W A T E R T H R U S H I D E N T I F I C A T I O N IN T H E F I E L D
Binford (1971) demonstrates that the compression of waterthrush
characters into one plate and a few text comments in all current
field guides and even some handbooks promotes a facile approach
to the separation of the two species. For example, Robbins
et al, (1966) state that 'Northern is separated from Louisiana by its
streaked throat and smaller bill'. In fact both these characters are
subject to overlap (and the risks of varying visual acuity or judge-
ment). Neither can now be regarded as diagnostic. Other characters
suffer from similar confusion. There follows a precis of Binford's all
important analyses and where relevant the comments of other
expert observers.
General character: No differences in general character are evident.
Both waterthrushes exhibit horizontal posture, furtive movements—
most characterised by a teetering walk that recalls the Common
Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos—and skulking behaviour.
Size: Louisianas average larger than Northerns but all measure-
ments overlap. The only useful character is bill size, which in
Louisianas appears large and robust in relation to head and total
{Brit, Birds, 69: 27-33, January 1976] 27
28 Waterthrush identification
bulk. It is much less obvious in Northerns, being in scale with the
rest of the bird. Nevertheless Binford and Dr Brewer et al. warn of
overlap and consider bill size to be only 'a minor aid to field
identification'.
Colour of supercilium: This is often described for Louisianas as pure
white overall, but Binford notes that the forepart (from bill to eye)
is 'always washed with grayish-olive or grayish-buff'. Dr Brewer
has also shown that in about 20% of Louisianas some faint buff
marks are visible on the rear part (from eye to nape). These do not
mask the strikingly white ground colour which, when unmarked as
in most birds, is diagnostic. In Northerns the colour of die super-
cilium is 'usually buffy-yellow', though in some (particularly
western) birds in worn spring and summer plumage it may be 'so
white as to be inseparable from motacilla'. Binford concludes that
'any bird in which [the rear supercilium] is yellowish or buffy must
be a Northern'. Dr Brewer's findings require the colour to be
uniform for such a rule to stand.
Shape of supercilium: Binford, working mainly from skins, does not
comment on this but it has become evident that there are differences
between the two species. In Louisianas supercilia are very striking,
not only in their normal whiteness but also in their width, parti-
cularly behind the eye. In Northerns supercilia are striking but their
width is uniform overall and narrower. This difference is indicated
in all plates in current literature and it is used by American field
ornithologists to separate the two species. It immediately caught
the eye of P. J. Grant, who was reminded of the similar difference
between the superciliary tones and shapes of the Moustached and
Sedge Warblers Acrocephalus melanopogon and A. schoenobaenus.
Underpart markings: The spots and streaks on Louisiana underparts
are 'usually paler (more brownish or grayish and less blackish)'
and more diffuse than those on Northern. Binford stresses that this
difference can be masked by the strength and tone of ground colour
and that again there is a small overlap in mark intensity. He con-
siders that tiiis character is only 'an additional minor aid' in
identification.
Throat colour and markings: Louisianas always have throats coloured
'pure, gleaming white'. Only in a few Northerns does this occur;
Dr Brewer found such (combined with a lack of spots) in only one
in 452 that he recently examined. In most Northerns the ground
colour of the throat is 'yellowish or off-white'.
Throat spots (not streaks) are variably present in both species.
Some Louisianas have larger and better defined spots than some
Northerns. Binford demonstrates the invalidity of earlier statements
on this character with a striking photograph and Dr Brewer has
fully confirmed a dangerous overlap between the two species. Thus,
Waterthrush identification 29
far from being the clincher in field diagnosis, the distribution of
throat markings has now been reduced to only 'a percentage field
character'. Identifications can no longer be based upon it. This said,
W. Russell has opined that there is a useful field character in the
pattern of marks across the lower throat and upper chest. If there are
many sharp spots noticeably clustered there, the conspicuous collar
or gorgette so formed is indicative of Northern.
Flank ground and undertail covert colour: In Louisianas this is 'clean
pale [to] ochraceous buff', 'pale cinnamon or fawn' and is 'usually
rather bright, often very bright'. Binford has never failed to detect
such tones in the field since they stand out as a noticeable patch
against the whitish ground colour of the rest of the underparts. In
Northerns such patches are rarely visible since the underparts usually
show a uniformly 'yellowish', 'lemon yellow' or 'nearly white' ground
colour. At one point in his paper, Binford chooses this character as
'by far the best field mark' for separating the two species, but in his
conclusions he links it with the colour of the rear supercilium. In the
often difficult circumstances of waterthrush observation, judging the
ground colour of heavily streaked underparts is, however, not easy
and Dr Brewer stresses that the absence of a buff flank patch does not
exclude Louisiana. Unlike Binford, he has also detected a yellowish
tone in the flank ground colour of that species. Once again there
appears to be a dangerous overlap.
Calls: Binford doubts that any but the most experienced water-
thrush observers will be able to distinguish the 'somewhat louder,
sharper, more emphatic and more penetrating' calls of Louisianas.
Clearly it is not sensible to quarrel (from this side of the North
Atlantic) with any of the cautions given by Binford on waterthrush
identification. I sense however that there is a residue of confusion
and that there is a risk of parts obscuring the whole ol field identifi-
cation. P. J. Grant, the only member oi the Rarities Committee to
have seen both species recently, feels that the separate debating of
the various characters in Binford's paper and elsewhere may exag-
gerate the problem of separation for European observers used, for
example, to the difficult identifications posed by the genus Phyllo-
scopus. To give a clearer impression of the appearance of the two
species in typical plumage, fig. 1 has been drawn using illustrations,
photographs and field sketches as references.
REFERENCES
BINFORD, L. C. 1971. 'Identification of Northern and Louisiana Waterthrushes'.
Calif. Birds, 2: 1-10.
EATON, S. N. 1957. 'Variation in Seiurus noveboracensis'. Auk, 74: 229-239.
GODFREY, W. E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. Ottawa.
KINO, B. 1973. 'Feeding behaviour of a Northern Waterthrush in the Isles of
Scilly'. Bristol Orn., 6: 37.
LACK, D., and LACK, P. 1973. 'Wintering warblers in Jamaica*. Living Bird,
11: 129-153.
PETERSON, R. T. 1947. A Field Guide to the Birds. Boston.
ROBBINS, C. S., BRUUN, B., and ZIM, H . S. 1966. Birds of North America. New York.
WALLACE, D. I. M. 1972. 'Northern Waterthrush in the Isles of Scilly'. Brit. Birds,
65: 484-485.