8 replies to this topic

[Sgtmac1]

Taken today at Wenas Campground in central Washington.Not sure on this ID. Help is appreciated as always. Thanks, Mac.

[psweet]

Definitely an Empidonax, but I'm not sure I could call it to species with this photo. Given how pale the lower mandible is, though, I don't think Dusky would be my first choice.

[Delilahae]

I think he might be either a Least Flycatcher, or a Hammond's Flycatcher..

[JimBob]

Doesn't look like a Least to me. . . leaning on Hammond's.

[TheBillyPilgrim]

I'll agree that the bill looks too large for a Least, but I wouldn't go much further than that.

[psweet]

A Hammond's should have a mostly dark lower mandible.

[Sgtmac1]

I'm posting 2 other pictures of this Flycatcher that are just a little different poses. Not sure they will help, but I thought it my be worth a try. Thanks, Mac.

[Sgtmac1]

Here's another pic, just a little different.

[guy_incognito]

Well, I am surprised you actually got so many people to respond to a flycatcher post...

I am seeing a medium length bicolored bill, moderate eyering, and what appears to be a shorter primary projection (but hard to tell from this angle). Many features can overlap amongst the empids, so of course it is hard to ever be sure. Based on generalizations, I'd expect a Hammond's to have a darker and shorter bill, and have a longer primary projection. Grays are easier to ID amongst the silent empids due to their downward tail wags. A Pacific-slope often has yellowish wash on the belly and neck, but lighting can be very tricky. Dusky looks like a decent fit based on bill length, and primary projection, but they often also have a mostly dark bill.

I guess I don't have a perfect fit, but might first favor Pacific-slope followed by Dusky.