Soft Parts: The legs were light, bright orange in colour. The bill was slightly longer than the length of the 
     
     bird’s head, and slightly more substantial in "bulk" or "depth" at the base than the bill of the Lesser Yellowlegs 
     
     beside it. More important was the colour of the bill. The proximal 1/3 of the bill was reddish to reddish orange in 
     
     colour, with the distal 2/3 of the bill being dark or black in colour. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Body: The head, nape and sides of the neck appeared light gray with faint streaking. The upper breast was 
     
     darkened to some extent (appeared blotchy) as compared to the upper neck. The belly was white and had no 
     
     observable markings. On the back, the feathers of the mantle and upper scapulars were darker internally as 
     
     compared to the fringe or edge of those feathers which were considerably lighter in colour giving the "patterned" 
     
     look to the back. I had the impression that the tertials had internal patterns but before I could increase power, a 
     
     truck passed by at high speed flushing all of the birds. However, as it flew, I had the distinct impression of a rump 
     
     that has a central dark area, ie the rump was not completely white. 
     
    

    
     Once the birds flushed, I took the opportunity to review the audio tape of my description of the bird made 
     
     as I observed the bird, and to check Sibley’s Guide and the 4th edition of the National Geographic Guide to make 
     
     an initial determination as to which species might present with those observations. Based on the colour(s) of the 
     
     soft parts and other observations, only two possibilities appeared to be likely: 1. Common Redshank or 2. Ruff. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Considerations: Once home, I then reviewed the resources at my disposal in an attempt to first determine 
     
     the species and then the sex and or state of plumage of the bird in question. 
     
    

    
     While the leg and bill colour is consistent with descriptions of Common Redshank there are notable 
     
     differences between the observed bird and descriptions of the Common Redshank. First the bill on the observed 
     
     bird was too small as compared to that of the Common Redshank and it was not shaped like the bill of a Common 
     
     Redshank. Similarly, the unmarked belly, breast markings and highly patterned mantle of the observed bird is 
     
     inconsistent with that of a Common Redshank. Further, the redshank has a white rump and the observed bird did 
     
     not. 
     
    

    
     On the other hand, the bird was clearly not an alternate plumaged male Ruff and was unlikely, based on 
     
     descriptions in the references, to be an alternate plumaged female Ruff. The observations are consistent with 
     
     descriptions in the literature for a basic plumaged Ruff, although many references clearly indicated that there is 
     
     considerable variability in soft part colouration in the basic plumaged ruff. However, given that, the basic 
     
     plumaged Ruff has been described with the soft part features / colouration observed in this bird. The breast, mantle 
     
     and scapular makings as observed in this bird are consistent with the descriptions for a basic plumaged Ruff in the 
     
     various references that were consulted. The references indicate that, for the most part, male and female basic 
     
     plumaged Ruffs are similar. Colouration of the mantle, scapulars (darker toned edged in a lighter colour) and the 
     
     blotchiness of the upper breast as opposed to a buffy colouration does not lead me to believe that this bird was a 
     
     juvenile Ruff. The Master Guide to Birding states that "Juveniles have dark brown upper parts with rufous edges to 
     
     the mantle feathers and wing coverts". I did not appreciate any buffy colouration to the fore-neck or rufous edges to 
     
     the mantle feathers at the time of the observation, although I could clearly distinguish the colouration of the 2 
     
     short-billed dowitchers (juveniles) which were present. Further, I was not able to find a reference which indicated 
     
     that an immature Ruff had a dual toned bill. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Vocalizations: None Heard 
     
     Photographs: None Taken 
     
    
   
   
    
     Conclusion: Basic plumaged adult Ruff of undetermined sex 
     
    
   
   
    
     RESOURCES USED: 
     
     The Sibley Guide to Birds. 1st edition, second printing. D. Sibley. 2001. 
     
     National Geographic Guide to the Birds of North America. 3rd Edition. 
     
     Shorebirds —An Identification Guide. P. Hayman; J. Marchant; T. Prater.l986. 
     
     Audubon Society Master Guide to Birds. Volume 1 - Loons to Sandpipers. J. Farrand. 1983. 
     
    
   
   
    
     4