Adequate but not Correct
Song Sparrow or Lincoln's Sparrow?
Song Sparrow or Lincoln's Sparrow?
This evening I received a comment to my September 2007 blog post "Early Fall Nature Photography" which included a photograph of a melospiza sparrow I had identified as a Song Sparrow. Rather than only post the comment where none would likely benefit from it, I decided it could serve as a lesson on bird identification in a new post.
Dear Mike:
Nice photo of a Lincoln Sparrow, it's not a Song Sparrow. Note the gray supercilium (eyebrow) and the buffy sub-moustachial stripe (line next to the black malar stripe next to chin). These two sparrows are very similar. Lincoln Sp. have finer streaks in the breast and usually show a buffy wash across the streaks. Note the pale buffy eye-ring also. They are slightly more petite looking than Song.
Thanks for sharing your photos,
Debby
This is an interesting case of when an adequate diagnostic description fails to render the correct identification. All of Debby's topographical points are correct: The supercilium is partially gray, there appears to be a buffy sub-moustachial stripe, black malar stripe, a buffy eye-ring, etc. Despite all of these seemingly correct field marks, the bird is in fact a Song Sparrow and not a Lincoln's Sparrow. How do I know? I just know. I can tell simply by looking at it. I may not be able to tell you exactly what it is about the top bird that makes it a Song Sparrow and the bottom one a Lincoln's Sparrow, but I'm confident that my identifications are correct.
As many readers of my blog know, I truly adore sparrows. Of course, loving sparrows as much as I do is mutually exclusive from being able to correctly identify them. That's perfectly acceptable. But how does a birder's skill evolve to the point where they no longer have to run through a checklist of field marks in order to make the correct identification? I can look at either of these species in the field, sometimes only for a fraction of a second, and still make the correct identification in that instant. In fact, it's gotten so bad that I can identify most of them in flight. How is this possible? I don't really know. Perhaps it comes with time and studying these sparrows for countless hours over years.
On Lincoln's Sparrow Pete Dunne once wrote, "There is no trick that could be offered here for making this identification. Only mindfulness will work." And what would I offer to that sense of mindfulness? For one, no birder is infallible when it comes to making identifications and I've been corrected by other birders from time to time. In a moment of excitement, perhaps when being overwhelmed with a great diversity of species, my internal "database" faults and I say something before I realize what I'm even looking at. When I've identified a Lincoln's Sparrow in the field, it's not that a series of field marks were sequentially processed and confirmed that particular species. It's more like having a "little brown job" pop out in the open and the bird's impression just hits you.
I recall once being very intimidated by sparrows. I remember saving sparrow identification once I figured out “confusing fall warblers” but still placing the challenge well before taking on gulls. All sparrows seemed like the same brown little bird with such minor subtleties that I was unlikely ever going to be able to sort them out. I'm not sure how it happened, it just did. Using a variety of field guides will help. Birding with other birders will help. Studying photographs of birds helps, especially close-up photographs by banders. Birding a lot is key - watching what they do, where they are and when.
Addendum:
Song Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
I've always regarded the plumage pattern of a Lincoln's Sparrow to be "tighter" and more detailed. Also, look how thick (and brown) the Song Sparrow's flank stripes are compared to the fine flecks of black on the Lincoln's Sparrow. Sometimes the flank markings on a Song Sparrow appear connected, like in the above example. There's also a general impression of 2 to 3 colors on Song Sparrows, whereas the Lincoln's coloration immediately registers more complex.
Lincoln's Sparrow
Song Sparrow
All images © 2008 Mike McDowell
posted by Mike McDowell @ 7:01 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I totally agree with you Mike, there is something that just says Lincoln's about the second bird. Maybe its the gray between the eyeline and the sub-moustachial stripe. Or the crisp look that a Lincoln's Sparrow seems to have compared to a Song Sparrow.
Absoltuely right - it comes from experience. I once did a class on sparrows, and realized while preparing for the class that although I had no trouble telling them apart, I didn't remember what was actually different about the faces of Song and Lincoln's Sparrows. After studying photos I was still perplexed - I just couldn't come up with any major difference that would be useful to my class. That one looks crisper or more contrasty really isn't all that helpful to someone just beginning to sort out their sparrows. Same thing with Savannah and Song Sparrows. I'd learned to recognize them without really thinking about it. It's like when you know a person and can recognize them at a distance, even when they have their back turned to you. Posture, the way they walk, and other physical characteristics combine to create an identification that is intuitive and doesn't require conscious analysis. Just goes to show book knowledge isn't everything.
Oh, about the quiz...I forgot to say that yes, the top one is Song. The bottom is a Lincoln's. And if anyone ever asked, I'd have to say I don't why, they just are.
Great post. I love sparrows too, and am equally as often frustrated by them. I think there is no substitute for "knowing" a sparrow. Whatever happens in that black box of the mind when it recognizes something is not easily definable.
Lincoln's Sparrow is one I can now reliably identify, and it is a result of three field guides, two friends, lots of consulting and discussion, and suddenly, it just popped. My brain learned them. It's not a list of field marks as you say.
Great post Mike. Field marks are an excellent, indispensible tool for getting started in birding (and certainly always of value), but they ought not be used as an anvil to weigh against the instinct, intuition, and direct experience of more skilled birders in all cases, where so many additional factors come into play.
Lovely photos--all of them. Fortunately we don't get that wide a variety of sparrows here, although I have been confused in the past by a tan-striped white-throated sparrow & sometimes a chipping sparrow or two will just seem somewhat...off.
The two actually aren't very much alike...big difference in size, mannerisms and streaking.
I was told by an excellent birder when I was just starting out how to differentiate the two. I still remember those clues and use them.
He told me that Song Sparrow looks like the pattern was drawn on with a crayon, Lincoln's with a freshly sharpened pencil. It's nearly foolproof and looking at your photos, it works again.
N8,
I like it!
Mike M.
Nice photos and discussion, Mike (et al.)
I had the realization this fall that I fall in the 'holistic' or more intuitive camp of birders more than the analytic camp. In other words, I am more of a right-brained than left-brained birder as are most of the commentators from their "I just know it is but can't explain how" comments.
I seek to develop my skills by improving my left-brained analytical abilities because I have found the right-brained ones get better with repeated exposure to a species, which isn't always possible.
I admit being fooled for a bit by the first pics that didn't show the whole bird but agree with the general consensus now.
It seems IDing sparrows is easier (I'm fairly comfortable with them) to do by GIS, ie. holistically vs. something like gulls, (which I am still rather intimidated by) that require careful analysis.
The two that always give me a bit of pause out in the northeast is the chipping sparrow and american tree sparrow. If you know what you're looking for, and have seen many of both species, it's not all that hard, but otherwise I think a lot of people would have trouble with them. I guess I should be thankful Lincoln's are so rare out here, when I see a song sparrow, it's always a song sparrow, though in any case, I was able to correctly ID the two pictures.
@jim ryan:
Gulls can be hard, but thankfully in most regions you can get it by process of elimination, or size comparison. I have to admit I've been on some waterfronts where even then it was quite difficult. It helps when they land and you can get a closer look.
By the way, here's a pretty funny webpage about why birdwatching is so dangerous.
Hey N8,
Thanks for sharing your Sparrow differentiation "trick". As a novice birder who OFTEN gets sparrows mixed up, it will come in very handy!!!!
I agree with you on the "crispness" of the plumage as a key identifier. As a fellow sparrow lover, I enjoy your sparrow posts! I wish I could ID them in flight like you!
great! the only sparrow i see everyday is the eurasian tree sparrow over in Malaysia. i'm amazed with your pictures and identification.
-wengchun (Malaysia)
http://www.nature2pixel.com
One thing that told me instantly that the top bird was a Song Sparrow is the thick, dark "jowl" mark. When I started noticing that as a beginner, it really helped with sparrow ID.
In my basic birding classes, I've always told people that crayon vs. fine-point pen trick for the streaking on Song vs. Lincoln's. n8's right--it's a clue that works.
I love! sparrows! I don't like the term LBJs when used in a disparaging fashion. I think sparrows and finches sing beautifully, too.
Anyway, I am very much a birder relying on instinct, based on experience and study. There might be dozens of LBJs shuffling about in the dry leaves and undergrowth in my backyard, but I'll know instinctively that one of them is not like the others. Then I will memorize specific attributes and grab my birding books, hoping that the newcomer doesn't disappear.
I once identified a mystery bird in my yard by focusing on one singular point. The tiny, gray bird fluttered. It seemed to flutter down and around like a falling leaf from a tree. It never stayed still or in one spot long enough to get much more in the way of characteristics. Wanna guess what it was? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home