It may well be a very good suggestion. However a sample from one bird would not prove anything. Surely this only works if there is the facility to compare such a sample to a large number of reference samples of other (presumably defined and agreed) species. I think large number because there would likely be variation among individuals (including this one) within those species and indeed will likely be overlaps between close species, in the attributes than can be tested for on such methods. Even then, it likely comes down to statements of probability. My guess is that such testing is expensive. Are the facilities and resources available and who would pay for this and what is the justification for expenditure of these funds? I admire the depth of knowledge of those so familiar with the sea bird identification. Sorry and apologies if others think so to seem maybe rude to those who find this so important but beyond the academic exercise, I wonder what is the issue of importance of this bird here? Are any of the possibilities being considered, rare species in their normal range (or just a vagrant in NW Aust). Is the (sub?)/specific identity of such an occurrence ecologically or otherwise important? The message I get is, it is a vagrant gull occurring near the coast, there have been others and will be again. The impression I get from this (and I am not familiar with any of these gulls) is that these gull species are so close in ecology, behaviour, geography, appearance and likely genetics, that drawing dividing lines is difficult even to the most expert.
Yes I know it is nice to know from a bird watching experience. About 33 years ago I was lucky enough to “twitch” from south Brisbane to north Brisbane to easily see the Franklin’s Gull that Chris and others found and that was fun. And yes I also know this is far more relevant to this chat line than my other discussion about word use……..
Philip
