eee UDB OyN eB Ui Bien 25 
details to Bob Russell, but he didn’t see the birds, nor did he recognize 
them from my (incomplete) description. We paid no further attention to 
the problem, as other birds were coming fast and furiously. I took no notes 
at the time, but carried the following details in my head through the day 
until nagging question about what I had seen led me to consult Peterson 
late that night: 
Large dark-winged (like Oldsquaw) birds with white bellies and no 
white noticeable on head or neck, unlike Oldsquaws. (This is what I men- 
tioned to Bob.) Front part of body completely dark when flying. Seemed 
larger than black ducks, which were passing during the day, but not at that 
instant. Flight rapid, direct. Wingbeat appeared slower than other ducks. 
Factors Against Identification: (1) Birds seen for only a short time, at 
a distance; (2) Lack of immediate notes, length of time between sighting 
and identification allow possibility of unconsciously altering details to fit 
description of Brant; (3) Size and wingbeat speed were not explicitly and 
directly compared with other known birds at that distance, but were 
based on general impressions (rather immediate ones, however, considering 
all the birds that were going by). 
Factors For Identification: (1) View was distinct and clear, with 
excellent lighting. There was no sun to produce shadows, shading, or 
backlighting; (2) The birds were definitely flying in a pattern that I dis- 
covered some time later is typical of Brant; (3) I had no doubt at the time 
that the birds were new to me (as flying birds, not life species) and that 
I had enough field marks to identify them. 
Since writing the above for my notes, I have seen Brants flying on 
Long Island. However, there is no way I could meaningfully compare them 
to what I saw over Lake Michigan, given the seven-week time lapse 
between observations. I feel quite strongly that the birds were Brant, but 
to count such a rarity, one should be absolutely certain. 
This case illustrates the need for two things that were lacking here: 
immediate, detailed field notes, and advance preparation sufficient to alert 
one immediately to the possibilities involved and what to look for to confirm 
them. The latter is especially important when birds are flying by, and ata 
distance. Birding over Lake Michigan is somewhat like pelagic birding: you 
either have to be lucky enough to get a close view, or else depend on a 
combination of flight characteristic and contrast patterns that form an im- 
pression with which you’ve had some experience. I would like to add this 
bird to my list, but honesty compels me to leave it as a possible sighting 
only, and simply vow not to make the same mistakes again. 
— Lawrence G. Balch 
FINAL (?) COMMENTS ON THE BAHAMA DUCK 
This is a follow-up to the note by G. Michael Flieg, Curator of Birds at 
the Brookfield Zoo, appearing in the BULLETIN of June 1970. 
1. Paul Parmalee, Illinois State Museum, sent the specimen of the 
Bahama Duck to E. R. Blake, Curator of Birds at the Field Museum. 
2. Mr. Blake examined the specimen and, because the skin was un- 
sexed, was unable to determine whether the bird was the Greater Bahama 
Duck (Anas b. rubrirostris) or the Lesser Bahama Duck (Anas B. bahamen- 
