Verification of Unusual
Rec. # 2017-23
|Scientific name:||Calidris pugnax|
|Date:||September 6, 2016|
|Length of time observed:||30 minutes|
|Location:||Utah Lake State Park|
|Distance to bird:||50 yards|
|Optical equipment:||Canon 7D, Swarovski Spotting Scope (60X), Nikon Monarch Binoculars (10x42)|
|Weather:||Crisp September morning|
|Light Conditions:||Excellent lighting as the morning sun rose behind me.|
|Description: Size of bird:||Medium-sized shorebird|
|(Description:) Basic Shape:||Similar to Lesser Yellowlegs|
|(Description:) Overall Pattern:||Buffy tones on head and breast/flanks; darker mantle|
|(Description:) Bill Type:||Short with a slight droop|
Field Marks and
- Short, dark-colored bill with a slight droop.
- Pale face with buffy cap trailing down the back of the neck.
- Buffy wash on breast and flanks.
- Yellow/orange legs.
- About the same size as lesser yellowlegs (see picture), but larger than Stilt Sandpipers.
- Posture/stature is consistent with Ruff.
|Song or call & method of delivery:|
|Behavior:||Feeding with other shorebirds (seemed to be most closely associated with Pectoral and Stilt Sandpipers) on the mudflats.|
|Habitat:||Mudflats on the edge of Utah Lake.|
were they eliminated:
Lesser Yellowlegs: Lighter-colored mantle, buffy
tones on the body and head, shorter bill. See photo for comparison with LEYE.
Stilt Sandpiper: Much shorter bill, larger in size. Directly compared with two Stilt Sandpipers as can be seen in the photos.
Pectoral Sandpiper: No streaking or markings on the breast or flanks. Instead, the bird showed buffy-coloration.
this & similar species:
|No previous experience.|
|References consulted:||Sibley, online sources.|
|Description from:||From photo(s) taken at the time of the sighting|
|Observer's address:||2622 w Dry Creek Drive|
|Observer's e-mail address:||**|
|Other observers who independently identified this bird:||None.|
|Date prepared:||April 11, 2017|
|Additional comments:||This bird was not identified as a Ruff in the field. After reviewing photos, I felt more and more confident that this bird was a Ruff. Nothing else seems to fit the bird. I asked for opinions on the bird and the unanimous conclusion was that it was indeed a juvenile Ruff.|