|
2005-01 Red-breasted Supsucker
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
26 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
while the decription
of the head is good for RB Sapsucker, the overall description is lacking
and without details on the breast, back, etc, I don't think we can rule
out a RB X RN hybrid (of which there are usually a few wintering in the
area) |
|
2nd round |
2 May 2005 |
No, ID |
I really don't think
the description rules out a hybrid sapsucker. Each winter there are
usually a few hybrid Red-breasted X Red-naped Sapsuckers in Washington
County. |
|
3rd round |
24 May 2005 |
No, ID |
I'll stick by
earlier round comments that a hybrid has clearly not been eliminated by
the provided description. |
| Ronald
R. |
1 Mar 2005 |
No, ID |
While the observer
likely saw a red-breasted sapsucker, the written description does not
sufficiently describe this species. There is no indication of the shape,
size or coloration other than the head of the bird. I suggest a
resubmission of this record. |
|
2nd round |
3 Mar 2005 |
No, ID |
I still feel this
record is insufficient to document this species. I encourage the observers
to resubmit this record with additional details if possible. |
|
3rd round |
24 May 2005 |
No, ID |
Given the comments
of Merrill, and my previous comments (and those of others), I cannot
accept this record. |
|
Terry S. |
26 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Limited description
but solid,red head and red breast seems to eliminate Red-naped and
possible hybrid. Description of white eyebrow and small white patch under
eye would rule out Red-headed woodpecker |
|
2nd round |
28 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
While I agree that
it would be best to have this record resubmitted, I believe a Red-breasted
Sapsucker was described. The all red head and breast would eliminate a
hybrid. The fact that the observers cited a Red-naped Sapsucker as a
similar species should establish the fact that the bird was a woodpecker.
I would hate to lose this record just because it was submitted in less
than ideal format. |
|
3rd round |
4 May 2005 |
No, ID |
Based on Merrill's
comments and the concern raised by other committee members I am now
concerned about the validity of the sighting. |
| Mark
S. |
18 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
It may be that they
saw a Red-breasted Sapsucker, but I really can't say that from the
description. Other than noting a solid red head, there isn't much that
sounds like Red-breasted Sapsucker and there are several things that seem
strange, such as a white eyebrow. Red-naped Sapsucker has a white eyebrow,
but Red-breasted doesn't. The real problem is that this description is so
brief and incomplete that it doesn't give us much to go on. There is no
mention of whether there was black on the chest, for example. How can we
know that the bird they saw wasn't a hybrid Red-naped X Red-breasted? As
described, I would suggest that a hybrid could be a strong possibilty, but
we simply don't have enough
information to say. |
|
2nd round |
13 Mar 2005 |
No, ID |
I too, would like
the observers to re-submit this record with additional details. I think
the problem of a hybrid Red-naped X Red-breasted Sapsucker is a real
possibility, and this description, especially of the breast area, is
inadequate to tell if it's a hybrid or not. Paul Lehman just made a post
to ID Frontiers regarding a Texas Red-breasted Sapsucker where he said
that east of western Nevada the hybrids are more common than pure
Red-breasted, and that the breast area is one of the best places to look
for signs of a hybrid. We don't have much of a descripiton of this part of
the bird. |
|
3rd round |
2 Jul 2005 |
No, ID |
I see no reason to
change my vote based upon the comments made, and by Merrill's note as
well. |
|
Larry T. |
21 Feb 2005 |
No, ID |
The limited
description doesn't convince me that the bird was even a Sapsucker. The
only thing that I have to go on is that the similar species mentioned was
a Red-naped Sapsucker otherwise it could be a House finch. |
|
2nd round |
26 Apr 2005 |
No, ID |
I don't feel that we
can accept this record with such a poor descripton. There's no way to rule
out a Hybrid from it and they seem to be much more common in Utah than a
pure Red-breasted. |
|
3rd round |
20 Jun 2005 |
No, ID |
I will stay with my
earlier comments. |
| Merrill
W. |
5 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Description of the
head and breast are pretty conclusive. Would prefer description of
rest of the body, but maybe observer felt that just the main identifying
fieldmarks were enough. |
|
2nd round |
15 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I still think it is
a Red-breasted Sapsucker based on the description of an all red head and
red breast. |
|
3rd round |
3 May 2005 |
No, ID |
I was shown a photo
at the dinner held in Washington, UT. during the St. George bird festival
by one of the people submitting this report. The bird was definitely
NOT a Red-breasted Sapsucker, but was a Red-naped Sapsucker instead.
This individual showing me the photo said it was the same bird they had
seen earlier. I did not have time to even study the photo at the
time he showed it to me because we were just getting ready to listen to
the speaker. Later I noticed the picture and came to the conclusion
that I mentioned above. Unfortunately, I did not keep the photo
because I didn't realize that this would be the species I would be voting
on later. |
|
David W. |
19 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Assuming this bird
is a woodpecker, and the observer neither states so nor offers any
descriptive evidence of it being so beyond the species name, the
completely red head and breast eliminate all other possibilities in North
America except for a Red-headed woodpecker (RHW) and Red-breasted
sapsucker (RBS). Now, though the literature that I have reviewed states
that the daggetti subspecies of the RBS does sometimes have an eyebrow, it
is invariably shown to be smaller than the mustachial stripe that the
observer specifically mentions was not present (Or did the observer mean
to say that a mustachial stripe extending ALL THE WAY down to the breast
was not present, but perhaps there was a shorter mustachial stripe??
Perhaps this is the "small patch of white underneath the eye" he
describes?). Since neither the RHW nor the ruber subspecies of the RBS is
ever portrayed in the literature as having white eyebrows, the daggetti
subspecies of the RBS is the most likely choice to my mind. A hybrid
with other sapsuckers (presumably a Red-naped) appears unlikely because a
hybrid, even more than the daggetti subspecies of RBS, should have a
strong mustachial and eyebrow stripes, and possibly black on the face (see
Kenn Kaufman's description of hybrids in his 1990 book, "Advanced
Birding").
It is unfortunate the observer didn't describe the extent of the red on
the breast or how it transitioned into whatever color was below, as that
would have been further diagnostic in differentiating between a RHW or a
ruber ssp. of RBS.
I am reluctant to approve this sighting due to the complete lack of
description of most of the bird (in fact only the head, neck and breast
were described). The observer doesn't even establish in the description
that the bird is a woodpecker, let alone a sapsucker. That being said, I
think that in this case the observer did note the critical field marks
that would identify his bird as a Red-breasted sapsucker. I could not
find, without resorting to partial albinism, another bird belonging to any
family on the ABA list fitting the description of having both totally red
head & breast AND white eyebrow. |
|
2nd round |
25 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I do not believe a
hybrid would be a better match for the description than a "pure"
Red-breasted sapsucker. |
|
3rd round |
13 May 2005 |
Acc |
As above. |
2005-02 Broad-billed Hummingbird
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
26 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
I believe the photo
shows a female Black-chinned Hummingbird. The long bill, small head, thin
neck, grayish crown, face pattern, and wing/tail length ratio all favor a
Black-chinned Hummingbird. |
| Ronald
R. |
1 Mar 2005 |
No, ID |
The description is
not sufficient to identify this bird. The photo strongly suggests a female
black-chinned hummingbird. |
|
Terry S. |
31 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
It is difficult
looking at the photos to get a good indication of plumage color on the
back, head and even the throat, breast and belly. From what I see, though,
I believe this is a female Black-chinned, possibly an immature. The
birdlooks like it is a dull or drab green above with a grayish green
crown. The bill to me looks fairly straight with a slight down-curve at
the tip. The bill is also all dark Though the orange or red lower mandible
of a broad-billed can be hard to see.
The bird below looks pale gray with a tinge of cinnamon color. Female
Black-chinned can show a dark post occular stripe or band as this bird
does. The white behind the eye is more of a spot and is typically seen in
female black-chinned. In broad-bills I believe the white would be more of
a stipe that bordered the dark area coming through and behind the eye. The
tail projects just beyond the primary tips which also is typical of
black-chinned Hummingbirds. The overall head shape looks typical
black-chinned, small and rounded with a sloping forhead. |
| Mark
S. |
18 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
I think this photo
shows a Black-chinned Hummingbird, perhaps an immature male, but probably
an adult female. Neither the black auricular patch nor the white
post-ocular stripe are prominent enough for Broad-billed, and are within
the range for Black-chinned. Also, all ages and sexes of Broad-billed show
some red, at least on the base of the
bill, and I can't see any sign of this from the photos (realizing that the
photos may not show this due to light, etc.). The shape and length of bill
seem to be wrong for Broad-billed - it's too long, thin, and abruptly
decurved at the tip, and perfect for Black-chinned. Broad-billed shouldn't
have a bill more than about 1 1/3 the head length, and this one looks to
be about 1 1/2 head-lengths, which is at the long end for Black-chinned,
but still within "normal" range for that species. It looks to me like the
tail does indeed project beyond the wingtips, which is fine for
Black-chinned and wrong for Broad-billed, which has wingtips and tail of
equal length. Finally, the color on the back does not seem to be the
bright, almost bluish-green that a Broad-billed should have, but rather
the olive-gold green of Black-chinned, again with
the caveat that the photos may distort this. |
|
Larry T. |
21 Feb 2005 |
No, ID |
I don't see anything
wrong with this bird being a HY Archilochus.The photo is good enough that
you should be able to see some pink on the base of the bill if this bird
was a Broad-billed.The pale underparts and dull markings on the head also
don't fit a Broad-billed. |
| Merrill
W. |
5 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
Neither the photo
nor the description indicated a bicolored bill which is typical of the
Broad-billed. I think it is probably a Black-chinned Hummingbird. |
|
David W. |
19 Jan 2005 |
No, ID |
I feel a sight
report for a species this rare in Utah needs to be more convincing, as its
rarity and similarity to other species poses a higher burden of proof than
that for more commonly seen or less subtly marked species. The observer
never mentions distinctive field marks (like red bill color, bluish tinge
to back (if it were present), or bluish-black tail that one would expect
in an immature male Broad-billed hummingbird) that would differentiate
that species from more
commonly-occurring species found in Utah.
To me, the bird shown in the photo "jizzes" as a Black-chinned
hummingbird, in both bill shape & proportion and overall shape of bird.
In checking the literature, I note the following:
1. The black lores and the white postocular spot are more consistent with
a female Black-chinned than a Broad-billed hummingbird.
2. There is no form of Black-billed hummingbird (male, female, immature,
or adult) I am aware of that doesn't have a red basal half to its lower
mandible. There is no indication in either the written description of the
bird or the photo that any red was present.
3. It appears to me from examining the photo that, contrary to what the
observer says, the tail is actually considerably longer than the wings.
The observer states that a longer tail would suggest Broad-tailed or
Black-chinned hummingbirds.
4. Though the dark auricular patch is consistent with the Broad-billed
hummingbird, it also seems to be consistent with the darker end of the
spectrum for the female Black-chinned (see for example the photo in Stokes
Western guide or the drawing in the National Geographic guide).
5. Likewise, the white postocular stripe is not so conspicuous as to
preclude the female Black-chinned hummingbird. Furthermore, it seems
rather weak for a Broad-billed, though possibly within the range for that
species. The drawings in the guides I have examined show a more crisply
dilineated white postocular brow stripe in the Broad-billed
hummingbird than is visible in the photo included in this record.
Admittedly, most of these guides also show a vaguer stripe for the female
Black-chinned.
To my mind, the most intriguing field mark, and the only one that isn't
consistent with a "classic" Black-chinned hummingbird, is the dark
"necklace" on the breast of the bird. From the photo, it appears to be
slightly higher than one would expect for the upper edge of the green
"vest" of a male Black-chinned, and too low for that species' gorget.
Certainly the argument that this could be the beginnings of "the greenish
coloring that Broad-billeds get as they 'mature' " is one I agree with.
But the question is, is it definitely that? Is this some odd molt? I don't
know. It is hard to tell from the photo what color or structure the darker
feathers have. This might be the place to point out Kenn Kauffman's
caution that hummingbirds are more prone to hybridization than some other
families.
However, if it really were an immature male Broad-billed hummingbird, then
the tail tips would not be broadly tipped white as this bird's appear to
be in the photo. I believe that field mark alone precludes the possibility
that this birds is an immature male Broad-billed hummingbird. The white
tail tips are much broader on the Black-chinned female than on an immature
Broad-billed male. Furthermore, the Black-chinned has a graduated tail
rather than the forked tail of the male broad-tail. When folded, the white
tail tips of the Black-chinned would overlap in such a way as to create
the appearance of a much whiter tail on the underside than when spread
out. The exact opposite would be true of the
Broad-billed male, whose forked tail would fold and overlap in such a way
as to hide much of the white on the underside of the tail while maximizing
it on the upper side of the tail. This is because hummingbird tails fold
so that the central retrices are on top, while the outer retrices fold
underneath. When I look at the photo submitted as part of this record, it
appears to me that there is a whole lot of white on the underside of the
tail. |
2005-03 Lesser Black-backed Gull
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
7 Feb 2005 |
Acc |
I'm hesitantly
voting to accept this record as a Lesser Black-backed Gull. Although the
description is very limited, key features are adequately covered. |
|
2nd round |
2 May 2005 |
Acc |
|
| Ronald
R. |
1 Mar 2005 |
No, ID |
I don't feel this
description is adequate to describe this bird and eliminate Thayer's gull
or a small herring gull. Key marks not discussed include a very light head
and chest (almost white), strong contrast between the black tail band and
the whitish rump and dark inner primaries. I suggest a resubmission with
more details if possible. |
|
2nd round |
30 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
Although I feel this
is a minimal description for a rather complex identification, I will vote
to accept this record on the following basis: the extremely black
primaries is not likely in a Thayer's gull; the size difference with
herring gull could adequately be assessed with the mixed associated flock;
California gull is elimiated by plumage changes by January. The experience
of the observer with LBBG is also noted. |
|
Terry S. |
26 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Size comparion to
Califoria Gull eiminates possibility of Herring Gull All blackbill, very
black primaries and secondaries
withBlack and white checkering on back would rule out Thayer's and
California Gulls. Observer seems familiar with the species. |
|
2nd round |
28 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I still believe key
characteristics are adequately covered to eliminate other species. |
| Mark
S. |
18 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
In a first year bird
this can be a tough id, but the desciption is adequate and all of the
important features were noted. it helps that the observers are experienced
with this species, and there were other gulls present for comparison. |
|
2nd round |
13 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I'll stay with my
first-round vote. Bill color & shape, along with size and blackish
primaries and secondaries would seem to eliminate similar species. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Feb 2005 |
Acc |
The desrciption is
adequate to eliminate similar species. |
|
2nd round |
26 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
I think the
description is good enough to accept this record. |
| Merrill
W. |
5 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
I feel the observers
adequately eliminated the California Gull juvenile as a possibility. |
|
2nd round |
15 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I feel the
description is adequate. Effectively eliminates other similar
species of gulls. |
|
David W. |
19 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
The two gulls which
were co-contenders for this description were the Thayer's gull & Juvenile
California gull.
The darker form of the 1st winter Thayer's gull has an all-dark bill and
dark-speckled back with a lighter back & chest as the described bird, but
it averages 2 inches larger than the California & Lesser black-backed
gulls (though there is some overlap and the largest California gulls are
as large as the smallest Thayer's). Seen in a flock, however, the
size difference should preclude confusion of the two species, thus
precluding the Thayer's gull.
The juvenile California gull matches the description of this bird almost
exactly except for the thicker bill field mark. The juvenile California
gull has a dark bill, is darker than a 1st winter California gull both
overall and in its primaries, has a dark-speckled back, etc. However, all
the books I consulted state that California gulls acquire their 1st winter
plumage by September or October, thus precluding this species in January. |
|
2nd round |
25 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I still think this
record is a good one. |
2005-04 Glaucous-winged Gull
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
7 Feb 2005 |
Acc |
Adequately
described. |
|
2nd round |
2 May 2005 |
Acc |
|
| Ronald
R. |
1 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I feel this
description is adequate to identify this species. It would have been nice
to compare with Thayer's and Iceland gull, but the description should
eliminate these species. |
|
2nd round |
30 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I feel the
description is adequate for this species. Yes, the potential exists for
some hybridization, but this does not seem to be a first generation cross. |
|
Terry S. |
26 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Overall description
including dark eye, similar colored mantle and primaries all seem to
eliminate Herring Gull, Glaucous Gull and possible hybrids. I can't recall
any other adult that has been documented for Utah. |
|
2nd round |
28 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
Staying with my
first comments in believing adequate description was given to eliminate
other species and hybrids. |
| Mark
S. |
20 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Nice description.
Should we consider removing this species from the review list? It seems
like we may be over the number of records threshold. |
|
2nd round |
13 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
Although the problem
of hybrids is always an issue, hybrid Glaucous-winged seem to be much more
common on the coast than inland. The described color of the primaries
seems to be appropriate for a "pure" bird, and I don't see anything else
in the description that suggests a hybrid. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Feb 2005 |
No, ID |
From the description
it sounds like the bird certainly had some GWGU in it but ruling out a
hybrid without photos or a more complete description seems difficult. I
would like to see this one go a second round. |
|
2nd round |
26 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
I will change my
vote to Accept this record. Without photos it's hard to rule out a hybrid
but the rest of the committee (with more experience in Utah than I have)
feels this species isn't that uncommon in the state. The observers did
have experience with Glaucous-winged and similar species. |
| Merrill
W. |
5 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Good description.
Adequately eliminated Herring and Glaucous Gulls. |
|
2nd round |
15 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
Still feel like the
description is adequate. |
|
David W. |
19 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Convincing
description, particularly in "similar species" section. I cannot think of
a species it could be confused with. |
|
2nd round |
25 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
Although gull
hybrids can be confusing, and I am not sure without good pictures could be
completely ruled out, I think the
description in this record is still convincing. Besides, this species is
one of our more common rarities. |
2005-05 Common Ground-Dove
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
26 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent record,
nice description, great photos, and thorough comparisons with similar
species. |
| Ronald
R. |
1 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description and adequate photos. Great record! |
|
Terry S. |
26 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
Description and good photos. The observers carefully detail and eliminate
possibility of Ruddy Ground Dove. |
| Mark
S. |
20 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
documentation and photos leave no doubt. Especially good treatment of
similar species. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Feb 2005 |
Acc |
Very good
description that eliminates similar species. Also nice photos. |
| Merrill
W. |
18 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
Nice photos; plus I
also observed this bird. |
|
David W. |
19 Jan 2005 |
Acc |
The chestnut in
wings during flight, head-to body proportions, and size all point to genus
Columbina. Lack of obvious white in a short tail during flight eliminates
possibility of Inca dove (and Mourning dove). The pink & blue on head,
neck and breast also eliminates the Inca dove from consideration, as do
the wing spots (which one can see to be purple in photos E-H, a trait
limited among North American doves to certain members of the genus
Columbina --but not present in Inca doves) (see "Pigeons and Doves: A
Guide to the Pigeons and Doves of the World", 2001, Gibbs, et al). The
bill with pink base and dark tip is unique to the Common ground-dove among
all North American & Mexican doves, thereby eliminating the Ruddy
ground-dove from consideration. Note also that the overall color pattern
visible in the photos is not consistent with the Ruddy ground-dove, as the
males of that species are ruddier and the females lack the blue and pink
color on the head, breast, and neck. The presence of the subtle scaling on
the head, neck, and breast is also unique to the Common ground-dove, as
the only other likely dove to be scaled, the adult Inca dove, has a
scaling of a different, more overt pattern, which extends to the wings,
belly, and back (though the immature Inca doves lack obvious scaling, they
are eliminated by the bill, tail, and blue & pink color seen on this
bird). |
2005-06
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 May 2005 |
Acc |
This description is
sparse and barely adequate, however this is such a distinctive species
that I guess it will do. |
|
2nd round |
24 May 2005 |
Acc |
The description is barely adequate |
| Ronald
R. |
30 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
I feel this contains
a very minimal description. However, this species is very distinct and the
description covers critical ID
marks that no other passerine (or similar) species would have. The
observer's experience with this species is also noted. This record does,
however, suggest we may want to provide some minimal record standards
(such as basic shape, size, and color pattern for the entire bird) before
reviewing a species. This record does not give size and only notes under
similar species that the bird might even be a flycatcher. Can the review
form be modified to include some basic characteristics to be filled in by
the reporter? |
|
2nd round |
2 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
My comments from the first round still apply. |
|
Terry S. |
28 Mar 2005 |
Acc |
A very brief
description but this bird is an easy i.d. Key field marks along with
behavior were noted |
|
2nd round |
4 May 2005 |
Acc |
I still believe the very limited description is adequate for accepting
this distinctive species. |
| Mark
S. |
14 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
Entirely too brief
in the description, but this is an unmistakeable species, and the critical
features were noted. The date fits the pattern of previous Utah sightings. |
|
2nd round |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
My comments from the first round still apply - I think the new record form
may help the quality of the submissions, but we may need future
adjustments as we get more experience with using it. |
|
Larry T. |
26 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
Description notes
important field marks of this very distinct bird. |
|
2nd round |
20 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
It would have been
nice to have had a more detailed description but I will still accept it
given the observer experience with this species and the fact that it is an
easy bird to ID. |
|
Merrill W. |
6 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
3 May 2005 |
Acc |
Familiarity with species seems to be the
contributing factor, even though the description might not be as complete
as it could be. |
|
David W. |
25 Mar 2005 |
No, ID |
I am voting to reject this record
not because I doubt that the observer actually saw a Scissor-tailed
flycatcher, but because the description of the bird is so limited. What,
for example, is a "long tail"? ("Long" for what? A crombec? A nuthatch? An
empid?) Even though I believe the observer, I would like to vote on a
better description and would thus urge him to resubmit a more detailed
report for this truly rare species (in Utah), if only to have a better
description in our records. |
|
2nd round |
4 May 2005 |
Acc |
As I said previously, I believe the observer
saw the bird, but I urge him to resubmit his record with more detail. I
like Ron's
suggestion regarding minimum standards for future submissions. |
2005-07 Cackling Goose
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 May 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description. A very nice record. |
| Ronald
R. |
25 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
4 May 2005 |
Acc |
A very detailed and
excellent description along with photos. |
| Mark
S. |
14 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description. The combination of neck collar, short neck, short, triangular
bill, squarish head and dark chest all make Canada Goose an unlikely
candidate for this bird, even though the size difference is clearly in the
overlap zone between these species. |
|
Larry T. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Good Photos with a
nice description. |
| Merrill
W. |
3 May 2005 |
Acc |
Photos are pretty
convincing. |
|
David W. |
3 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Let me just say that I have struggled with this record not because of the
quality of the submission (which was very good), but because it is
difficult to find an adequate field guide or guidance in evaluating this
subtle and variable species. I've finally resorted to internet sources,
including a good photo of the subspecies found at the Monterey Bay
website:
http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/MTYbirdlist01.html
My personal experience with the "new" species is limited to minima and
hutchinsii ssp. (which I studied at some length last autumn in Washington
and Oregon), so I hardly count myself as an expert.
With those disclaimers proclaimed, I think the bird's head shape, size,
and proportions (relative to itself and the Canada goose next to it) all
strongly suggest that the observer did indeed see the species and
subspecies he proposed. Coloration, though not definitive, also supports
his claim.
I think that Cackling geese are not all that uncommon in Utah, despite the
pausity of official records. Records like this will help us get a better
grasp on the occurrence of the species in Utah, and I hope more people
will have the courage to bring their sightings before the committee. |
2005-08 Black-throated
Blue Warbler
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 May 2005 |
Acc |
This is a rare
spring, and a surprisingly early, record for this species. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
I really could go either way on this record. The description is very brief
and lacks many details and the timing would be unprecedented in the Great
Basin. |
| Ronald
R. |
27 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
The description was
adequate to identify this species. The white at the base of the primaries
and the head pattern were well noted. Quite early as compared to other
spring records. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
My comments from the first round still apply. |
|
Terry S. |
4 May 2005 |
Acc |
A rather limited
description but adequate. Seems to rule out other possible species. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
The description of the wings and head seems to eliminate an Orange-crowned
Warbler. |
| Mark
S. |
3 May 2005 |
Acc |
A rather
unconventional style to this description, but covers all the bases. The
wing spot, and the described head markings leave little doubt that this
was what they saw. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
I still think this description adequately eliminates other similar
species, especially the head and wing markings described. It is
a remarkable date, however. |
|
Larry T. |
6 Jun 2005 |
No, ID |
The date for this
sighting is so early that it would almost have to be of a wintering bird.
The description of the white patch at
the base of the primaries and the head markings seem to eliminate other
Warblers. But the description of the bird it's self is lacking without
anything said about the olive sides contrasting with the rest of the
underparts, the pale throat or a bluish tint anywhere on the bird. I would
like to see a female Black-throated Blue described a little better than
this for a bird that is at a odd time of year like this one. I don't think
they did a good job of ruling out a Orange-crowned Warbler. I would like
to see another round on this one to see what others think. |
|
2nd round: |
5 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
As others have mentioned the description isn't the greatest but it does
seem to have some of the field marks that point to this species. I think I
was having the biggest problem with the date of the sighting. But after
doing a little more research on this species there are a few northern
records of this bird in winter so I guess it's possible this bird may have
wintered somewhere not to far from where the sighting took place. |
| Merrill
W. |
3 May 2005 |
Acc |
Convincing
description. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Field marks still seem to eliminate any other species. |
|
David W. |
13 May 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
16 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Despite the fact that the bird appeared over a month earlier than any
other Utah record I am aware of (20 May being the earliest other record in
my database), the field marks seem to confirm the ID. When I look at the
summation of the following, I feel convinced the record is not an
Orange-crowned: White wing spot (on both sides of bird), white undertail
coverts, and defined cheek patches. I spent a lot more time with this one
myself, unsatisfied, as the bird in question is so
drab and only subtly different from several other species, but in the end
I could not come up with a better match. I certainly think a lack of
comfort with this ID is not unwarrented for the reasons elucidated by
Larry. |
2005-09 White-tailed Kite
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 May 2005 |
Acc |
|
| Ronald
R. |
25 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
Unmistakable in
photos. |
|
Terry S. |
4 May 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description and photos |
| Mark
S. |
3 May 2005 |
Acc |
Nice photos and
description! |
|
Larry T. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Good photos and
Description. I would have liked to have seen this one. I missed it by
about 2 minutes twice! |
| Merrill
W. |
3 May 2005 |
Acc |
Convincing photos. |
|
David W. |
27 Apr 2005 |
Acc |
Clear ID, with some observant details. |
2005-10 Hudsonian Godwit
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
24 May 2005 |
Acc |
Nice record |
| Ronald
R. |
3 Aug 2005 |
|
This good
description effectively eliminates other species. Most important were the
wing pattern, both upper and lower surfaces, but the careful description
of the coloration was also good at distinguishing this species. It should
be noted that the other godwit with with a bold white upper wing stripe is
the black-tailed godwit, not the bar-tailed godwit as mentioned in similar
species. |
|
Terry S. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Careful observation
noting much detail. The mostly white belly seems to indicate the bird was
in transitional plummage. No mention of the neck color which can help in
separating similar species. Wing pattern with black underwings strongly
indicates the bird was a Hudsonian Godwit. |
| Mark
S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
An excellent
description that was no doubt aided by consulting several good references.
The bird as described is clearly Hudsonian Godwit, and the date fits with
the expected pattern of occurrence for this species in Utah. |
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Nice description
seems to eliminate similar species. |
| Merrill
W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description eliminated any other godwit. |
|
David W. |
17 May 2005 |
Acc |
The similar species elimination was useful. |
2005-11 Least Tern
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
24 May 2005 |
Acc |
Another nice record |
| Ronald
R. |
3 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Good photos by both
observers. |
|
Terry S. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Photos sure help. |
| Mark
S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Very nice photos,
and a good description. |
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Good photos and
description. If these keep showing up like they have the last few years we
may have to think about taking this bird off the review list. |
| Merrill
W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Good photos by both
observers and fine description. |
|
David W. |
17 May 2005 |
Acc |
2005-11b - Good description, elimination of other common terns, and
photos.
2005-11 - The description was marginal, but the photos were convincing. |
2005-12 Magnolia Warbler
| Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
24 May 2005 |
Acc |
Brief, but complete
description of a distinctive spring warbler. |
| Ronald
R. |
3 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Good description of
coloration and song of a rather distinctive species. Observer's extensive
experience with this species is noted. |
|
Terry S. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Very good
description by an observer familiar with the species. |
| Mark
S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Decent description,
and adequate to eliminate similar species, especially head and belly
markings. Observer has extensive
experience with this species, and the bird was apparently well-seen, but I
am a bit puzzled as to why the distinctive under-tail markings of this
species were not more specifically noted. |
|
Larry T. |
20 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
The observer seems
to have a lot of experience with this species and the description is
adequate to clinch the ID. |
| Merrill
W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Adequate details,
but lacked description of the tail which is diagnostic for this species.
Since the observer has a long association with this particular species and
because the head and breast description eliminated the Yellow-rumped
Warbler I will accept this. |
|
David W. |
16 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Good description that seems to eliminate any other possibilities. The only
thing that I wanted to see described that wasn't noted was the tail. |
2005-13 Scissor-tailed
Flycatcher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
13 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Very limited
description, however some key and definitive characteristics were noted. |
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Adequate description
of a distinctive species. Description of head pattern eliminated
fork-tailed flycatcher. |
|
Terry S. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
A brief but adequate
description of a distinctive species |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Decent description
of a distinctive species adequately eliminates any other possibilities. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
The pink sides and
the description of the tail shape seem to eliminate any other bird. The
rest of the write up is a bit lacking but it is a good time of year for
this species to show up. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Description
highlighted the salient features. |
|
David W. |
6 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Good record. |
2005-14 Clay-colored
Sparrow
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
13 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Very nice record and
a pleasure to read one so thoroughly described. Also interesting to see
Terry's first thought was a Lark Sparrow...I've often thought the bold
facial pattern of CC Sparrows is more reminiscent of Lark Sparrows (than
other Spizellas) on first look. |
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
This is a good
description of a breeding clay-colored sparrow. The head and neck pattern
as described eliminates the similar Brewer's sparrow. The song as
described is very consistent with the many clay-colored sparrows I have
heard, and would represent an unusual Brewer's song. Great record! |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description and analysis. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Nice detailed write
up. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
One would expect
this kind of detailed description from such a competent birder. |
|
David W. |
28 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Nice, thorough description. I am grateful for the details provided to
differentiate this fairly nondescript sparrow. |
2005-15 Broad-winged Hawk
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
13 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Good description and
adequate photos to eliminate other hawks. |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Convincing photos
and description |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and
description. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Nice photos and
description |
|
David W. |
2 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Since there was a recent birdnet record of a Gray hawk in Washington
County, I wanted to be sure that species was not involved here. In
checking Wheeler's hawk book and Howell's Mexico guide, I was given the
necessary information to make my judgement. The darkness of the band at
the tip of the flight feathers, the broad tail bands (especially the white
band), and (less clearly) the relative pattern of primary extensions, all
suggest the Broad-winged.
Nice photos. |
2005-16 Least Tern
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
13 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Very good
description and photos. |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Photos and narrative
establish this as an acceptable sighting |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description and photos. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Good Description and
photos. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and
good description. |
|
David W. |
16 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photos. Interesting how 'common' these are
becoming considering that a few years back they weren't ever reported. |
2005-17 Lawrence's
Goldfinch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
13 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
This is a first for
Washington County! |
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Unmistakable in
photos. |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
While no narrative
the photos are unmistakable |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Well-photographed
bird in-hand - not much doubt here. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Great Photos. But
lets hope nothing ever happens to them since they didn't include any type
of written description with them. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Bird in the hand is
pretty hard to argue against. Nice photos. |
|
David W. |
16 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
This is one of those odd cases which cry out for some sort of standards on
minimum descriptions. This submission didn't even try to describe the bird
with words, offering instead the data on its capture. That being said, the
fact that the bird was literally 'in hand' of bird experts and documented
with superb photos makes it clear that the bird in question was indeed a
Lawrence's goldfinch male. There is no question in my mind. |
2005-18 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Aug |
No, ID |
This is a great
submission, and an excellent example of a thorough record. I'd like to see
a second round of discussion on this bird. I'm not sure some of these
Sapsuckers showing intermediate characteristics can be clearly identified.
Clearly, Yellow-breasted Sapsuckers can have red in their napes, and
Red-napes can have throats with complete black borders. Other
considerations, such as "extensive white barring" on the back, and time of
year are very good for Yellow-breasted S. |
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
No, ID |
I do not feel the
description adequately describes a yellow-bellied sapsucker while
eliminating a red-naped sapsucker (or hybrid). The "pinkish red nape" is
most troublesome, and the lack of extensive red on the throat is not a
definitive characteristic for yellow-bellied sapsucker. |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
No, ID |
I believe from other
late summer and early fall sightings we have determined that
identification of sapsuckers is most difficult
this time of year because of molting and worn plumage. Noticeable red in
nape also suggests that this may be a Red-naped. |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
No, ID |
Well, here we are
again - another adult, presumably male, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. In this
case we have a very well-written description, but no photographs. For the
most part, the description gives us plenty to work with, but even here I
find myself short of what I would like to know to make a call on this one.
As described, the throat and facial markings certainly sound like a
Yellow-bellied male, though the caution here is whether or not it was a
female Red-naped with an absence
of white in the throat - a known variation. The behavior described does
sound more like a male, however. The thing that gives me pause is the
"pinkish red nape." This is even more unusual in a Yellow-bellied than a
lack of red is in Red-naped. I'm left looking for some help in the back
markings, but here the great detail of the description fails a bit, and
doesn''t specify whether the markings were in a single or double row on
the back. In the end, I'm left looking at one field mark, the throat, the
says Yellow-bellied, one, the nape, that says Red-naped, and one, the
back, that gives me no help at all. Without a photo or other information,
I can't say that this is definitively a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker.
That's without even raising the possibility of a hybrid . . . |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
No, ID |
Some of the
description seems to be a little A typical for this species. They describe
a lot of black on the head and to me Y B Sapsuckers seem to show wider
white stipes than black ones giving them a whiter looking head then the
dark head of a R N.The back can be a good clue on Sapsuckers but that
seems to be so variable.The black border around the throat can also be
good but I've seen that field mark not hold up at times too. And the pink
on the nape isn't exactly typical for a male Y B.Trying to call an out of
range Adult male Y B that isn't a really clean looking bird is probably
not a good idea. If I would have saw the bird that they are describing I
would have been afraid to pull the trigger on it.There just seems to be to
many hybrid Sapsuckers out there that if all the field marks don't fit I
think we have to let them go. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
No, ID |
I compared the
description of the observers of this possible "Yellow-bellied" with the
photos taken by Steve Summers (refer to record
#2003-16) at Lytle Ranch in
the winter of 2003 (which was the first accepted sighting of the
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker species in Utah). The description of the
head didn't match and neither did the description on the back. Even
the mention of the pinkish-red on the back of the nape suggested Red-naped
instead of Yellow-bellied. Another factor that was cause of concern
to me was the date of submission and the observation date were eight
months apart suggesting more dependence on the field guide description
than on the "notes made later" (whenever that was). |
|
David W. |
18 Aug 2005 |
No, ID |
I don't think
the possibilities of Red-naped sapsucker or a hybrid with that species
were adequately dealt with. |
2005-19 Cackling Goose
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Adequate
description. |
|
2nd round: |
18 Oct 2005 |
Acc |
This is difficult without a photo, however size relative to larger Canada
Geese and Mallards should make this one of the smaller subspecies of
Cackling Goose (not parvipes). |
|
3rd round: |
25 Nov 2005 |
Acc |
I believe this was probably a Cackling Goose based on differences in size.
Larry and I observed a Cackling Goose associating with a flock of
approximately 30 Canada Goose in Washington County on 02-04-05. |
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Small size (slightly
larger than a mallard), short neck, small bill make this a likely Cackling
goose. The description does not
fit our local subspecies and effectively rules out all but B. c. parvipes.
However, this subspecies of Canada goose can be as small as a large
Cackling. I feel the size description of "slightly larger than a mallard"
(which were there for comparison) would still indicate an individual
smaller than a small B. c. parvipes. A better description of the size
difference with associated Canada geese would have been desirable. |
|
2nd round: |
23 Oct 2005 |
No, ID |
After re-reviewing this record and reading the comments of the other
reviewers, I am changing my vote to not accept this record. From the
description, a small Canada/Cackling type goose was seen, and given the
breast color, one of the darker subspecies. For cackling, this would
likely be minima or leucopareia (without a white collar). For Canada, this
would likely have a dark individual of the small subspecies parvipes. The
given size description does not clearly tell the size of the bird. It was
"slightly larger than a Mallard, but obviously smaller than the Canada
Geese". However, a parvipes would be only half the size of the common Utah
Canada subspecies, moffitii, and as such, the description of obviously
smaller than a Canada goose is not sufficient to rule out this subspecies.
Also, a minima would be about the size of a mallard, leaving the most
probable subspecies of cacking based on size and color to be leucopareia.
The subspecies, leucopareia, however, typically has a dark line separating
the white chin patches at the bottom of the chin (this was not mentioned)
and usually (but not always) has a white collar. Thus, it would have been
best to see the dark chin line to give a good indication that it was this
subspecies without the while collar. The description also indicated that
"It had a small head and short neck." Sibley, however, in his article on
the two species indicated that when swimming (as was the case for this
bird), the neck can appear
much shorter and the head more rounded. In addition, the description of
the bill ("the bill size was small-- proportionate to the small head")
does not give a good indication of the bill size relative to the head
size--"proportionate to the small head" only suggests that the bill did
not appear disproportionately large for the head size, not that it was
really smaller relative to the head size as would be expected in for a
cackling goose as compared to Canada. I now feel the description cannot
rule out the Canada goose subspecies, parvipes, and thus I am voting to
reject the record. I support Dave's suggestion that we
should encourage submissions to attempt to identify the subspecies, and
certainly photos would really help. One last issue that is of concern, is
that Sibley indicated that the cackling subspecies, minima, is common in
captivity. This suggests that observations of the legs of individuals for
bands would also be highly desired on darker individuals of cackling
goose. |
|
3rd round: |
14 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
My comments from round 2 and the comments from others concerned about
insufficient details cause me to not accept this record. I echo Mark's
comments about the difficulty of the ID not always being the observers
fault. Regarding Dave's concern, as I understand this record can be
revisited if new information on ID surfaces that would clearly identify it
as a Cackling goose. |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
The overall size,
short neck, stubby bill, and coloration of the neck and chest area leads
me to believe this is a Cackling Goose. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Oct 2005 |
Acc |
While recognizing the concern raised by Mark and David I believe the size
comparison with Mallards and Canada Geese (plus the very good general
description of the bird) makes me quite certain that this is a Cackling
Goose. Failing any evidence that this might be a small Canada Goose I
think we should accept the record. If additional literature is provided
for Cackling Goose identification at a later date, which alter our
assessment of this bird, we can always reverse our acceptance. |
|
3rd round: |
5 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
After evaluating comments of other reviewers I am now hesitant to accept
this record. Until we can rule out the small Canada Goose subspecies,
parvipes. |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
No, ID |
I'd like to
see some discussion on this one. Although I think the size alone may be
enough on this one, if it was only Mallard-sized, I'm not really
comfortable with it. The bill and neck seem consistent with some
subspecies of Cackling as well, but there's nothing about head shape or
bill shape. There's not enough information here to try and judge which
subspecies this might have been, and without that, I don't know how
comfortably we can call it.
I'm not sure how well we'll be able to judge these without a photo. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
I second Ron's excellent analysis of this record. I really don't think we
have enough here to say for sure that we don't have a
small parvipes. The head/neck size and shape are suspect because of
posture, and we don't have any really useful information about the bill
shape or size relative to the head. We are left with the size difference
with the other geese present. As I said in my own article, the problem we
have in Utah is that our local subspecies, moffiti, is one of the largest,
so almost every other subpecies will look small in comparison. Even some
moffiti may look as much as half the size of other moffiti. I just don't
think size alone will be enough in most cases, and that we should be
encouraging people to identify these as to subpecies, not just Canada vs.
Cackling. |
|
3rd round: |
6 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
I'm going to stick to my original vote, based upon all of the comments
made in the previous round. I'm not sure that enough information is
presented here to make a good determination, even as our knowledge of how
to identify these species grows. This is not the observers' fault, as much
as it's a result of the lack of knowledge on this i.d. problem - people
are not tuned into what needs to be noted. Perhaps the best way to
summarize this is that noting a size difference among geese in the field
is a good _starting_ point, not the end of the i.d. as it's presented
here. The observers should have noted bill shape and size relative to the
head, head shape, forehead profile, presence of chinstrap, and relative
color of the overall plumage and especially the breast, relative to the
other geese present. They did note the lack of a white "collar," but that
by itself doesn't get us much. There's just not enough of the right stuff
here to i.d. the subspecies. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
The bird that is
described sounds like a true Cackling Goose. Small size,short neck and
small bill along with the dark breast seem to fit. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Oct 2005 |
No, ID |
I think this very well could have been a Cackling Goose. But after reading
the comments from others I would have to agree that the description
doesn't totally rule out one of the smaller forms of Canada goose. We
really do need to have photos to be sure with this difficult ID or a much
more complete description. |
|
3rd round: |
17 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
I will stay with my second round comments. With what there is to work with
I would have let this one go. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
The size comparison
helped as well as the description of the neck which lacked any white
(compared to the larger Canada Goose). |
|
2nd round: |
10 Oct 2005 |
Acc |
I will stay with my first opinion and still vote to accept it on basis of
size (small) and head and neck description. |
|
3rd round: |
21 Dec 2005 |
Acc |
As before. |
|
David W. |
2 Aug 2005 |
No, ID |
This is a "species" which to my mind has been so recently redefined that
very little (not enough) definitive literature exists out there to assist
in IDs of all the subspecies of the Canada/Cackling group. I have read the
Sibley & Stackhouse papers, which both help tremendously, but I've not
seen field guides that tackle this problem adequately. With that in mind,
I would strongly urge that for species such as this we should be able to
postpone a vote on such records (put the species "on hold", pending) until
more guidance is published. This would lower the chances of rejecting
legitimate records due to inadequate field guides.
I hesitate to vote on a cackling goose sighting without knowing which
subspecies is being reported or without provided photos. Although I myself
have seen "tiny" Canada/cackling geese in Utah, which I firmly believe to
have been cacklers, I cannot be sure because I spotted them prior to my
trip to Washington & Oregon where I was able to study two subspecies of
cackler (so I've not put my Utah sightings on my list).
I think that this record (2005-19) falls into the "probably true but not
certain" category because it uses somewhat vague sizing/proportions, has
no photos, and doesn't attempt to specify which subspecies was in
consideration. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Oct 2005 |
No, ID |
I think the description is likely to be of a Cackling goose, but it is not
specific enough to completely rule out the possibility of
a small subspecies of Canada goose.
Again, I think it is a shame that we can't put this record "on ice" until
the species limits within this superspecies are better defined. |
|
3rd round: |
22 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
As before. |
2005-20 Ovenbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Another great
record, excellent descriptions and photos. |
|
Ronald R. |
24 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Good description and
definitive photos. |
|
Terry S. |
3 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
A very detailed and
complete description along with a convincing photo. |
|
Mark S. |
2 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Excellent
description and photos. |
|
Larry T. |
19 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Nice description and
photos make this one easy. |
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
It's amazing how
much photos take the guess work out of rare bird identification. |
|
David W. |
28 Jun 2005 |
Acc |
I went up to see this bird. No doubt about it. Odd habitat (moderately
open and only medium-sized Gambel's oak woodland!), much different from
where I've ever seen them. |
2005-21 Lawrence's
Goldfinch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Sparse but
adequate description |
|
Ronald R. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Good description.
The size, shape of bill and described coloration effectively eliminates
other species. |
|
Terry S. |
29 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
good description
given for a readily identifiable bird |
|
Mark S. |
20 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Description a bit
brief, but covers the necessary information of a distinctive species and
eliminates other possibilities. |
|
Larry T. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Limited description
for this one but it doesn't seem to fit much else from what is there. They
do note the distinct features of
this bird. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Good description
which eliminates any other finch. |
|
David W. |
28 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Good, clear record, even if I would have liked a bit more detail on the
extent of black chin and yellow bib. |
2005-22 Least Tern
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
16 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Nice record, the
location is Bishop Springs, Snake Valley. |
|
Ronald R. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Good written
description eliminates other tern species. The photos are barely adequate,
but useful. |
|
Terry S. |
29 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
photos are always
helpful along with a good narrative |
|
Mark S. |
20 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
The photos aren't
very clear other than to show the rather distinctive shape of this
species. Good description supports Least
Tern. |
|
Larry T. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
14 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Description
complimented the fuzzy photos. |
|
David W. |
28 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Good description. |
2005-23 Scarlet Tanager
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
16 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
This is a very
striking and distinct bird, with a distinctive song. |
|
Ronald R. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Convincing
description of a distinctive bird. Good discussion of the summer tanager
in sub-optimal light. Burry quality of song consistent with scarlet
tanager and not summer tanager. |
|
Terry S. |
29 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Good description. |
|
Mark S. |
20 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Good description of
appearance, song and behavior consistant with this species. |
|
Larry T. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
27 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Good description. |
|
David W. |
28 Jul 2005 |
Acc |
Good record. |
2005-24 Clay-colored Sparrow
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
16 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Nice complete
record. |
|
Ronald R. |
21 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
This was a good
description of a rather difficult identification. The description of the
head combined with photos A and D were most helpful in eliminating
chipping and Brewer's sparrows. Color of the rump would have been useful
as well. |
|
Terry S. |
29 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
very good
description. Photos do help! |
|
Mark S. |
20 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
The photos and the
description show dark-bordered auriculars, malar stripe and pale
crown-stripe diagnostic of this species. |
|
Larry T. |
8 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
14 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Photo showing the
median crown stripe was pretty diagnostic. Also the photo showing
the brownish cheek patch set off by the strong, dark "mustache" was
useful. |
|
David W. |
20 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
Although the photos strike me as inconclusive as far as differentiating
between Clay colored & Chipping sparrows, the description is good for the
former. |
2005-25 Red Phalarope
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
16 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Adequate description |
|
2nd round |
18 Oct 2005 |
No, ID |
I'm very glad this
went to a second round. I've re-thought this record many times, and
considered writing Milton to change my vote. I am also troubled by the
timing of a juvenile Red Phalarope and after viewing many Red-necked
Phalaropes in Aug / Sept, the pattern as described (head pattern and
coloration) could fit a Red-necked Phalarope. |
|
Ronald R. |
2 Oct 2005 |
Acc |
This is a very good
description of a somewhat difficult ID. I think the characterization of
the head and wing pattern effectively eliminates other similar sized
species, including curlew sandpiper and sanderling. |
|
2nd round |
14 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
Given the unusual
time of year for this species (and plumage) and limited description that
cannot rule out other species,
especially sanderling and Baird's sandpiper, I am chaning my vote to not
accept this record. |
|
Terry S. |
16 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
While this is the
first juvenile record that I can recall the timing seems about right.
Juveniles go into adult basic plummage
fairly rapidly, some while still in migration. The observer doesn't
mention if the flock of phalaropes in which the Red phalarope was seen
were in the water doing their typical swimming pattern, but maybe not
since he was able to observe the color and length of legs. The shorter,
thicker bill along with the over all color back pattern and distinctive
phalarope mark of black through and behind the eye leads me to believe
this is an acceptable sighting. |
|
2nd round |
2 Dec 2005 |
No, ID |
I believe the
concerns raised by other committee members that the date of this sighting
along with the possibility that this could have been confused with other
similar species are valid. |
|
Mark S. |
20 Aug 2005 |
No, ID |
I'd like to see some
discussion on this. It's unfortunate that we don't have a photo. There are
several things that bother me
about this record, the first being the date. The earliest record for
coastal Washington for a juvenile bird is August 24. According to the
Birds of North America, the juveniles don't normally leave the breeding
grounds until early September. It's hard to imagine one this early. Also,
the only illustration/photo of a juvenile that matches this description is
that in Sibley. All of the other photos/illustrations of juvenile Red
Phalarope that I can find show birds that don't have the black ear patch
until they start to moult into winter plumage, and then they don't have
the reddish wash. Also, the photos I've seen don't show nearly as much red
as the Sibley illustration. Leg color is another area that's unclear -
I've seen it depicted as anywhere from straw-colored to dark gray. From
the photos I've been able to find it could be confused for a Red-necked.
On the other hand, the bill as described sounds more like a Red. However,
I wonder about accepting a record such as this without a photo or other
evidence, given that it could be confusing, and is well outside the known
pattern of occurence for the species. |
|
2nd round |
2 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
Given the unusual
date, and in spite of a number of described features that would seemingly
eliminate similar species, I am still hesitant to accept this record
without further supporting evidence. I'm not sure why a molting Sanderling
wasn't considered in the similar species, and am not sure it can be
adequately eliminated. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Sep 2005 |
No, ID |
The date of this
sighting seems to be very early for a juvenile Red Phalarope. I don't
think they even start moving south until
into Sept. Anything is possible but the description sounds pretty good for
a juvenile Baird's except for the dark spot behind the eye which could
have been mud, missing feathers or something. I would like to look at this
one a little more. |
|
2nd round |
17 Nov 2005 |
No, ID |
Given the date of
this sighting and the plumage that was described this bird could easily
have been confused with a similar
species. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Sep 2005 |
Acc |
I felt this was a
very good description. The observer effectively eliminated other
species (especially the other two phalaropes). |
|
2nd round |
21 Dec 2005 |
Acc |
For the same reasons
as before. |
|
David W. |
18 Aug 2005 |
Acc |
Although I would have liked more discussion of relative size of this bird
to the phalaropes around it (it should have been notably smaller than the
Wilson's), bill length, and facial pattern, the description does match a
Red phalarope. |
|
2nd round |
28 Dec 2005 |
Acc |
As I said, I wish
more detail had been provided for this record, but I still think that Red
phalarope is the best call here. As for the date, I would like to point
out that, according to my records, there have been two other "early" Red
phalaropes recorded in Utah: 1) Aug 1, 1978 @ Bear River MBR. One seen by
John Dunn. 2) Aug 11, 1979 @ Bear River Refuge. John Dunn.
Now, granted, one could argue that these are not
"official records" which have been reviewed. Take them as you will. |
|