"I ahve to say you ladies are REALLY good, maybe we should skip to the first fall warblers???? " Ladies, we are in trouble. Check your Peterson guide on confusing fall warblers to bone up for the challenge! Actually the guide is pretty good by putting them in sub-sections by field marks and color. You can then proceed by process of elimination until you get down to the correct bird. Then check the Cornell's site for other photographs for further positive ID markers. Local variations and light in the photos make if tougher too but if you find most of key ID points it is probably that bird. According to my SMAS group the Blue Jay is considered partially leucistic, not albino, and is exhibiting other feather abnormalities related to genetics. In another communication, Arlene Ripley commented that she has seen many albino birds but none have exhibited the fur-like structures of this Jay's feathers. I did some of my own research on fur-like feathers and every site pointed to something called proto-feathers which were exhibited by some early dinosaurs before true feathers emerged. It's exciting to imagine this bird may be exhibiting an ancient genetic throwback to prehistoric times which upholds the common belief that birds evolved from dinosaurs as they first took flight. There has been a call to ask everyone on the local site if there is a scientic name for this feather anomaly and this call comes from a man that works for the Smithsonian Institute and really knows birds. So far, no reponse, so the local bird community here may be stumped. There was sentiment regarding hope the bird survives. Jean, has this bird been a regular at your feeder for any length of time in which one could make the assumption it has survived nature with this variance? Arlene suggested the photo be posted on websites dedicated to leucistic and albino birds and see if more information could be obtained from readers. PapaSmurf is a rare Blue Jay indeed. CT

How nice this thread got bumped! I enjoyed re-reading it and thinking about how much the yard has changed in a year. My bird-friendly yard is evolving. Have made great progress removing invasives, particularly Bittersweet, Buckthorn, and Norway Maples (treework cost me $2000 last year and there's still one GINORMOUS Norway maple left). There was a lot of brush created by all this tree/shrub work. Some was burned this Spring, right smack in the middle of the Oriental bittersweet patch, but the rest is in piles. The brush piles attract a lot of birds, particularly Sparrows, Cardinals, Juncos, and Wrens. The birds also love the back half-acre, which is wild and full of Crabapples, Choke Cherries, White Pine, and still some invasives like Honeysuckle and Autumn olive. Also making great progress on growing bird-friendly natives. Purchased another 50 native tree/shrub seedlings from the NH Nursery. That makes 130 total between this year and last - all of which ultimately make berries/nuts for the birds and wildlife. Most of them are in holding beds and haven't flowered yet, too little, but I've given away some and started to plant out a few. I winter-sowed many native species of perennials, annuals, and vines. Exactly where all this stuff is going, is not completely clear at this point, but I'm creating lasagne beds like crazy! The birds are always flitting around the yard and it's only going to get more interesting and fruitful for them (hopefully). It's great!

jillmcm is exactly right. Most people consider fish barely more than an aquatic plant with eyes whereas birds are given a more exalted status because they remind us more of ourselves: they're warm-blooded, they display signs of complex behavior, they take care of their young, etc. And of course, feathers are more attractive than scales to most people. Same thing with nutria in some of the Gulf states - I know they're invasive, and using them as a food source for people and captive predators in wildlife sanctuaries is the best solution, but I still don't like it. I don't like killing any animals, actually, but I won't object when people are killing invasive species, as long as it's done humanely (except domestic cats - I know the havoc outdoor cats wreak on small animals, but there have got to be better solutions than letting people use them for target practice - no matter what the rationalization, I will not be happy that people are killing on a wide scale the same intelligent, playful, personable animals that live in my home). On this same topic of invasive animals, have any of you seen the recent photographs and stories about the pythons in the Everglades? So many idiots have dumped their unwanted pet pythons in the Everglades when they got large or too bothersome to care for any more that the pythons are disrupting the whole food chain now. Scientists were hoping that alligators could keep the pythons in check, but after recently finding a python that had literally popped open after swallowing a pretty large alligator (too large for the python, at least!), they now think that the alligators and pythons are going to be at a draw, at best. One more invasive species to deal with - and a top predator, at that. Wouldn't it be nice if the pythons focused their feeding on all the thousands of iguanas that were also dumped there by irresponsible owners? I personally think that along with banning dozens of plant species, pythons and iguanas ought to also be banned from sale in Florida and other places where they can survive in the wild. But that certainly won't happen, at least not any time soon. It's hard enough getting people to give up plants, much less a type of pet.

Well, it it’s been a while since I posted here. Here’s the effect of heavy snow on three of my established live oaks in northern Virginia back in Jan. 2022. Had to take them all out. It’s not the cold, BUT THE SNOW LOADS that limit their success here. I still have my oldest live oak (30’ high). For some reason it was not damaged. Maybe because it was less out in the open. And branches could rest on other trees.