Table
Glossy Ibis – Accepted |
|||||
1. 27 May 2000 |
ATY |
vic. Calipatria IMP |
2000-109B |
31 |
ph. |
2. 01–15 Jul 2000 |
ATY |
vic. Calipatria IMP |
2000-096 |
26 |
Fig. 206, ph., Patten & Lasley (2000) |
3. 01–02 Jul 2000 |
ATY |
vic. Calipatria IMP |
2000-109A |
27,29 |
ph., Patten & Lasley (2000) |
4. 14–15 May 2001 |
ATY |
Alviso SCL |
2001-079 |
27 |
Fig. 207, ph., NAB 55:381 |
and 20-21 May 2001 |
Hayward Regional Shoreline ALA |
2001-104 |
27 |
||
5. 13–19 Sep 2002 |
ASY |
Prado Basin RIV |
2002-222 |
28 |
|
6. 09 Jul 2003 |
ATY |
vic. Calipatria IMP |
2003-086 |
29 |
ph., San Miguel & McGrath (2005) |
Glossy Ibis – Not accepted, identification not established |
|||||
29–31 Aug 1999 |
Twentynine Palms SBE |
1999-143 |
27 |
ph., Patten & Lasley (2000) |
|
01–15 Jul 2000 |
vic. Calipatria IMP |
2000-110 |
28 |
ph., Patten & Lasley (2000) |
|
08 Jul 2000 |
vic. Calipatria IMP |
2003-205 |
31 |
||
19 Jul–31 Aug 2003 |
Pt. Mugu VEN |
2003-115 |
29 |
ph. |
Figures

Figure 206. The Glossy Ibis’s expansion across the continent was first detected in California around the turn of the twenty-first century. This adult in full alternate plumage was photographed on 1 July 2000 near Calipatria, Imperial County (2000-096; Kenneth Z. Kurland).

Figure 207. This pioneering adult Glossy Ibis, present from 14 to 21 May 2001 on south San Francisco Bay, was northern California’s first. This photo was taken on 15 May 2001 at Alviso, Santa Clara County (2001-079; Les Chibana).
Glossy Ibis
GLOSSY IBIS Plegadis falcinellus (Linnaeus, 1766)
Accepted: 6 (60%) |
Treated in Appendix H: yes |
Not accepted: 4 |
CBRC review: all records |
Not submitted/reviewed: 0 |
Large color images:see Figures |
This wader has a vast and discontinuous Old World distribution, breeding from southern Europe to southern Asia and wintering mainly in Africa, southern Asia, Indonesia, and Australia. The species apparently colonized the New World during the 1800s, with breeding first reported in the Southeast during the 1880s (Palmer 1962, Davis and Kricher 2000). Subsequent expansion has included a strong push south and west since the mid 1980s (Patten and Lasley 2000), although the northeastern component of its range contracted slightly during the same period. By the mid 1990s the species had reached western Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Colima, and was established in the southwestern Yucatan Peninsula (Howell and de Montes 1989). First records from Arizona (NAB 55:333; 60:417), Utah (Utah Bird Records Committee data), Wyoming (Patten and Lasley 2000), Idaho (NAB 59:626; 60:409), and Washington (NAB 59:484, 529) have followed. By the mid 2000s this species was regarded as a rare, regular visitor to many states in the Great Plains. Presumably reflecting identification difficulties, and perhaps the timing of White-faced Ibis migration, records of the Glossy Ibis from Colorado and adjacent states are concentrated between mid April and mid May (Faulkner 2004), and almost invariably pertain to adults in alternate plumage with their bare parts in full breeding condition. Although the range does seem to be expanding westward, some portion of this species’ change in status may reflect increased awareness and vigilance among western observers.
California’s first records of the Glossy Ibis were furnished by an adult photographed on 27 May 2000 near Calipatria, Imperial County, followed by two more adults photographed in the same area in early July of the same year (see Figure 206). Within the next three years, three more adults were found in the central and southern parts of the state, all between 14 May and 16 September; see also Appendix H.
Plegadis ibises in nonbreeding condition can be challenging to identify, and juveniles may be impossible (Kaufman 1990, Patten and Lasley 2000). Of particular concern, birds in Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and Arizona have shown characters consistent with Glossy × White-faced Ibis hybrids (Wood and Semo 2002; Arterburn and Gryzbowski 2003; Faulkner 2004; NAB 58:579; 60:409), and hybrid pairings have been recorded in Wyoming (Faulkner 2005). Thus any acceptable record must explicitly rule out a hybrid.