[mou] Rufous Hummingbird in Ontario
James Mattsson
mattjim@earthlink.net
Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:02:00 -0600
------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
FYI -
Thought you'd find this interesting given the recent Selasphorous hummingbird in Duluth. The fate of winter extralimital Selasphorus hummers is not always certain death. The following interesting story of the Ontario Rufous contains a very interesting web site with map of 2003-2004 extralimital Rufous-type hummers.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Allen Chartier" <amazilia1@comcast.net>
> To: "Ontbirds" <ontbirds@hwcn.org>
> Cc: "HUMBAND" <humband@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:29 AM
> Subject: [Ontbirds]Rufous Hummingbird in Niagara Falls - long and
> detailed
>
>
> > Birders,
> >
> > As Kayo Roy mentioned, yesterday I captured and banded the Selasphorus
> > hummingbird in Niagara Falls, with the able assistance of Cindy
> Cartwright
> > (thanks for making TWO trips to do this!). This bird has been coming
> to the
> > feeders of Janice and Art Haines since September 2, and they have named
> her
> > "Hannah". The number of reports in the "east" are a clear indication
> that
> > such records are a rare but annual phenomenon, and the birds are
> definitely
> > not lost! (See http://www.trochilids.com/USA/2003rual.html for a map
> of
> > last winter's reports of eastern Rufous and Selasphorus sp.).
> Currently,
> > there are 5 Selasphorus (2 confirmed Rufous) in Indiana, 1 Selasphorus
> in
> > Minnesota, 1 Rufous in Michigan, and 3 Rufous in Ohio. Additionally,
> enough
> > of these birds are recaptured each year to lay to rest the myth that
> they
> > are all doomed to die when they visit our area. I recently recaptured
> a
> > Rufous in Zanesville, OH that I banded at the same home last year where
> it
> > was last seen December 27. Hard evidence, in the form of specimens of
> > Rufous Hummingbirds dying from exposure to our winters, are in short
> supply
> > (or in Ontario's case possibly nonexistent?), while there is ample
> evidence,
> > in the form of banding recaptures, to support the idea that some do
> survive
> > quite well. A few will die, of course, as is the case even in central
> > Mexico, but blanket statements that they area all doomed is untenable
> with
> > the current state of our knowledge and evidence. Healthy Rufous
> > Hummingbirds in "the north" only require that we keep their sugar water
> (4:1
> > ratio) from freezing; they'll survive on their own with no other help
> from
> > humans, as they've been doing for a long, long time.
> >
> > A detailed report on the Niagara Falls Rufous Hummingbird will be
> submitted
> > to the Ontario Bird Records Committee, along with in-hand photos taken,
> but
> > I thought it might be of interest to post some information here on how
> the
> > bird was identified. I will also send a couple of the in-hand photos
> to OFO
> > to be included on their website.
> >
> > After much prior discussion, and review of some excellent photos
> (thanks
> > Harold and Jean!), it was possible to determine that this bird was
> either a
> > Rufous or Allen's Hummingbird, and most likely a female, with the age
> > uncertain but possibly a hatch year (that is, hatched in summer 2004).
> In
> > those photos, it was evident she was molting one of her primaries
> (Stivers
> > photo), and appeared to be molting body feathers as well (Iron photo).
> > Yesterday, the bird was showing 4 iridescent orange-red gorget
> feathers,
> > where a week ago she was showing none.
> >
> > The bird was easily captured, as has been my typical experience where
> I've
> > banded these birds in northern areas. Once in hand, the bill was
> examined
> > for "corrugations", tiny wrinkles on the bill generally only visible
> with
> > 10x magnification. The bird did show shallow corrugations on
> approximately
> > the basal 60-70% of the upper mandible, which clearly indicated it was
> a
> > hatch-year bird.
> >
> > Next, the wing and bill were measured. The wing length of 44.59 mm
> > indicated the bird was indeed a female, regardless of whether it was a
> > Rufous or Allen's. Also, the lack of rufous on the upper tail coverts,
> and
> > restricted rufous on the base of the central tail feather, supported
> the
> > conclusion of female (Stiles fig. 2). The tail was measured as 27 mm.
> >
> > Now, having confidently aged and sexed the bird, we needed to turn our
> > attention to identification, which was done by examination and
> measurement
> > of certain tail feathers. For reference, a paper published by Stiles
> in the
> > The Condor in 1972 was used,. This reference continues to be the best
> > available for distinguishing Rufous from Allen's Hummingbirds in-hand,
> and
> > the appropriate use of this information involves first aging and sexing
> the
> > bird, followed by species identification. A copy of this paper will
> also be
> > forwarded to the OBRC.
> >
> > Known age and sex Rufous and Allen's Hummingbirds are best
> distinguished
> > in-hand by measuring the widths of the central tail feather (r1) and
> the
> > outer tail feather (r5), and noting the shape of the second tail
> feather
> > from the center (r2). If a bird shows a clearly "notched" r2, then it
> is
> > easily identified as a Rufous (Stiles fig. 3). The Niagara Falls bird
> > showed an extremely subtle "notch" in-hand, as well as in photos, a
> > condition that could be approached by some Allen's Hummingbirds. The
> shape
> > of this notch was more suggestive of Rufous than Allen's, but alone
> would
> > not be conclusive (Stiles fig. 2). So, the identification was in the
> hands
> > of the measurements (Stiles table 1).
> >
> > It is important to note here briefly that there are two subspecies of
> > Allen's Hummingbird. One is the widespread and migratory subspecies
> > (Selasphorus sasin sasin) breeding from coastal northern California to
> > coastal southern California and mainly migrating southward into Baja
> > California, Mexico. The other is a more range-restricted and generally
> > non-migratory subspecies (S. s. sedentarius), breeding on California's
> > Channel Islands and the adjacent mainland (around Los Angeles).
> Sedentarius
> > presents some problems, because it is intermediate between S. s. sasin
> and
> > Rufous in some characters. And, while (S. s. sasin) has a shorter bill
> than
> > Rufous, (S. s. sedentarius) has a longer bill! If sedentarius were
> > entirely, well, sedentary, this would not be an issue. But, I've been
> told
> > (N. Newfield, pers. comm.) that the first specimen of Allen's
> Hummingbird
> > collected in Louisiana actually fits sedentarius! So, however remote
> the
> > possibility, even compared with a vagrant Allen's (S. s. sasin),
> sedentarius
> > must also be considered.
> >
> > So, how did the measurements stack up with Stiles?
> >
> > The width of the central tail feather (r1) on the Niagara Falls bird
> was
> > measured as 8.29 mm.
> > Immature female (HY-F) Rufous ranges from 7.8 - 9.5 mm.
> > HY-F (S. s. sasin) Allen's ranges from 6.9 - 8.2 mm.
> > HY-F (S. s. sedentarius) Allen's ranges from 7.3 - 8.4.
> > So, this measurement is slightly above the range of (S. s. sasin) and
> near
> > the upper size range of (S. s. sedentarius), while it is near the
> midrange
> > for Rufous. This measurement is strongly suggestive of Rufous, but not
> > conclusive.
> >
> > The width of the outer tail feather (r5) on the Niagara Falls bird was
> > measured as 4.16 mm.
> > Immature female (HY-F) Rufous ranges from 3.2 - 4.7 mm.
> > HY-F (S. s. sasin) Allen's ranges from 2.4 - 3.3 mm.
> > HY-F (S. s. sedentarius) Allen's ranges from 2.6 - 3.3 mm.
> > Since this measurement falls well above the range for either subspecies
> of
> > Allen's, this measurement is conclusive for Rufous. (It is also above
> the
> > midrange for Rufous)
> >
> > For additional support, we can look at Wing Length (wing chord), Bill
> Length
> > (exposed culmen), and Tail Length.
> >
> > This bird's Wing Length of 44.59 mm was longer than that of HY-F (S. s.
> > sasin), but slightly below the upper range for HY-F (S. s.
> sedentarius), and
> > above the midrange for Rufous. Wing Length suggests Rufous.
> >
> > This bird's Bill Length of 17.53 mm was near the upper limit for both
> Rufous
> > and (S. s. sasin), but only slightly above the midrange for (S. s.
> > sedentarius). Bill Length was not useful.
> >
> > This bird's Tail Length of 27 mm was 2 mm above the range of (S. s.
> sasin),
> > and near the upper limit for Rufous. Unfortunately, Stiles does not
> provide
> > tail measurements for HY-F (S. s. sedentarius). Tail length suggests
> > Rufous.
> >
> > This Rufous Hummingbird was one of the more challenging (but not THE
> most
> > challenging) I've had the priviledge of banding. I truly appreciate
> the
> > hospitality of Janice and Art both to the bird, and the ~400 visitors
> that
> > have seen her so far. I also am very grateful for Kayo Roy's efforts
> in all
> > manner of logistics involving this bird, including getting me in touch
> with
> > the homeowners so I could obtain permission to band their special bird.
> >
> > On release, "Hannah" returned to her feeders within 10 minutes, and is
> now
> > in charge of the Haines' backyard once again.
> >
> > Reference:
> >
> > Stiles, F. G. 1972. Age and Sex Determination in Rufous and Allen
> > Hummingbirds. The Condor 74: 25-32.
> >
> > (available as a PDF file from SORA:
> http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/index.php)
> >
> > Allen Chartier
> > amazilia1@comcast.net
> > 1442 West River Park Drive
> > Inkster, MI 48141
> > Website: http://www.amazilia.net
> > Michigan HummerNet: http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm
James Mattsson
mattjim@earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
<HTML style="FONT-SIZE: x-small; FONT-FAMILY: MS Sans Serif"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1251">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>
<DIV>FYI -</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thought you'd find this interesting given the recent <EM>Selasphorous</EM> hummingbird in Duluth. The fate of winter extralimital <EM>Selasphorus </EM>hummers is not always certain death. The following interesting story of the Ontario Rufous contains a very interesting web site with map of 2003-2004 extralimital Rufous-type hummers. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> ----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV>> From: "Allen Chartier" <A href="mailto:<amazilia1@comcast.net>"><amazilia1@comcast.net></A></DIV>
<DIV>> To: "Ontbirds" <A href="mailto:<ontbirds@hwcn.org>"><ontbirds@hwcn.org></A></DIV>
<DIV>> Cc: "HUMBAND" <A href="mailto:<humband@yahoogroups.com>"><humband@yahoogroups.com></A></DIV>
<DIV>> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:29 AM</DIV>
<DIV>> Subject: [Ontbirds]Rufous Hummingbird in Niagara Falls - long and </DIV>
<DIV>> detailed</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> > Birders,</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > As Kayo Roy mentioned, yesterday I captured and banded the Selasphorus</DIV>
<DIV>> > hummingbird in Niagara Falls, with the able assistance of Cindy </DIV>
<DIV>> Cartwright</DIV>
<DIV>> > (thanks for making TWO trips to do this!). This bird has been coming </DIV>
<DIV>> to the</DIV>
<DIV>> > feeders of Janice and Art Haines since September 2, and they have named </DIV>
<DIV>> her</DIV>
<DIV>> > "Hannah". The number of reports in the "east" are a clear indication </DIV>
<DIV>> that</DIV>
<DIV>> > such records are a rare but annual phenomenon, and the birds are </DIV>
<DIV>> definitely</DIV>
<DIV>> > not lost! (See <A href="http://www.trochilids.com/USA/2003rual.html">http://www.trochilids.com/USA/2003rual.html</A> for a map </DIV>
<DIV>> of</DIV>
<DIV>> > last winter's reports of eastern Rufous and Selasphorus sp.). </DIV>
<DIV>> Currently,</DIV>
<DIV>> > there are 5 Selasphorus (2 confirmed Rufous) in Indiana, 1 Selasphorus </DIV>
<DIV>> in</DIV>
<DIV>> > Minnesota, 1 Rufous in Michigan, and 3 Rufous in Ohio. Additionally, </DIV>
<DIV>> enough</DIV>
<DIV>> > of these birds are recaptured each year to lay to rest the myth that </DIV>
<DIV>> they</DIV>
<DIV>> > are all doomed to die when they visit our area. I recently recaptured </DIV>
<DIV>> a</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous in Zanesville, OH that I banded at the same home last year where </DIV>
<DIV>> it</DIV>
<DIV>> > was last seen December 27. Hard evidence, in the form of specimens of</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous Hummingbirds dying from exposure to our winters, are in short </DIV>
<DIV>> supply</DIV>
<DIV>> > (or in Ontario's case possibly nonexistent?), while there is ample </DIV>
<DIV>> evidence,</DIV>
<DIV>> > in the form of banding recaptures, to support the idea that some do </DIV>
<DIV>> survive</DIV>
<DIV>> > quite well. A few will die, of course, as is the case even in central</DIV>
<DIV>> > Mexico, but blanket statements that they area all doomed is untenable </DIV>
<DIV>> with</DIV>
<DIV>> > the current state of our knowledge and evidence. Healthy Rufous</DIV>
<DIV>> > Hummingbirds in "the north" only require that we keep their sugar water </DIV>
<DIV>> (4:1</DIV>
<DIV>> > ratio) from freezing; they'll survive on their own with no other help </DIV>
<DIV>> from</DIV>
<DIV>> > humans, as they've been doing for a long, long time.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > A detailed report on the Niagara Falls Rufous Hummingbird will be </DIV>
<DIV>> submitted</DIV>
<DIV>> > to the Ontario Bird Records Committee, along with in-hand photos taken, </DIV>
<DIV>> but</DIV>
<DIV>> > I thought it might be of interest to post some information here on how </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > bird was identified. I will also send a couple of the in-hand photos </DIV>
<DIV>> to OFO</DIV>
<DIV>> > to be included on their website.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > After much prior discussion, and review of some excellent photos </DIV>
<DIV>> (thanks</DIV>
<DIV>> > Harold and Jean!), it was possible to determine that this bird was </DIV>
<DIV>> either a</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous or Allen's Hummingbird, and most likely a female, with the age</DIV>
<DIV>> > uncertain but possibly a hatch year (that is, hatched in summer 2004). </DIV>
<DIV>> In</DIV>
<DIV>> > those photos, it was evident she was molting one of her primaries </DIV>
<DIV>> (Stivers</DIV>
<DIV>> > photo), and appeared to be molting body feathers as well (Iron photo).</DIV>
<DIV>> > Yesterday, the bird was showing 4 iridescent orange-red gorget </DIV>
<DIV>> feathers,</DIV>
<DIV>> > where a week ago she was showing none.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > The bird was easily captured, as has been my typical experience where </DIV>
<DIV>> I've</DIV>
<DIV>> > banded these birds in northern areas. Once in hand, the bill was </DIV>
<DIV>> examined</DIV>
<DIV>> > for "corrugations", tiny wrinkles on the bill generally only visible </DIV>
<DIV>> with</DIV>
<DIV>> > 10x magnification. The bird did show shallow corrugations on </DIV>
<DIV>> approximately</DIV>
<DIV>> > the basal 60-70% of the upper mandible, which clearly indicated it was </DIV>
<DIV>> a</DIV>
<DIV>> > hatch-year bird.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > Next, the wing and bill were measured. The wing length of 44.59 mm</DIV>
<DIV>> > indicated the bird was indeed a female, regardless of whether it was a</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous or Allen's. Also, the lack of rufous on the upper tail coverts, </DIV>
<DIV>> and</DIV>
<DIV>> > restricted rufous on the base of the central tail feather, supported </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > conclusion of female (Stiles fig. 2). The tail was measured as 27 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > Now, having confidently aged and sexed the bird, we needed to turn our</DIV>
<DIV>> > attention to identification, which was done by examination and </DIV>
<DIV>> measurement</DIV>
<DIV>> > of certain tail feathers. For reference, a paper published by Stiles </DIV>
<DIV>> in the</DIV>
<DIV>> > The Condor in 1972 was used,. This reference continues to be the best</DIV>
<DIV>> > available for distinguishing Rufous from Allen's Hummingbirds in-hand, </DIV>
<DIV>> and</DIV>
<DIV>> > the appropriate use of this information involves first aging and sexing </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > bird, followed by species identification. A copy of this paper will </DIV>
<DIV>> also be</DIV>
<DIV>> > forwarded to the OBRC.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > Known age and sex Rufous and Allen's Hummingbirds are best </DIV>
<DIV>> distinguished</DIV>
<DIV>> > in-hand by measuring the widths of the central tail feather (r1) and </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > outer tail feather (r5), and noting the shape of the second tail </DIV>
<DIV>> feather</DIV>
<DIV>> > from the center (r2). If a bird shows a clearly "notched" r2, then it </DIV>
<DIV>> is</DIV>
<DIV>> > easily identified as a Rufous (Stiles fig. 3). The Niagara Falls bird</DIV>
<DIV>> > showed an extremely subtle "notch" in-hand, as well as in photos, a</DIV>
<DIV>> > condition that could be approached by some Allen's Hummingbirds. The </DIV>
<DIV>> shape</DIV>
<DIV>> > of this notch was more suggestive of Rufous than Allen's, but alone </DIV>
<DIV>> would</DIV>
<DIV>> > not be conclusive (Stiles fig. 2). So, the identification was in the </DIV>
<DIV>> hands</DIV>
<DIV>> > of the measurements (Stiles table 1).</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > It is important to note here briefly that there are two subspecies of</DIV>
<DIV>> > Allen's Hummingbird. One is the widespread and migratory subspecies</DIV>
<DIV>> > (Selasphorus sasin sasin) breeding from coastal northern California to</DIV>
<DIV>> > coastal southern California and mainly migrating southward into Baja</DIV>
<DIV>> > California, Mexico. The other is a more range-restricted and generally</DIV>
<DIV>> > non-migratory subspecies (S. s. sedentarius), breeding on California's</DIV>
<DIV>> > Channel Islands and the adjacent mainland (around Los Angeles). </DIV>
<DIV>> Sedentarius</DIV>
<DIV>> > presents some problems, because it is intermediate between S. s. sasin </DIV>
<DIV>> and</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous in some characters. And, while (S. s. sasin) has a shorter bill </DIV>
<DIV>> than</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous, (S. s. sedentarius) has a longer bill! If sedentarius were</DIV>
<DIV>> > entirely, well, sedentary, this would not be an issue. But, I've been </DIV>
<DIV>> told</DIV>
<DIV>> > (N. Newfield, pers. comm.) that the first specimen of Allen's </DIV>
<DIV>> Hummingbird</DIV>
<DIV>> > collected in Louisiana actually fits sedentarius! So, however remote </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > possibility, even compared with a vagrant Allen's (S. s. sasin), </DIV>
<DIV>> sedentarius</DIV>
<DIV>> > must also be considered.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > So, how did the measurements stack up with Stiles?</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > The width of the central tail feather (r1) on the Niagara Falls bird </DIV>
<DIV>> was</DIV>
<DIV>> > measured as 8.29 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > Immature female (HY-F) Rufous ranges from 7.8 - 9.5 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > HY-F (S. s. sasin) Allen's ranges from 6.9 - 8.2 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > HY-F (S. s. sedentarius) Allen's ranges from 7.3 - 8.4.</DIV>
<DIV>> > So, this measurement is slightly above the range of (S. s. sasin) and </DIV>
<DIV>> near</DIV>
<DIV>> > the upper size range of (S. s. sedentarius), while it is near the </DIV>
<DIV>> midrange</DIV>
<DIV>> > for Rufous. This measurement is strongly suggestive of Rufous, but not</DIV>
<DIV>> > conclusive.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > The width of the outer tail feather (r5) on the Niagara Falls bird was</DIV>
<DIV>> > measured as 4.16 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > Immature female (HY-F) Rufous ranges from 3.2 - 4.7 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > HY-F (S. s. sasin) Allen's ranges from 2.4 - 3.3 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > HY-F (S. s. sedentarius) Allen's ranges from 2.6 - 3.3 mm.</DIV>
<DIV>> > Since this measurement falls well above the range for either subspecies </DIV>
<DIV>> of</DIV>
<DIV>> > Allen's, this measurement is conclusive for Rufous. (It is also above </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > midrange for Rufous)</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > For additional support, we can look at Wing Length (wing chord), Bill </DIV>
<DIV>> Length</DIV>
<DIV>> > (exposed culmen), and Tail Length.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > This bird's Wing Length of 44.59 mm was longer than that of HY-F (S. s.</DIV>
<DIV>> > sasin), but slightly below the upper range for HY-F (S. s. </DIV>
<DIV>> sedentarius), and</DIV>
<DIV>> > above the midrange for Rufous. Wing Length suggests Rufous.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > This bird's Bill Length of 17.53 mm was near the upper limit for both </DIV>
<DIV>> Rufous</DIV>
<DIV>> > and (S. s. sasin), but only slightly above the midrange for (S. s.</DIV>
<DIV>> > sedentarius). Bill Length was not useful.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > This bird's Tail Length of 27 mm was 2 mm above the range of (S. s. </DIV>
<DIV>> sasin),</DIV>
<DIV>> > and near the upper limit for Rufous. Unfortunately, Stiles does not </DIV>
<DIV>> provide</DIV>
<DIV>> > tail measurements for HY-F (S. s. sedentarius). Tail length suggests</DIV>
<DIV>> > Rufous.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > This Rufous Hummingbird was one of the more challenging (but not THE </DIV>
<DIV>> most</DIV>
<DIV>> > challenging) I've had the priviledge of banding. I truly appreciate </DIV>
<DIV>> the</DIV>
<DIV>> > hospitality of Janice and Art both to the bird, and the ~400 visitors </DIV>
<DIV>> that</DIV>
<DIV>> > have seen her so far. I also am very grateful for Kayo Roy's efforts </DIV>
<DIV>> in all</DIV>
<DIV>> > manner of logistics involving this bird, including getting me in touch </DIV>
<DIV>> with</DIV>
<DIV>> > the homeowners so I could obtain permission to band their special bird.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > On release, "Hannah" returned to her feeders within 10 minutes, and is </DIV>
<DIV>> now</DIV>
<DIV>> > in charge of the Haines' backyard once again.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > Reference:</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > Stiles, F. G. 1972. Age and Sex Determination in Rufous and Allen</DIV>
<DIV>> > Hummingbirds. The Condor 74: 25-32.</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > (available as a PDF file from SORA: </DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/index.php">http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/index.php</A>)</DIV>
<DIV>> ></DIV>
<DIV>> > Allen Chartier</DIV>
<DIV>> > <A href="mailto:amazilia1@comcast.net">amazilia1@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>> > 1442 West River Park Drive</DIV>
<DIV>> > Inkster, MI 48141</DIV>
<DIV>> > Website: <A href="http://www.amazilia.net">http://www.amazilia.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>> > Michigan HummerNet: <A href="http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm">http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm</A></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>James Mattsson</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:mattjim@earthlink.net">mattjim@earthlink.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P></P></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8--