DLecy

Be careful. Eastern Bluebirds occur in small numbers up and down the front range of Colorado. They are uncommon, but annual.

Indeed.

Yes, some level of domestic bird and/or GWFG x goose sp. There are many hybrids or other possibilities with geese. This photo is inconclusive. The bill looks too thin and long for Bean Goose to me.

You're right. Apparently, Marsh Sandpiper is also now a Code 4. It was a 5 when I saw it. I guess I've seen lots of Code 4's...and only one current Code 5.

Sinaloa Wren in AZ, and Marsh Sandpiper in CA.

Willow Warbler, yes. the Turtle Dove and Common Cuckoo are code 4 and 3 respectively, I think. The fact that some species are regular in Alaska really skews the coding.

Remember, the ABA does encompass the entire ABA region. So, a White-eyed Vireo, while locally a really rare bird, is not rare at all in the scale of the ABA. They are year round residents in coastal SE US, and they breed over about 1/4 of the entire US, concentrated in the Southeast. Not rare at all by ABA standards. FWIW, I’ve only ever seen three ABA code 5’s.

Maybe not the best photo of the day, but my favorite. https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/581278331

TWO Hooded Warblers...Connor C. found one of them. Will post my other photo in the favorite photos of the day thread. https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/581278271

Lesser Nighthawk. A really good bird for the county. A very impressive find by the original finder (not me)! https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/581039841

I would drop everything to go see that bird…

This field mark is suuuper subtle. Most field marks in hummingbirds are, but you can find lots of examples in Macaulay where ALHUs appear to have clean white upper breasts. Many very good photos show a slight hint of orange in the center of the white on ALHU, but this is really nuanced. It may be a field mark worth considering, but it’s far from diagnostic, IMO.

Agreed about the ID’s and reasoning behind timing. But, be very careful about using the last point as a reliable field mark…it’s not one. 😊

Ok, this is a little complicated...but you are actually not totally wrong to call this a first year bird. It sort of depends on who is describing the bird. Birders, bird banders, and other scientists generally define bird ages slightly differently. People who deal with Hawk Watch and hawk banding also use slightly different terms. I bird in its first plumage after a post-juvenile molt is technically a "First Year" bird. However, bird banders always consider a bird in its second calendar year of life (after Jan.1) a "Second Year" bird. Sometimes you hear the terms "Hatch Year" and "After Hatch Year" too. You don't use the term "first winter" and "first summer" for birds that molt only once a year.

Definitely Lawrence's Goldfinch.