Utah Bird Records Committee
Rec. # 2024-24R
13 Sep 2017
Type of material: spectrogram
Source of Information: Kenny Frisch
I hope everyone's summer has been going well and everyone is getting into the
swing of migration. While
researching Western Flycatcher positions notes for a bird I had at Lucin, I came
across a website I have
been looking for forever. One that gives direct side-by-side comparison of
Western Flycatcher calls and songs:
http://www. appliedbioacoustics.com/research/wefl/frameindex.html. After I
was done looking at the position notes, I went to look through the differences
in songs of Pacific-slope vs Cordilleran. I noticed that in spectrograms, song
phrase 2 was the element in two species that was most different.
In Pacific-slopes, song phrase 2 consists of 2 upslurred whistles that both go
over 6 kHz in pitch.
In Cordillerans however, song phrase 2 is more of a hump that descends further
at the end.
The peak of the hump never goes over 6 kHz
Looking at my spectrogram for the record (http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S24761888), I noticed that my song phrase 2 matches the song
phrase 2 of Pacific-slope but is much different from Cordilleran. Also looking
at the other song elements, my bird looks like a much better match for
Seeing how we didn't have this direct evidence of the spectrograms and website
at the time of the original submission, I would think that this would fall into
the resubmission section of the bylaws under "new and substantial evidence that
might reverse that decision". This is certainly substantial evidence and I would
argue that it is new since we did not have it back when we were reviewing this
Maybe I am way off on my interpretation of the bylaws and/or spectrograms, but I
think this would be a good case for resubmission.
Does anyone else have thoughts on the subject?