Empid, maybe Dusky?

[Aidan B]

Saw this bird yesterday afternoon not far from the western edge of Placer County, California. My first impression of the empid was Dusky, but I quickly changed my mind to Hammond's. Right after I finished birding, I went back to thinking it was Dusky, then back to Hammond's. Now going through the photos, I think it's a Dusky. 

Here's why; It was a small empid, gray in color, with a white throat. The bill is larger than I'd expect on a HAFL, and the lower mandible is almost completely orange in color. The forehead angle is not as steep as I'd expect on a HAFL. The primary projection appears long in some photos but appears to be shorter in others, and the eyering is messy and indistinct. It never vocalized, unfortunately. 

I'd just like a couple of confirmations before I call this bird, Dusky is extremely hard to come by in the central valley, and this is several days earlier than they usually come through. 

[Charlie Spencer]

Not knowing squat about either, AAB says Hammond's have a longer primary projection.  See photos #4 and #5.  It also says Hammond's are more common in evergreen forests; what was the environment?

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Dusky_Flycatcher/species-compare

It doesn't say anything about those yellow underparts in photo #3.

Edited April 18 by Charlie Spencer

[IKLland]

I’m 90% sure that’s a Dusky for the reasons you stated, as well as overall GISS. 

[Aidan B]

I'm curious about @DLecyand @Connor Cochrane opinions. I've been sharing these photos around and getting very mixed opinions as for what it is. 

A few more photos here: https://ebird.org/checklist/S134135971

[Aidan B]

17 hours ago, Charlie Spencer said:

Hammond's are more common in evergreen forests; what was the environment?

It was in willows alongside a creek in oak woodland. I wish it had been up in the mountains, they vocalize up on the breeding grounds which would clear up this identification with no problem. 

Edited April 19 by Aidan B

[DLecy]

Ok, I’m on my phone at work, and promise to look better at your pictures later this evening in a larger screen, but my sense is this is a HAFL. The bill appears just a bit too small and “cute” to me and the pp is long-ish, makings the tail seem shorter than it would on a DUFL. The bird is a tweener for sure, but I’m leaning Hammond’s.

Granted, DUFL is a very rare bird in my county, and I have actually never seen one outside of SE Arizona. So, I’d be interested to hear more feedback.

FWIW, habitat during migration is a precarious since birds can literally show up anywhere. Breeding habitat is much more relatable to separate species. 

[Charlie Spencer]

7 hours ago, DLecy said:

FWIW, habitat during migration is a precarious since birds can literally show up anywhere.

Yeah , I forgot what season it is.  My mistake. 

[DLecy]

Ok, I looked little more this evening, and I think the tail morphology further supports Hammond's. What other feedback have you received?

[Aidan B]

50 minutes ago, DLecy said:

Ok, I looked little more this evening, and I think the tail morphology further supports Hammond's. What other feedback have you received?

So far I've had two person leaning Dusky, one person leaning Hammond's, and one person say they couldn't decide. All from birders I trust and really know their stuff well. Everyone seems pretty uncertain though. 

Here's a few responses. 

1. Man, that’s a tricky one! First photo made me think Hammond’s, but then others looked better for Dusky. It has a bit of unequal spacing in primaries (Hammond’s) but the tips are very rounded and not as long as I would expect (Dusky).  I’ve seen definite Hammond’s with similar bills so I don’t think that field mark makes or breaks it.  The eyering is definitely on the Hammond’s side, being obviously broader at rear.  Husky Flycatcher lol.

2. I actually saw this checklist already and wasn’t sure what to make of this bird. The bill seems pretty large and the head big/mostly round, which make me lean Dusky. The primaries are difficult to asses in photos; sometimes they look long and sometimes not excessively so. If I had to guess I’d go Dusky but long story short I’m not too sure.

In conclusion, I think I'm going to leave this bird as a Hammond's/Dusky spuh and not force an ID, unless someone can provide a definite reason as to why it's one or the other. I really don't see that happening here though. 

Edited April 20 by Aidan B

[DLecy]

8 hours ago, Aidan B said:

So far I've had two person leaning Dusky, one person leaning Hammond's, and one person say they couldn't decide. All from birders I trust and really know their stuff well. Everyone seems pretty uncertain though. 

Here's a few responses. 

1. Man, that’s a tricky one! First photo made me think Hammond’s, but then others looked better for Dusky. It has a bit of unequal spacing in primaries (Hammond’s) but the tips are very rounded and not as long as I would expect (Dusky).  I’ve seen definite Hammond’s with similar bills so I don’t think that field mark makes or breaks it.  The eyering is definitely on the Hammond’s side, being obviously broader at rear.  Husky Flycatcher lol.

2. I actually saw this checklist already and wasn’t sure what to make of this bird. The bill seems pretty large and the head big/mostly round, which make me lean Dusky. The primaries are difficult to asses in photos; sometimes they look long and sometimes not excessively so. If I had to guess I’d go Dusky but long story short I’m not too sure.

In conclusion, I think I'm going to leave this bird as a Hammond's/Dusky spuh and not force an ID, unless someone can provide a definite reason as to why it's one or the other. I really don't see that happening here though. 

Interesting. The second person you reference sees the birds head as round, and large billed, which I don’t necessarily see. What did your reviewer say?

[Aidan B]

11 minutes ago, DLecy said:

Interesting. The second person you reference sees the birds head as round, and large billed, which I don’t necessarily see. What did your reviewer say?

This bird was in Placer County, and I've never been contacted by them before. In fact, I don't even know who the Placer County reviewer is. 

Both people leaning Dusky are CV Reviewers though. 

[Connor Cochrane]

Definitely a tricky bird, but I was leaning more HAFL. The second photo attached definetly gives it a very dusky-like appearance, but the projection just seems too long in the second to last photo. It looks a lot more like a HAFL structurally in that pic as well. Tricky bird to analyze from photos, I'd probably leave it as a slash...

[DLecy]

I’m still leaning HAFL, but there is of course lots of variability in empids, and there is zero harm in leaving the bird as a slash. I can DM you some more information on people to contact if you want more opinions.

I didn’t mention this before, but despite the challenges and identification for this individual, your pictures are helpful and give a good sense of the bird from different angles. Well done.

[IKLland]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:58 PM, Aidan B said:

The bill seems pretty large and the head big/mostly round, which make me lean Dusky.

@DLecy is this a reliable feature? I’m trying to learn empids more. Can anyone just confirm that this is a Hammond’s and not a Dusky? Orange County, California two weeks ago. To me, the head looks pretty large and round. Dusky would be much rarer in this area, perhaps even rarer then where @Aidan B’s bird is. 

 

 

I should also note that I’ve never seen a more cooperative empid than this. 

[DLecy]

It is always very important to use a suite of characteristics when identifying empids. I would never rely on a single feature. 

This bird has a relatively peaked head, a short bill, and long primary projection with spacing supporting HAFL. The tail looks relatively forked and is short.

Seems like a Hammond’s to me.

 

 

[IKLland]

2 minutes ago, DLecy said:

It is always very important to use a suite of characteristics when identifying empids. I would never rely on a single feature. 

This bird has a relatively peaked head, a short bill, and long primary projection with spacing supporting HAFL. The tail looks relatively forked and is short.

Seems like a Hammond’s to me.

 

 

Thanks! 

[Aidan B]

On 4/20/2023 at 4:42 PM, DLecy said:

I’m still leaning HAFL, but there is of course lots of variability in empids, and there is zero harm in leaving the bird as a slash. I can DM you some more information on people to contact if you want more opinions.

Thanks for offering, but I think I'll just leave this bird as a slash. I have more people I could contact if I wanted to. Since I last posted here, I've shown the photos to a few other local birders I've run into and gotten very similar responses as to the ID. It seems people lean one way or the other but are in no way sure of the ID.

On 4/20/2023 at 4:42 PM, DLecy said:

I didn’t mention this before, but despite the challenges and identification for this individual, your pictures are helpful and give a good sense of the bird from different angles. Well done.

Thanks! I had a feeling this bird would be hard to identify and tried my best to get photos from as many angles as possible . 

[Jerry Friedman]

Around here some people call these birds "Dammond's Flycatchers".