it's great that people continue to study old photos!


Alan Wormington,
Leamington, Ontario

FWIW, I have a crystal-clear memory of this incident, and the story may be worth retelling.


I may have been the only person who picked up on this photo when it was published in mid-1979. I had an exchange with the regional and subregional editors of AB at the time. The subregional editor in particular, who was one of those who saw the bird, was incensed that I should question the bird's identification as Little rather than Ross's.


I let the matter pass until the Sept. 1979 WFO field trip off San Diego, when I brought it up during a bull session on possibly mis-identified photos. Guy McCaskie was sufficiently intrigued that he later studied the published photo in great detail and wrote a widely-circulated, several-page analysis as to why the bird was surely a Ross's, not a Little.


His letter unleashed "the rest of the story". Apparently Alan Wormington took several photos of the Florida gull, all of which were submitted to the AB subregional editor. The group of photos was passed up the chain-of-command finally to the AB staff in New York, who chose the photo actually published. They chose the photo that was sharpest, without considering what it looked like. When the entire group of photos was passed along by Alan to Guy, myself, and others, we all agreed that the other photos clearly showed a Little Gull, not a Ross's.


Whether the published photo is a truly misleading image of the Little Gull in Florida, or a mislabelled photo of a Ross's from elsewhere taken at another time, possibly even by someone else, is an issue only Alan can address. There is no question from the rest of the evidence that the bird actually present in Florida that winter was a Little.


I suppose the moral of this story is: never let someone choose a photo of a rarity to be published who is far-removed from the matter itself :-)


Bill Smith, Grays Harbor, Washington USA
birdsmiths@hotmail.com

I looked at the Am Birds photo mentioned, and then looked at several references (Grant, Lars Jonsson Europe guide, NGS, Little Gull BNA account) and none mentioned that Little Gull can lack a dark crown, none show Little Gull such a small bill or large eye, and none show Little Gull with extensive white on inner 5-6 primaries (although Jonsson says that the amount of white in the primaries is variable). I think Matt may be right, but I would like to look at original photos (at Tall Timbers apparently, not here). An additional point: in the photo it actually looks like the outer 2 rectrices are much shorter and that the black terminal band may be restricted to the central few pairs of rectrices --- the photo is pretty fuzzy though and this may be an illusion. What is needed now is to look at the original photos, and consult with some people who know these gulls well (not me!).


Andy Kratter
Manager, Ornithology, Florida Museum of Natural History
kratter@flmnh.ufl.edu

Grayscale only version:

since December 20, 2000 (Thanks WebCounter!)