4 T HB AU DUB ONS BU EE aiie 
A Bird in the Hand 
By Harry R. SMITH 
WHEN I STARTED banding activities three years ago, I was surprised at 
the different appearance of a bird in the hand from one seen through bin- 
oculars. My banding experience is limited, but the fact that I am such 
a novice probably makes me more aware of some characteristics of birds 
than if I had banded thousands, as have Karl Bartel, Alfred Reuss and 
other members. 
I had always supposed it would be easier to identify any species by 
close examination than by observation in the field, but in the beginning 
of my trapping I found that this was not always true. There were occas- 
ions when I wished that I might have a bird perched at some distance, so 
that I might observe it through my glasses. As a matter of fact, in two 
instances I stepped back from trapped birds and attempted to identify 
them through binoculars, but this was unsuccesful because of their 
activity. 
I spoke of this to Paul Downing, who has trapped an average of almost 
1000 birds a year for the past seventeen years, and readily recognizes 
each species as he bands it. I was astonished, albeit encouraged, when he 
told me that he frequently has difficulty with field identifications when other 
observers are apparently having no trouble. This is a situation difficult 
to explain; at times I cannot analyze my own reactions. However, I cite 
the olive-backed thrush as an example of my early confusion and the 
different technique in identifying by close examination. 
I had always concentrated upon the eye-ring of this bird to distinguish 
it from the gray-cheeked thrush, but often found it harder to see this 
mark at two feet than under good light conditions at 20 feet. I am now 
aware of the variations in prominence of the eye ring and pay less 
attention to it. Instead, I watch for the buffier throat and the definite 
buff on the cheeks of the olive-backed, or the actual gray on the cheeks 
of its close relative. 
There is no doubt that the sure way to settle a question of identi- 
fication is by examination. I once caught a small bird of nondescript appear- 
ance that I would not presume to identify at three feet, except to say, 
“It is a warbler in fall plumage.” Indeed, I would have been skeptical of 
almost any field expert who would have risked much more of an opinion. 
However, with ample time to check both the literature and the bird, it 
was possible to recognize it as an immature Tennessee warbler. 
There is a greater appreciation of how the smaller birds are primarily 
creatures of the air when there is an opportunity to handle them. 
In proportion to the bird’s size, the breast muscles are enormous, empha- 
sizing the fact that most of the strength is concentrated on the operation 
of the wings. With a few exceptions, the perching birds I band are 
otherwise rather delicate little creatures. The legs of sparrows and warblers 
are no thicker than tooth picks. | 
Even when the larger passerines, such as blue jays and grackles, 
peck the bander’s hand, there is seldom enough force in their blows to be 
painful. Some of the seed eaters are exceptions, as I found when I 
