Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
First Round Comments
Year 2004 (records 26 - 50)

  
2004-26 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 12 Dec 2004 Acc  
Ronald R. 10 Dec 2004 Acc Good photos and written record.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Nice photos and description, good analysis of similar species.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 Acc Aren’t photos great! These leave no doubt.
Larry T. 27 Nov 2004 Acc  
Merrill W. 4 Oct 2004 Acc Photos are convincing.

     

2004-27 Yellow-throated Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 12 Dec 2004 Acc Very good description.
Ronald R. 10 Dec 2004 Acc Very good and complete written description. Carefully eliminated other similar species. Good viewing conditions and length of observation.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent description with careful observation of fieldmarks.
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent description.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 Acc The description is well written and convincing that a Yellow-throated Vireo was seen. Multiple observers on two days helps.
Larry T. 27 Nov 2004 Acc Nice description and a good job of eliminating similar species.This is a pretty distinctive bird if seen well.
Merrill W. 4 Oct 2004 Acc Very complete description.

          

2004-28 Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc I’m somewhat hesitantly voting to accept the Blue-headed Vireo records. I believe there is more to identifying the Solitary Vireo complex than meets the eye. Specifically, I think there is perhaps a lot more overlap between Cassin’s and Blue-headed Vireos (both genotypic and phenotypic) than is currently recognized. However, based on the current identification characteristics described in recent field guides (e.g. Sibley, NG, Kaufman) these birds would be classified as Blue-headed Vireos. They show dark heads, sharp back contrast, bright yellow sides and vents, white throats with apparent sharp malar contrast, broad tertial edging, etc, etc. which all point to BH Vireo. I spent considerable time studying Solitary Vireos this fall, and from September 21-27 I observed and photographed ten migrant Solitary Vireos in southern Utah and Nevada. Using the identification characters described in field guides I would classify six of these as Blue-headed Vireos and only four showed typical Cassin’s characteristics. Obviously this left me a little confused and questioning the ability to accurately identify these birds. However, I guess an alternative would be that it was an exceptional fall for BH Vireos in the intermountain west.

2nd round

 21 Dec 2004 Acc I agree with the first round comments and would like to have seen a more complete write-up and photos of the back of this bird and I think we probably should do more to encourage complete writeups. However based on the photos I cannot see any reason to accept record 04-22 as a Blue-headed Vireo and not accept this one.
Ronald R. 10 Dec 2004 No, ID The written description was not sufficient to identify this bird. I don't thing the photos clearly show a blue-headed vireo. The contrast between the cheek and throat are not great (see bottom photo) and the coloration on the flanks is not sufficiently bright or extensive to rule out Cassin's.

2nd round

 9 Jan 2005 No, ID My comments from before still apply. In addition, I don't think the head is dark enough gray to rule out Cassin's.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc While no narrative the photos clearly the stong contrast on the throat, the dark gray head and bold spectacles

2nd round

 20 Jan 2005 No, ID While I still believe this may be a Blue-headed Vireo, I agree with the concern that a bright Cassin's has not been satisfactorily ruled out. I don't think we have seen the last of these two species giving us problems with identification.
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 No, ID I'd like to see some discussion on this bird. I don't like records that rely entirely on photos, especially when the photos don't show the entire bird. The questions I have about this one are in regards to the throat contrast with the auriculars, the amount of yellow/green color on the flanks and the contrast between the back/head (which we can't see from the photos). Is the information we have sufficient to eliminate a fresh fall Cassin's Vireo? A bit of written description, and an
analysis from the observer in the field, of why this wasn't a Cassin's would be helpful.

2nd round

 20 Jan 2005 No, ID My comments from the first round, as well as those of others, still apply. It's a shame that the observer didn't give us any more information than the photos - the photos themselves don't adequately eliminate a bright Cassin's Vireo.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 No, ID The photos are suggestive of this species but not totally convincing. I don’t think they totally rule out a bright Cassin’s Vireo. Again it’s too bad this observer chose not to provide complete written details. I would like to know what the upper side of this bird looked like. There was no discussion on elimination of other possible species.

2nd round

 18 Dec 2004 No, ID Again without any further description of the bird’s upperside I cannot accept this record. On looking at the photos again it appears that there is limited yellow on the underparts which would tend more toward a bright Cassin’s Vireo. Blue-headed Vireos should have more continuous yellow sides and flanks and more bright yellow on the vent. Also this bird doesn’t look quite bright white below but this could be part of the photo. As mentioned earlier though the biggest problem with this record is that the observer chose not to provide any written description of the bird and the photos only show the underside
Larry T. 27 Nov 2004 No, ID Could possibly be a Blue-headed Vireo but without any type of description of the bird and in the photo of the bird from below the throat contrast doesn't look that sharp.For me personally the sharp throat contrast seems to be the clincher for the ID but these Solitary Vireos need to be seen well because there is definitely overlap in the field marks for Cassin's and Blue-headed.

2nd round

 29 Jan 2005 No, ID The lack of any type of a description and the incomplete views of the bird in the photos make me stay with my first round vote.
Merrill W. 4 Oct 2004 Acc Good photos

2nd round

 5 Jan 2005 No, ID The photo shows what I think is a clear contrast between the cheek (gray) and the throat (white).  Plus, I feel the head shows a distinct bluish color rather than gray.  Both of these fieldmarks would indicate a Blue-headed Vireo.  However, the side (flanks) are not a continuous yellow, but Sibley doesn't show it as continuous either.  But, without some description of the wings, back and head by the observer it doesn't rule out a Cassin's Vireo.  So, I am changing my vote to not accept because of a lack of a detailed description eliminating a Cassin's.

     

2004-29 Broad-winged Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 20 Nov 2004 Acc Good description.
Ronald R. 10 Dec 2004 Acc Good description of key marks and good assessment to eliminate similar species. I think this species can be omitted from the review list.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc  
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent description and analysis from an experienced observer.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 Acc The description certainly fits this species and at a known hawk watch where this species is probably somewhat regular at this time of year. The observer also is very familiar with this species.
Larry T. 27 Nov 2004 Acc Good description.
Merrill W. 4 Oct 2004 Acc Adequate description.

  

2004-30  Common Black Hawk

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 20 Nov 2004 Acc This is an excellent record and I think the correct identification of the hawk described in record 2004-18.
Ronald R. 10 Dec 2004 Acc Description and photos adequate to eliminate all species except dark phase broad-winged hawk. The length of the tarsus and size of the foot seem more consistent with black hawk. The most convincing characteristic on the photo is the color and lack of feathers on the lores and below the eye. On broad-winged hawk, the lores are well feathered, separating the eye from the bare yellowish cere. On this bird, the lores and to slightly below the eye, the skin is bare and yellowish in color--characteristics consistent with black hawk, and not broad-winged hawk. The bill relative to the head seems to be on the small end for black hawks, but still is on the large end for broad-winged hawks.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc I am aware of the discussion that took place on Utah Birdnet. The bare cere area, the long legs, and the long tertials all visible in the photos lead me to believe this is a Black Hawk and not a Zone-tailed Hawk
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Photos and description sufficient to eliminate Zone-tailed Hawk - the tail banding really isn't consistant with any other species.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 Acc I believe the photos and written description eliminate Zone-tailed Hawk which this bird was first thought to be. The white banding on top of the tail, leg length, tail length all point to Black-Hawk
Larry T. 8 Dec 2004 Acc Great bird for this area of the state. The photos are a Black-hawk.
Merrill W. 29 Nov 2004 Acc Acceptable description

     

2004-31  Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 20 Nov 2004 Acc Adequate description.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Very thorough description containing important field marks. The pale yellow throat was a bit surprising.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent description
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Good description - undertail pattern is distinctive in this species.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 Acc The description indicates this species.
Larry T. 8 Dec 2004 Acc Description fits a Maggie.
Merrill W. 29 Nov 2004 Acc Nice description (since I was the one who reported it).

 

2004-32  Brant

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 20 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent record.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Good photos and adequate descriptions.
Terry S. 3 Nov 2004 Acc Convincing photos and narrative
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc A well-documented record of a bird seen by many, including myself.
Steven S. 18 Nov 2004 Acc Photos clearly show a Brant was seen.
Larry T. 8 Dec 2004 Acc A nice find that was seen by a lot of birders. The description and photos show a Brant.
Merrill W. 29 Nov 2004 Acc Saw this one.

  

2004-33  Palm Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc This is good description of a Palm Warbler. I'm surprised how few of these turn in Utah.

2nd round

 26 Jan 2005 Acc I don't have any problem accepting this record as a Palm Warbler.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Good description. The head and tails pattern should eliminate Virginia's Warbler, and the streaking on the breast and flanks and tail patternn should eliminate orange-crowned warbler.

2nd round

 9 Jan 2005 Acc I still feel the description effectively eliminates other species. While often seen near the ground, I have seen this species
foraging relatively high in trees. Mention of tail-wagging would have been helpful.
Terry S. 2 Dec 2004 Acc The observer seems to have adequately described a Palm Warbler and eliminated similar species. I am concerned, however, with the decribed behavior. No tail-pumping was noted and the bird was seen moving rapidly from branch to branch. Palm Warblers are habitual tail-pumpers and have a strong tendency to feed on or near the ground.

2nd round

 20 Jan 2005 Acc Again, the description seems to effectively eliminate other similar species.
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc The description is sufficient to eliminate similar species, but this i.d. is not trivial, and I would have liked to see a more
complete description of the upperparts, especially if there were wingbars or not, though perhaps these things weren't seen by the observer. If not seen, it should be stated as such.the
bill color and underwing color as described would eliminate CAGU.

2nd round

 20 Jan 2005 Acc I'll stay with my first-round vote, while noting the behavioral comments of Larry and Merrill. I have seen this species a few times higher in trees and without much tail-wagging, so it is possible, if rare. The yellow undertail coverts, combined with the other characters noted, would seem to eliminate other species.
Steven S. 3 Dec 2004 Acc The description certainly sounds like a Palm Warbler. I would be a little more comfortable accepting this record if tail wagging had been observed but the basic description seems to eliminate other likely candidates
Larry T. 13 Dec 2004 No, ID I really have a problem that the observer watched what they thought was a Palm Warbler for 2 minutes and never saw the tail pumping behavior that to me is impossible not to notice if you see the bird for any length of time. They always seem to sit still at times and you can't help but see the tail pumping even if you don't know to look for it.The only part of the description that seems to eliminate a Myrtle Yellow-rump is the yellow undertail coverts but everything else seems to fit.I would like to hear what everyone else has to say about this one.

2nd round

 29 Jan 2005 No, ID I still don't like the description of the behavior of the bird. The bird constantly moving rapidly from branch to branch doesn't sound like a Palm Warbler. But the observer said they were able to see all the field marks very clearly while it was moving this fast but the most obvious one. Palm Warblers can be seen anywhere from the ground to high in trees but they always seem to pause at times and you can't miss the tail pumping even if you done know to watch for it.
Merrill W. 17 Dec 2004 No, ID Description is adequate including the tail description.  However, I am a bit concerned that there was no tail pumping observed, plus the area in the tree where the bird was feeding.  Usually, at least in my limited experience, feed closer to the ground.

2nd round

 7 Feb 2004 Acc The only problem I had before was with the lack of a tail wagging behavior.  The rest of the description fits a Palm Warbler.  Perhaps the observer just didn't include the behavior, but that shouldn't preclude the correct identity of what I feel would probably be a Palm Warbler.
David W.  2nd round 28 Jan 2005 Acc The combination of field marks eliminates all other possibilities, especially the tail pattern and bright yellow undertail
coverts.

Although the tail pumping in this species should have been obvious to anyone looking for it, the observer offered a plausible explanation as to why this behavior was not noted (that the bird was part of a mobile flock flitting about in a tree).

As for the bird being in the tree, this also isn't a fatal observation. I recently returned from a trip to Florida, and though I saw many Palm warblers on the ground, I also saw a great many in trees.

  

2004-34  Gilded Flicker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 No, ID I’m reluctantly voting to not accept this record, although I hope it goes to a second round allowing more discussion among committee members. The description is accurate for Gilded Flicker with a few minor exceptions. The small size, gray face, red malar stripe, and lack of any red on the nape are all good for a male Gilded Flicker. However, the description of the crown and nape as ‘dark gray’(rather than brown) indicates this may have been a hybrid YS X RS Flicker. Other characters helpful in distinguishing Gilded Flickers such as undertail coverts and shape of breast-patch also were not mentioned.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 No, ID The lack of a brown crown and nape make this inseparable from a hybrid red x yellow-shafted flicker.
Terry S. 2 Dec 2004 No, ID I believe additional fieldmarks beyond the yellow-shafted tail and wings, red malar stripe and unmarked nape are needed to adequately separate a Gilded Flicker from a Yellow-shafted No. Flicker. Extensive description of the back, crown, nape, face, ventral spots and chest patch would help
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 No, ID Good description, but I don't think a hybrid Red-shafted x Yelow-shafted is eliminated from the description. This hybrid doesn't necessarily have a red crescent on the nape, and sometimes when it is present it is very faint and difficult to see. A Gilded Flicker should have a brown/cinnamon crown and nape, not gray as described. Other destinctive features of Gilded Flicker, such as the back and belly markings were not noted.
Steven S. 3 Dec 2004 No, ID Although slightly tantalizing I think a few important field marks were not seen to completely eliminate a hybrid Northern Flicker. The difference in shape of the black chest patch, back color and streaking, under-part coloration and spot shapes were not described. Another point that is bothersome for Gilded Flicker is that the crown and nape were described as dark gray. A Gilded Flicker should have an all brown (slightly golden) crown and nape (hence the name Gilded). An all gray crown and nape is a Northern Flicker characteristic. I also am not sure that a lack of a red nape patch eliminates a hybrid Northern Flicker.
Larry T. 13 Dec 2004 No, ID Sounds like a hybrid Northern Flicker. The gray crown and nape isn't what a Gilded Flicker would show.
Merrill W. 17 Dec 2004 No, ID The description given by the observer indicates to me a probable hybrid.  The head description is of a Red-shafted and the tail description is of a Yellow-shafted.

  

2004-35  lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc Description is adequate. Surprisely, there was also an adult Lesser Black-backed Gull observed and photographed (record 2004-01) at the nearby Bountiful landfill on the same day this immature was seen.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Good description. Leg and iris color should eliminate California gull, leg color and size should eliminate Kelp gull.
Terry S. 13 Dec 2004 Acc Size comparison along with overall description seems to eliminate other similar species including Herring, Yellow-footed, and Western Gulls.
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc This is a bit of a tough i.d., and the guides don't offer much help with how to tell this age class from California Gull,
presumably because occurrence of this species in the west is relatively recent. The description here is good, and safely eliminates Herring Gull, but the observers don't discuss the CAGU issue. However, it appears that the bill color and underwing color as described would eliminate CAGU.
Steven S. 18 Dec 2004 Acc The detailed description fits this species well (at least by Sibley). It would have been nice to see more discussion about what other similar dark-backed species the observers considered but all others seem to be eliminated by their description. Photos would have been very helpful here.
Larry T. 13 Dec 2004 Acc Good description that eliminates similar species. They seem to have seen the bird at close range and noted the key field marks.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Basic field marks of leg color, mantle color and comparative size rule out any other gull.

  

2004-36  Anna's Hummingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc Overall an excellent record with a great write-up, drawings, and numerous photos. It's a pleasure reviewing records like this.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Good description and good photo.
Terry S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Photos convincing
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Good description and photo. The date is consistent with the pattern of occurrence for this species in northern Utah, with most records from late fall/early winter.
Steven S. 5 Dec 2004 Acc The photos and description clearly indicate this species.
 
Larry T. 27 Dec 2004 Acc Nice photos and description.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc It's too bad all submissions for the records committee can't be this detailed.  Photos, descriptions and drawings--nice work.

 

2004-37  Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc Another great record.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Good photos, adequate description.
Terry S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Convincing photos and narrative
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent description supplemented by decent photos - clearly a Red-necked Grebe.
Steven S. 5 Dec 2004 Acc The photos and description clearly indicate this species.
Larry T. 27 Dec 2004 Acc Very detailed description with a great job of eliminating similar species.It would be nice if all of our submited records were accompanied with such a good description of the sighting. Also some good photos.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Photos and very complete description clearly indicate this species.  Plus, I had the chance to see it, so no question in my mind about this identification.

 

2004-38  Black Scoter

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc The Black Scoter remained at Sand Hollow through 11/13/04.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Good photo and description. Perhaps a species to remove from the review list.
Terry S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Convincing photos and narrative
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Nice description and photos.
Steven S. 5 Dec 2004 Acc The photos and description clearly indicate this species.
Larry T. 27 Dec 2004 Acc  
Merrill W. 29 Nov 2004 Acc Nice photos. Should the location be Sand Hollow Reservoir instead of Sand Creek?

  

2004-39  Red-throated Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc Nice description and perfect timing for a vagrant Red-throated Loon.
Ronald R. 10 Dec 2004 Acc  
Terry S. 3 Dec 2004 Acc Excellent description and careful elimination of other loons
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent description and analysis.
Steven S. 18 Dec 2004 Acc This bird was well described and seen my observers over a period of days
Larry T. 4 Jan 2004 Acc The description indicates a Red-throated Loon.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Well-described, plus I was one of the fortunate observers a few days later.

  

2004-40  Black Scoter

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Dec 2004 Acc Photos are conclusive.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Great photos.
Terry S. 3 Dec 2004 Acc Accept on submitted photos decription rather sparse
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Nice photos - not much description, but good analysis of similar speices.
Steven S. 5 Dec 2004 Acc The photos and description clearly indicate this species.
Larry T. 4 Jan 2004 Acc Nice Photos show a Female Black Scoter and the description is adequate.
Merrill W. 29 Nov 2004 Acc Saw this one along the causeway.

   

2004-41  Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 21 Dec 2004 Acc Good write-up and outstanding photos.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Great photos! Unmistakable.
Terry S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Great Photos
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent photos and good description of a distinctive species.
Steven S. 5 Dec 2004 Acc The photos and description clearly indicate this species.
Larry T. 13 Jan 2005 Acc Good Description with nice photos.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Excellent photos and complete description certainly indicate this species.

2004-42  Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 21 Dec 2004 Acc It certainly is nice to have a great photo to go along with a complete write-up.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Excellent photo and good description. Possibly a first fall male.
Terry S. 3 Dec 2004 Acc This bird could have easily been past over for a more common tanager. Good photo and description eliminating other tanagers
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Excellent photo and good description - a remarkable record.
Steven S. 18 Dec 2004 Acc The great photo shows all the marks of a non-breeding Scarlet Tanager
Larry T. 13 Jan 2005 Acc A very nice photo that leaves no question about the ID of the bird. The description adequately eliminates similar species and the date is ok for this bird to show up in Utah. I've seen them in the west a couple of times in November.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Excellent photo of what appears to be a first fall male Scarlet Tanager.  Description eliminates any other tanager.

 

2004-43  Least Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 Jan 2005 No, ID While the described song is distinctive, the description does not eliminate other empids, as there is no discussion of bill size and shape, or primary projection. There is no discernable difference in the eye-ring shape between Dusky, Least, and Hammond's Flycatchers. I'd like to see more discussion on this record.

2nd round

 7 Feb 2005 No, ID I'm still not comfortable accepting a record of such a difficult species based solely on the "che-bek" description of its song.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Although the description was not sufficient to rule out other Empidonax flycatchers, the song is very distinctive.

2nd round

 27 Jan 2005 Acc I agree that the visual description was insufficient for identification of this species, but the song of this species is so
distinct and easily recognized by someone with experience with this species (as is the case with these observers). The timing of the observation is consistent with a migrant or potential breeder.
Terry S. 3 Dec 2004 Acc Accept on song alone. Very limited description does not mention size and shape of bill, tail, primary projection, etc.

2nd round

 7 Feb 2005 Acc I still believe this record should be accepted on the call alone. Given the time of year and location, plus the the very distinct
call of this species I am voting to accept the record.
Mark S. 30 Nov 2004 Acc Call clinches this one.

2nd round

 30 Jan 2005 Acc  I'll stay with my first round vote. While it's true that the visual description doesn't adequately eliminate the other empids, the visual description is so much less reliable than the call. I think it would be far more risky to accept a well described visual-only record than a poorly described visual with a destinct audible description (which is what we have here). There are other things not mentioned in the first round that support this being a Least Flycatcher. Habitat and time of year are both consistent with the past occurrence of Least Flycatcher in Utah, and argue against any else except for Willow Flycatcher, which it clearly wasn't. Empids like Hammond's and Dusky should be on their breeding grounds. Also, at this time of the year, in the height of the breeding season, songs are usually quite typical - most of the odd variations in songs occurs with hatch-year birds late in the summer.
Steven S. 18 Dec 2004 Acc This bird can only be accepted by voice (song) description alone as the description doesn’t really eliminate all other Empids. The description does lend support though to this species. The song of the Least Flycatcher is distinctive and it was described as such
Larry T. 13 Jan 2005 Acc A very incomplete description for such a difficult bird to seperate from other similar Empids.But if the song was heard it should be a pretty straight forward ID. This bird is probably a somewhat regular migrant through Utah although difficult to detect.

2nd round

 7 Feb 2005 Acc I will stay with my first round vote on this one. Givin the time of year I feel more comfortable accepting this record on the song than on a good visual description.Although I would like to have seen both on such a difficult bird.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Acceptance based on song and small size.

2nd round

 7 Feb 2005 Acc I will stay with my first round vote which was based on size and the song.
David W.  2nd round
.		 27 Jan 2005 No, ID Although the description of the bird are all consistent with the Least flycatcher (and indeed best fits that species), and the
observers are experienced birders, the description is incomplete and doesn't completely rule out other possible empids. The description notably lacked description of the bill, which is one of the few truly diagnostic fieldmarks in this difficult genus.

The call, which is the strongest piece of evidence, was only heard a few times over a period of 30 seconds even though the bird was observed for 30 minutes. I've noticed that empids sometimes get "fixated" on a fragment of their call ("song"), repeating one phrase while omitting the rest of the full call. Since this bird only called about 4-5 times, it
could, based on the evidence presented, possibly have been a Hammond's flycatcher "fixated" on the first phrase of its call.

  

2004-44  Rufous-backed Robin

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 Jan 2005 Acc This is an exceptional record. Description is marginal, but diagnostic. I have a some photos as well, but they are (almost)
equally blurry.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Photos sufficient to rule out other robins and thrushes. Great record!
Terry S. 17 Jan 2005 Acc Photos, while not the best quality, are convincing. What a great record!
Mark S. 18 Jan 2005 Acc The photos tell the story on this one, this description is barely adequate and there's no discussion of similar species. However, this bird has been seen by many (including myself), and the identification is not in doubt.
Steven S. 31 Dec 2004 Acc The photos show this species. The written description is a bit disappointing (brief) and there was no comparison with similar species.
Larry T. 25 Jan 2005 Acc Great bird for the state. Adequate description of a distinct bird that was seen my many.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Photos, though blurry, still show the fieldmarks typical of this species.  Description was short, but sufficient.  It helps that I was one of the fortunate observers a couple of days later.

  

2004-45  Red-headed Woodpecker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 Jan 2005 Acc Adequate description and photos.
Ronald R. 8 Jan 2005 Acc Unmistakable in photos.
Terry S. 17 Jan 2005 Acc Good photos and narrative.
Mark S. 18 Jan 2005 Acc Excellent description and good photos leave no doubt, especially with such an unmistakeable species.
Steven S. 31 Dec 2004 Acc The photos leave no doubt.
Larry T. 25 Jan 2005 Acc Good description with nice photos.
Merrill W. 5 Jan 2005 Acc Complete description and, luckily for me, excellent photos by two other photographers to help document the sighting.