Interesting discussion regarding the possibility that the Scissor-tailed 
Flycatcher at West Rutland Marsh was a different bird than the one seen 
two days earlier in Arlington. Having only seen the bird at W. Rutland 
Marsh (for ten minutes or so around 7:15 p.m. on Tuesday), I'm not able 
or willing to compare the two with any degree of confidence. I do, 
however, pass on a couple of thoughts regarding the West Rutland bird:

First, I doubt it was a juvenile, a term generally used to describe a 
bird not yet having achieved its first basic (or first winter) plumage. 
It is true some birds (e.g. American Redstart, Purple Finch) can have a 
"first year male plumage" in spring. I don't know whether Scissor-tailed 
Flycatchers fall into this category - but I don't agree the West Rutland 
bird was as small or as pale as the juvenile shown in the Field Guide to 
the Birds of North America (I'm looking at the second edition). My 
initial reaction to the West Rutland Scissor-tailed was that it was an 
adult female. I later wavered a bit in this view - when admiring the 
bird through Jim Mead's scope, as I studied the strikingly long tail, at 
least as long as the bird's body. However, in the end I came back to the 
thought it was a female, since I didn't feel the tail to be one and a 
half time's the body length, which would be the case with an adult male.

As to the color of the undertail coverts, again based on a view through 
Jim Mead's scope, I thought pinkish tones were indeed apparent. To be 
sure, the distance was substantial and the light was pre-dusk, but I 
personally thought I detected the color one would expect with an adult 
female. However, I did not see pinkish flanks or wing linings when the 
bird sallied forth - a fact I attributed to the distance and also to the 
fact that I was always using binoculars when I was watching the bird in 
flight.

Finally, photographs can be misleading, just as they can be extremely 
helpful.  I might mention as an example, the warbler quiz posted on 
VTBIRD last summer. The bird was a Bay-breasted Warbler but, my 
goodness, the three or four photos (all of the same bird) gave totally 
different and confusing impressions of color, shade and contrast.

Since this is an important discussion (one ultimately for the Rare Birds 
Committee to decide if it can), I thought I ought to put in my two cents 
worth.

Wouldn't it be nice if the bird(s) put in yet another appearance, 
perhaps at Dead Creek this weekend?

Pipit