Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2005 (records 26 on)

2005-26 Curlew Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	18 Oct 2005	No, ID	I'd like to hear some discussion on this one. While the description favors a Curlew SP, I'm not sure it completely eliminates a Dunlin. Certainly the pronounced eyebrow, bill and body shape are good for a Curlew SP, however other definitive marks such as the white rump were not observed. Although, this is not specifically relevant to this write-up, the subsequent observer (C. Johnson) described the bird he saw on 8/16 as a juvenile with a distinctly marked back.
2nd round	25 Nov 2005	No, ID	I'd like to see a more detailed description and photos on this one. I know there were several subsequent sightings reported, can we query additional observers for notes and/or photos?
3rd round	2 Jan 2006	Acc	Alright, I'm starting to be swayed. I'm disappointed no photographs were taken of this bird. Although, missing some key characteristics, I do agree that the description is a better fit for a Curlew SP than a Dunlin. I'll accept the Beyers observation of a Curlew SP on 14 August, but I'm less convinced of the subsequent observations (based on descrepancies in the internet reports).
Ronald R.	19 Oct 2005	Acc	This was a nice description of this species in basic plumage. The description is sufficient to rule out other similar species despite the fact that the distinctive white rump was not seen (or at least discussed).
2nd round	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	While I think this was likely a curlew sandpiper, I agree with the concerns about the description not safely eliminating dunlin. Any photos or other details would really help.
3rd round	24 Jan 2006	No, ID	I feel that the record cannot safely eliminate Dunlin without having the white rump included in the description. The characteristics described are most consistent with Curlew Sandpiper, but a pale Dunlin can look much like the description in this record (see the following web sites: http://www.birdphotography.com/species/dunl.html http://www.scholtz.org/bill/nature/Sandpipers/). Also, the primary projection beyond the tail was not noted for this bird, which tends to be much greater for Curlew sandpiper than for Dunlin (see e.g., http://www.abberton.org/2004files/october2004/curlewsandpiper04073172w.htm). Submission of photos are encouraged, at which time the record should be reviewed again.
Terry S.	26 Sep 2005	Acc	Very careful observation noting key fieldmarks
2nd round	2 Dec 2005	No, ID	I still feel the overall description favors a Curlew Sandpiper especially with the description of the destinctive supercillium and bill shape. With the slight possibility that this could have been a Dunlin and the fact that additional information from other observers is available which could eliminate this possibility, I am reluctant to accept this sighting. The observers should be encouraged to submit their observations
3rd round	5 Jan 2006	Acc	I had hoped pictures would have been submitted from other observers but regardless I have been convinced by other committee member comments that the long legs,decurved bill, back color and distinctive supercillium should rule out Dunlin.
Mark S.	20 Aug 2005	Acc	A remarkable record. The description covers all the distinguishing features, the eyebrow eliminates Dunlin, the bill-shape and pale gray upperparts most other shorebirds.
2nd round	6 Nov 2005	Acc	I still think the description of the eyebrow should adequately eliminate Dunlin, even if lacking what would be useful details on the length and shape of the supercillium. It is curious that the white rump wasn't noted or seen, but I do believe (from birdnet posts) that it was noted by other observers, assuming they saw the same bird. It's not a perfect record, but I think the evidence as a whole says that the i.d of this bird is correct.
3rd round	29 Dec 2005	Acc	I'll stay with my original vote as I think the bird described still fits Curlew Sandpiper better than any of the alternatives. It would be nice to have additional information or photographs from other observers, but I still think that the descripiton of the supercillium, back color, long legs and body shape are adequate to eliminate Dunlin, which I think is the only serious alternative.
Larry T.	18 Oct 2005	No, ID	The description is not very convincing and is lacking some of the field marks to separate this bird from the very similar looking Dunlin in adult basic plumage. I would like to have had something said about the length of the wings and the underparts should show a little more contrast from the throat, breast and the rest of the underparts. Also if the bird was seen in flight and preening it would have been very helpful to have a description of the rump. This is just to difficult of an ID without a more complete description or photos.
2nd round	13 Dec 2005	No, ID	I need a more complete description or photos to accept this difficult ID.
3rd round	13 Jan 2006	No, ID	Maybe I'm being to picky on this one. But for a difficult ID that was supposed to be so well observed to have such a incomplete description and without photos I can't accept it.
Merrill W.	14 Sep 2005	Acc	Nice record. The only diagnostic fieldmark that was lacking was the white rump which would have really sealed it for me, but I guess the observers didn't see it in flight.
2nd round	21 Dec 2005	Acc	For the same reasons mentioned previously.
3rd round	25 Jan 2006	Acc	I see no reason to change. The description seems adequate to me.
David W.	20 Sep 2005	Acc	I only reluctantly voted to accept this record because I feel the record should have provided more detail regarding the curvature of the bill and shape/width of the supercilium in order to solidify the case against the Dunlin. I would have appreciated a sketch or a photo included with the report.
2nd round	28 Dec 2005	Acc	The observers compared the bill shape to a Dunlin and found it more decurved. Also, the mention of the long legs (Dunlin is decidedly not long-legged) and the paleness of the back help cement the ID for me. Especially since other observers subsequently identified this bird, I will stick with my first vote.
3rd round	10 Jan 2006	Acc	I have enjoyed all of the discussion, but I am sticking with my vote on this imperfect record.

2005-27 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	18 Oct 2005	Acc	Nice description
Ronald R.	25 Oct 2005	Acc	This was a very careful description of this species. Most important distinguishing field marks described included the slender, pointed bill, lack of wing bars and the white undertail coverts. Identification confirmation by others also good.
Terry S.	26 Sep 2005	Acc	An excellent detailed description with a sharp eye for detail
Mark S.	2 Nov 2005	Acc	Excellent write-up. White undertail coverts eliminate Orange-crowned, the most likely similar species. The description of behavior and shape, etc. all fit Tennessee.
Larry T.	18 Oct 2005	Acc	Nice desciption of a fall bird.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Excellent description. All pertinent field marks identified.
David W.	20 Sep 2005	Acc	Good & convincing description, and fine job of eliminating similar species. It would have been helpful to review a discusson of tail length, but the fieldmarks provided seem to eliminate other possibilities.

2005-28(R95) Canada Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Oct 2005	Acc	Although the description is very sparse and marginal, I believe it is adequate for this distinctive warbler.
2nd round	25 Nov 2005	No, ID	Alright, you guys convinced me as well. I agree that this description does not adequately eliminate other warblers (i.e. Orange-crowned, Prairie, etc.).
Ronald R.	25 Oct 2005	No, ID	I don't think the record describes a Canada warbler. Most perplexing are the described "yellow spectacles", the olive gray back and wings, and only four dark streaks down the upper breast. Canada warbler in all plumages has a white eyering (not spectacles), uniform gray back and multiple (>4) short, dark streaks on the breast. I don't know which warbler was observed (perhaps pine or magnolia warblers), as none fully fit the description submitted.
2nd round	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	My comments from the first round still apply.
Terry S.	26 Sep 2005	No, ID	I am not so sure that an Orange-crowned Warbler has been eliminated. I have seen fall Orange-crowned Warblers that are bright, have streaking down the breast and pale yellow eye-ring with a yellowish supercillium that could be seen as eye spectacles. I wish more detail of the bird seen including the color of the undertail coverts was given
2nd round	2 Dec 2005	No, ID	As per my first round comments.
Mark S.	2 Nov 2005	Acc	An unconventional, and very brief description which I'm reluctantly voting to accept based upon the description, which fits Canada Warbler better than any alternatives I can think of . . . though I'm willing to be convinced if someone has a better idea.
2nd round	9 Nov 2005	No, ID	O.K., I've been convinced by comments of others, and now feel that there isn't enough here to be sure that the bird was a Canada Warbler. The lack of description of the undertail coverts, I think, does leave open the possibility of an Orange-crowned Warbler. This is even more likely considering Ron's comment that the eyering in Canada Warbler is white, not yellow - also true. Finally, the description itself refers to the "lack thereof" of field marks, a condition that seems more in line with Orange-crowned than Canada, even a fall female Canada. Just not enough in this description to erase the doubts . . .
Larry T.	18 Oct 2005	No, ID	The bird described sounds like a Canada Warbler but was the observer looking at this bird through Binoculars? Does he have any previous experience with this bird or similar looking species.
2nd round	13 Dec 2005	No, ID	The description doesn't eliminate similar species.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	The description of the black necklace, the yellow eye ring, and the all gray back and head seem pretty convincing to me.
2nd round	21 Dec 2005	Acc	For the same reasons I gave previously.
David W.	20 Sep 2005	Acc	I really wish there had been a description of vent and leg color to help eliminate other Wilsonia warblers and the Prairie warbler, but the provided information is convincing. However, I am not sure the description available to us is adequate to eliminate the possibility of this being a first fall male rather than a female.
2nd round	28 Dec 2005	Acc	I must admit that I am troubled by what others on the Committee have said about the (inadequate) number of stripes on the breast. But I have to believe that the observer noted the contrasting upperparts (olive-gray) to the underparts (yellow) to help differentiate this bird from something so overall (fairly uniformly) drab as an Orange-crowned warbler (which also has more of an eyestripe than a "spectacle"). I also do not believe that the inclusion of yellow spactacles in this record is a problem, as even the National Geographic guide uses that (exact) language (whether or not the eyering portion of the spectacles is yellow/yellowish/or white, at least part of the spectacle is yellow in this species).

2005-29(R92) Laughing Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Oct 2005	Acc	This record should read "Keith Day" (instead of "Kent"). The photographed gull appears to be a typical winter plumaged adult Laughing Gull. However, since the observer is unknown, are we comfortable that this gull was photographed in Roosevelt?
2nd round	23 Dec 2005	No, Nat	Although I do think the photographed bird is a Laughing Gull... I've heard of many cases where false assumptions were made on a photo's origin (such as the recent excitement over the 'Tennessee' photo of a Gila Woodpecker....actually taken near Phoenix. Since we don't know anything about the photographer or other observers, I think we have to question this birds natural occurrence in Utah.
3rd round	1 Jan 2006	No, Nat	I spoke with Keith Day, and he remembers receiving the photograph but does not recall the photographer. I believe it is a Laughing Gull, but unless additional details surface, I think we need to question its natural occurrence in Utah.
Ronald R.	25 Oct 2005	No, ID	I certainly don't claim to be a better gull expert than Guy McCaskie, but I have to disagree with his identification of this bird. Most noticeable to me is the shape and size of the bill, and shape of the forehead. The bill is too short, not broad enough and does not droop at the tip enough for a laughing gull, and does not have the slighly convex shape of the underside of the lower mandible of the laughing gull. Also, the shape of the forhead is angular, much more like a Franklin's, than the rather smoothly rounded forehead of the laughing gull. The hood is rather light for a Franklins (but not out of the range for this species) and the eye-arcs are also on the narrow end for Franklin's. I certainly would entertain additional discussion of this bird.
2nd round	3 Dec 2005	No, Nat	This has been a great discussion of this bird--I really appreciate the input of especially Mark. Rick does bring up a really good point and I think this issue is much more important than the actual ID as pointed out by Terry. If we can't verify who took the photo and exactly where and when it was taken, I don't think we should accept it regardless of the ID.
3rd round	1 Jan 2006	No, Nat	My comments from the previous round still apply.
Terry S.	26 Sep 2005	Acc	I am glad the documentation on this record has finally found it's way to the Records Committee. The Photo along with Guy McCasky's review of this record are very good.
2nd round	2 Dec 2005	No, Nat	I concur with the remarks of Mark. I think Ron has raised some interesting points on some characteristics of the photographed bird falling within the range of a Franklin,s Gull, but I an still persuaded by Guy Mc Caskie's review. Rick has pointed out, however, that we don't know the observer/photographer. The record photo was given to Keith Day in Vernal and then forwarded on to the Records Committee. Before we accept this record I think we need some type of verification or statement for the record that tells us who took the photograph and where it was taken.
3rd round	5 Jan 2006	No, Nat	I don't think we have any alternative but to reject this record because we have no indication who or where the picture was taken.
Mark S.	2 Nov 2005	Acc	This is a remarkable record, and I agree with Guy's analysis of the photo. It's clearly not a Bonaparte's for the numerous reasons stated, and though the case against Franklin's is more difficult, I feel that the bill and the head markings aren't right for Franklin's, and a better fit for Laughing. The date would be even more unusual for a Franklin's than a Laughing, as most (all?) Franklin's are in South America at that time of year.
2nd round	9 Nov 2005	Acc	One of the things I really like about this committee is that, if there's any thing at all that might not seem right about a description, or in this case, a photo, you can count on someone to kick it to the second round so that we can really take a close look at it. I agree with Ron that this is not entirely as obvious as Guy's assessment says. The more I look at the photo, the more I see Ron's points - this isn't a very straightfoward i.d. On the one hand, I agree with Ron that the bill isn't very long for a Laughing Gull (I went out to look at a few here in San Blas today, and most of their bills seemed to be longer) but I think it's still within the range for that species. I think the bill looks a bit too thick for most Franklin's. Also, the dropped tip could go either way - a bit too much for a Franklin's, but not as much as most Laughing. The head shape also does seem to favor Franklin's, but I wonder whether both the bill and the head appear this way because the bird isn't in a complete profile, and thus both head and bill appear a bit shorter. As for the head markings, these appear much more Laughing Gull-like to me. The mantle appears a bit darker than a typical Franklin's, and more like a Laughing. The white bar made by the tips of the secondaries seems a bit wide for a Laughing, and more like a Franklin's. On the other hand, the white primary spots would seem small for a fresh-plumage Franklin's. Unfortunately, the bird is standing in grass, so we can't get much of an idea of the leg length. On the balance, I think there's more here to support Laughing Gull, and also note that the season actually would favor Laughing more, because nearly all Franklin's Gulls have passed south of the U.S. by November. I'll still vote to accept, and not buck the opinion of Guy McCaskie.
3rd round	29 Dec 2005	No, Nat	I still think that this bird is a Laughng Gull, but agree that we should have better documentation as to the veracity of the date and location of the photo. At the least a note from the photographer should be required.
Larry T.	18 Oct 2005	Acc	I would agree with Guy on this one.
2nd round	13 Dec 2005	No, ID	I see nothing wrong with this bird being a Laughing Gull. The bill shape and length look good. The head pattern looks good for Laughing. The length of the wings and pattern look good for Laughing. But the fact that we don't know who took the photo and that it may not have been taken in Vernal is a problem.
3rd round	13 Jan 2006	No, ID	As above
Merrill W.	14 Sep 2005	Acc	Based on the photo and the written submission by McCaskie supporting the identification of this particular gull I would have to accept this. He is the "expert" on gulls in my opinion and we should accept his recommendation.
2nd round	21 Dec 2005	Acc	Guy Mc Caskie is still the most knowledgeable observer on gulls and I would tend to agree with his diagnosis.
3rd round	25 Jan 2005	No, Nat	I still think it is a Laughing Gull, but based on the questionable origin of the photo I am changing my vote to a "no".
David W.	20 Sep 2005	Acc	What an excellent photo. To my mind, there are only two possible species this could be--Franklin's and Laughing gull. The other two (less likely) possibilities, Bonaparte's and juv. Black-legged Kittiwake, are eliminated on shape & size of bill (both), leg length (esp. BLK) and color (Bonaparte's), lack of white wing wedge (Bonaparte's), lack of black on tertials and coverts (juv. BLK), and eye crescents (esp. BLK). As for the better match, Franklin's gull, that species is eliminated by the long bill with strong downcurved tip and obvious gonydeal angle. The small wingtip spots and vague dark smudges on the head are also more consistent with a laughing gull. The gull in the photo also has the longer-headed look I associate with Laughing gulls, as opposed to the generally more round-headed Franklin's gull, though that is somewhat subjective.
2nd round	22 Nov 2005	Acc	I'm sticking with the Laughing gull ID, though I like the discussion as to why it might not be that species.
3rd round	28 Dec 2005	No, Nat	I hadn't realized the origin of this photo was in such doubt. I will thus change my vote to "Yes, it is a Laughing gull, but no, it shouldn't be on our list until further authentication is provided of where it was seen."

2005-30(R92) Mountain Plover

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Oct 2005	Acc	Sparse but adequate description.
2nd round	23 Dec 2005	Acc	I certainly agree with David's comments; and would strongly urge everyone to review all records without regard to the observer's identity. We should weigh previous experience, but evaluate each record on the merits of the written description, photos, timing, etc. With that said, this record is marginal, however the solid wings and white belly and vent, size, and head description should be adequate to rule out other plover species.
Ronald R.	25 Oct 2005	Acc	I am accepting this record despite a very limited description. The description of the white belly through vent, lack of markings on wings and facial patten are sufficient to eliminate other plovers. I also will note the experience of the observer who spend countless hours studying shorebirds while a student at USU.
2nd round	3 Dec 2005	Acc	I will stick with my first round evaluation, independent of the observer (good point Dave).
Terry S.	26 Sep 2005	Acc	The observer demonstrates his familiarity with the species by successfully eliminating other similar species. The narrative is rather sparse but I believe adequate.
2nd round	9 Dec 2005	Acc	David raises valid issues, However I believe the limited description eliminates other possible plovers.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	I'm not sure how well this record would stand up to the more exacting standards we've been employing lately (to the better I think), but I'm willing to make some allowances for the norm of old. Assuming that we're actually dealing with a plover (Peter Paton should know, even if he gave us nothing to indicate that that's what the bird is), the other similar species are adequately eliminated by the description.
2nd round	6 Nov 2005	Acc	Again I think this description is inadequate to the standards we've risen to, but I'm going to make allowances that in the "old days" such documentation was seen as sufficient, and the only thing we really have to assume here is that the bird in question is indeed a plover. I'm willing to assume that the observer's experience would make a mis-identification at this basic a level improbable.
Larry T.	22 Oct 2005	Acc	Adequate description and the bird was seen by multiple observers.
2nd round	13 Dec 2005	Acc	As above.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Eventhough I would have liked to have seen more of a description of the bill and relative body size, I have to assume this observer knows enough about people reading the description that we would assume it was a plover, especially since he was comparing it to nearby Snowy Plovers. So, given that it was a plover, he successfully eliminated the other plovers that might appear here.
2nd round	21 Dec 2005	Acc	For the same reasons given above.
David W.	20 Sep 2005	No, ID	Although I do not doubt that a competent birder like Mr. Paton actually saw the species he claimed to see, the submitted record is too sparse to be adequate. The record does not even establish that the bird in question is a plover (even if it is implied). There is no discussion of bill, body proportions, etc. that might separate the described bird from other shorebirds (or, indeed, other birds in general).
2nd round	22 Nov 2005	Acc	OK, if we are going to rate older records under a gentler standard when it comes to minimal descriptions, then I can live with this record being accepted. Though one might ask, do we really NEED it? Peter Paton was, by all accounts, a very competent field birder, and I have very little personal doubt that he saw what he claims he did. I am, however, a little troubled by that line of thinking (which has been creeping into our voting comments of late), which allows certain birders of good repute the benefit of the doubt, almost as if they got a vote in absentia. I realize that line of thinking colors all of our votes to some extent, but it troubles me. It might open us up to potential charges of favoritism if we are not careful. I suppose this becomes a philosophical question -- as we all rely on the opinion of those we trust at some point (e.g. who writes the field guides but those we trust?).

2005-31(R92) Red Phalarope

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Oct 2005	No, ID	Description, although scant, describes a Red Phalarope, particularly size, shape, head pattern, and back color; and is adequate for eliminating a Red-necked Phalarope. However the timing is perplexing, as I believe both Red and Red-necked Phalaropes should be completing molt into alternate plumage by May 30th (?? , and not in "basic" plumage as described).
2nd round	23 Dec 2005	No, ID	As per first round comments, timing and limited description leave too many unanswered questions.
Ronald R.	25 Oct 2005	No, ID	I think the description is too vague for conclusively identifying a red phalarope. Most perplexing was the bill description--longer than red-necked. I would expect the bill to be of similar length and a noticeably wider. Also, the yellow at the base was not observed (although this is not always easy to see). Also, the wing stripe was not definitively seen. The head pattern certainly suggests a red phalarope and not a Wilson's. I feel it is quite possible this was a red phalarope, and while the observer is well versed in shorebird identification with lots of experience, his written description is simply not sufficient.
2nd round	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	I will stick with my first round comments.
Terry S.	17 Oct 2005	Acc	Drawing plus narrative adequately describes Red Phalarope. Observer Is very Knowledgeable in shorebird ID.
2nd round	9 Dec 2005	No, ID	I am swayed by other comments that their are too many unanswered questions regarding molt timing for alternate plummage and an inadequate description of the bill
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	No, ID	Another pretty inadequate documentation for what would seem to be a remarkable record on a number of accounts. The date is very unusual for Utah (though certainly not impossible) but I'm also concerned that this bird was in entirely basic plumage - I would think that a bird at the end of May would show at least a partial molt (the season for pre-alternate molt in Red Phalarope is March to early June). I'm also concerned that no mention of the bill thickness was made, and should the bill really be longer than for Red-necked Phalarope? There are enough odd things about this record that I'd like it to go another round.
2nd round	6 Nov 2005	No, ID	I just have trouble making sense of this one. The description of the bill in particular is troublesome, even if the plumage characters seem right, at least for a winter bird. The date and the molt cycle just don't seem to add up. Without more solid evidence, I think there's just too many questions and oddities about this record to accept.
Larry T.	22 Oct 2005	No, ID	The description of the back seem to fit a Red but there isn't any mention of the thickness of the bill. And I'm having trouble reading the note about the bill. Are they saying that the base of the bill is all dark without any yellow? That would fit a Red-necked better than Red. Is the date right on this one? I would think they should be at least showing some sign of breeding plumage by the end of May.
2nd round	6 Nov 2005	No, ID	There is just to many things that don't seem to fit for this to be a Red Phalarope. The description doesn't do a good job of eliminating similar species and the date just doesn't seem right for the described plumage.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	No, ID	No description of bill; not enough description of the back, wings and neck to completely separate it from the Red-necked Phalarope.
2nd round	21 Dec 2005	No, ID	No, for the same reason I gave before.
David W.	21 Sep 2005	Acc	Although the description is weak, and the description of the bill raises questions, the color of the back and the relative size to the Red-neckeds it was with are pretty convincing. It appears to be a poor record of the species it claims to be.
2nd round	28 Dec 2005	No, ID	OK, I'll go with the majority on this one. The late timing of the basic plumage is very troubling. According to "The Birds of North America Online" (Cornell / AOU), the definitive alternate plumage is acquired mid-March through early June. I would think that by late May there should have been more breeding plumage noted than was described. As noted previously, the description of the bill as "longer" than the other phalaropes around it troubles me too. I still believe a "late bloomer" Red phalarope is the best candidate of the available options (what other phalarope has a smooth gray back?), but the overall inadequacy of the description and the odd plumage timing are significant enough to raise doubt.

2005-32 Ruddy Turnstone

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	18 Oct 2005	Acc	Nice description and great photos.
Ronald R.	16 Sep 2005	Acc	Excellent photo and description of a distinctive bird.
Terry S.	17 Oct 2005	Acc	Excellent description and fabulous photos!
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Very thorough description and nice photos of an unmistakeable species.
Larry T.	22 Oct 2005	Acc	Nice photos and description.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Excellent photos, and complete description. Leaves no doubt.
David W.	20 Sep 2005	Acc	Very detailed description.

2005-33 Wandering Tattler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Oct 2005	Acc	This is a great record with outstanding documentation. Nice descriptions and excellent photographs. It is nice to have multiple descriptions as the first write-up (although very detailed) fails to eliminate Solitary Sandpiper, one of the most outwardly similar species.
Ronald R.	25 Oct 2005	Acc	Nice photos and good writeups (especially 33a). The photos C and D indicate that the eyeline does not meet on the forhead and the sides are gray not whitish as would be the case for gray-tailed tattler. The eyelines not meeting was also indicated by the reporter in 33a.
Terry S.	17 Oct 2005	Acc	Excellent photos and description
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Exhaustive documentation and photos - even adequately eliminates Gray-tailed Tattler.
Larry T.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	The field marks to seperate this bird from a Gray-tailed Tattler seem to have been noted and also show in the photos. It would have been nice to hear the bird call.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Overwhelming photographic evidence; leaves no doubt about the identification of this species.
David W.	20 Sep 2005	Acc	The description portion of this submission was not adequate to eliminate the similar Gray tattler--which is a vagrant, but not unthinkable (after all, the Wandering tattler isn't exactly common in Utah either). However, the photos (and my inspection of the living bird) do show that the pale supercilium/supraloral stripe does NOT connect across the forehead as in a Gray tattler, and is divided by a dark stripe coming down from the forehead to the bill. Also, the similar species section portion of the writeup might have included the Spotted sandpiper, which is superficially similar except for the color of the back/wings and flanks. The photos for this record are excellent. With increasing numbers of birders equipped with the sophisticated camera equipment I witnessed on my visit to the causeway, the Committee can look forward to increasingly well photodocumeted records. However, as the case of the recent and heavily photographed "mystery jaeger" shows, even excellent photos can be misleading and inconsistent (even for the same bird), so it is important that submitters pay close attention to the written portion of the records as well.

2005-34 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Nov 2005	Acc	Adequate description and photos, although blurry, show all definitive characters.
Ronald R.	14 Nov 2005	Acc	Adequate photos and description of a distinctive species. It should be noted that the white in the upper surface of the tail was not reported. Unusual time of year for a vagrant warbler.
Terry S.	17 Oct 2005	Acc	Very well described with supporting photos
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Nice documentation covers the basics of a not-too-difficult i.d. Photos, when taken together, show what needs to be seen. Very odd time of year.
Larry T.	28 Oct 2005	Acc
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Photos weren't all that great, but enough so that the distinguishing fieldmarks could be observed with the help of narrative. The observer eliminated any other possible warbler.
David W.	27 Oct 2005	Acc	Though not of gallery quality, the photos are clear enough to establish this species as a Prothonotary, and the written description is definitive as well.

2005-35 Painted Redstart

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Nov 2005	Acc	Nice record.
Ronald R.	14 Nov 2005	Acc	Very good description of a very distinct species.
Terry S.	17 Oct 2005	Acc	Well described.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	A nice description, especially of the distinctive behavior. The only shortcoming I can see here is the lack of inclusion of Slate-throated Redstart as a similar species. Nice confirmation of breeding in Zion.
Larry T.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	Although thought to have bred in the state it was very nice to have it confirmed.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Description of behavior was interesting, accurate and helpful for this species. The description of important field marks was complete.
David W.	27 Oct 2005	Acc	An excellent record, with wonderful detail. I am especially pleased to see a well documented record of this species successfully breeding in Utah.

2005-36(R83) Gyrfalcon

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Dec 2005	No, ID	This is a very intriguing record. However the lack of a description of the observed falcon makes it difficult to evaluate this record.
2nd round	2 Jan 2006	No, ID	This one just doesn't have enough details to accept as a naturally occurring Gyrfalcon.
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	There is no description of the observed bird. The description is simply of a generic bird. The flight and attack behavior sound like a gyrfalcon, and the observer seems to have a lot of experience with this species. However, without a description of the bird seen, I cannot accept this record. If the photos are located, this record should be resubmitted to the committee.
2nd round	17 Jan 2006	No, ID	My comments from the first round still apply.
Terry S.	5 Nov 2005	No, ID	While the observer is very familiar with Gyrfalcons having been a falconer and observed hundreds of kills, The description given is very sparse and does not effectively rule out other species (e.g. immature Peregrine Falcon). With more data regarding other morphological proportions I would be more inclined to accept this record. The hunting behavior certainly sounds like a Gyrfalcon, however. I am also concerned about this possibly being an escaped falconry bird. This record mentions that photo was taken of the bird. Is that available?
2nd round	5 Jan 2006	No, ID	As per my first round comments
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	I'm reluctantly voting to accept - the description is entirely inadequate, other than behavior. The date and location is consistent with other Gyrfalcon sightings, and the behavior seems to fit a Gyrfalcon better than other falcons.
2nd round	28 Dec 2005	No, ID	I think this is probably a good record for a Gyrfalcon, but it is true that there is no real description of the bird to go by, therefore I'll change my vote to not accept. Perhaps we should consider contacting Mr. Chindgren directly to see if copies of the photo(s) submitted with the original record can be obtained, as I think these may prove decisive. Otherwise, the evidence present in this record is not really adequate to make a sound judgement, at least not without relying heavily upon the experience of the observer, which we should avoid.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	The description of the behavior and how the similar species were eliminated plus the observers experience with this species make this one good enough for me.
2nd round	24 Feb 2006	Acc	Even though there isn't much of a description the behavior and the elimination of similar species from someone that has a lot of experiance with Gryfalcon's is good enough for me. They watched the bird for 2 hours! It's to bad that the record is so old and the photos don't seem to be available.
Merrill W.	21 Dec 2005	No, ID	If anybody in this state knows falcons it would be Steve Chindgren. That said, however, there is no description of the head. There is nothing to suggest it wasn't a Peregrine. So, unfortunately, I will vote not to accept this record.
2nd round	25 JAN 2006	No, ID	Based on the skimpy description I still can't accept this as a viable record. The observer probably has a lot of experience with raptors, but the ability to describe the characteristics still has to be uppermost in making a decision to accept.
David W.	27 Oct 2005	No, ID	While the observer was indeed an experienced falconer, and I trust he knew what he saw, the physical submitted description was very sparse. I do not believe that I can vote "yes" based on the record itself, even if I believe it.
2nd round	28 Dec 2005	No, ID	I'm sticking to my original vote, as the physical description is essentially nonexistent. The possibility of an overachieving falcon/raptor of another species hasn't been ruled out (Goshawks will take a pheasant, for example). I would be very willing to reconsider my vote if one of the mentioned photos were submitted for our review.

2005-37(R83) Le Conte's Thrasher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	23 Dec 2005	Acc	Again a sparse description, however an adult Le Conte's Thrasher is adequately described (uniform sandy coloration, dark long tail, dark eye, buffy crissum). Photos are helpful, but I particularly like the drawings!
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	Acc	Sufficient description with adequate photos to eliminate crissel, California and Bendire's thrashers.
Terry S.	5 Nov 2005	Acc	The general overall description including the behavior of running along the ground, the narrative of eliminating other similar species, plus the photos, Leads me to believe this is a good record.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Photos are not much help, but the description is adequate to eliminated similar species. Behavior is consistent with Le Conte's, and the location and date fits with other Utah sightings.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	The description seems to eliminate similar species and the photos appear to be of a Le Conte's Thrasher.
Merrill W.	21 Dec.2005	Acc	From the photos you can tell that it's a gray bird. From the drawing you can tell it has a down-curved bill. However, since I was there and saw both characteristics quite distinctly, I would concur that this was (is) a LeConte's Thrasher.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc

2005-38(R83) Broad-winged Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	Very limited details, however, underwing and tail description are adequate to accept as Broad-winged Hawk
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	Acc	A minimal but sufficient description for an adult of this species. Description and drawings of the wings, tail and underparts eliminates other buteos.
Terry S.	6 Nov 2005	Acc	While the description is rather limited I believe enough key characteristics were given to make this an accepable record.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Brief, but adequate description covering all the bases for i.d. of the adult of this species. Call noted is consistent with this species.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	Good description of a Broad-winged Hawk.
Merrill W.	21 Dec, 2005	Acc	Good description of tail and size by two competent observers.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	Tail pattern, red on breast, shape of wings, terminal dark edge to flight feathers, voice. It's all good.

2005-39(R83) Least Bittern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	This is another very tricky record. The limited details described, particularly the dark back, and buffy wings, and the behavior are all correct for Least Bittern.
2nd round	23 Feb 2006	Acc	Although the observation was brief, I don't have any trouble accepting this record.
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	I would like this to go another round. This was a likely sighting of a least bittern. I am, however, bothered by the length of observation of the bird. Also, the observer was not familiar with this species at the time of observation. Unfortunately, this is often how least bitterns are seen. I feel a longer observation was warrented for acceptance of this record.
2nd round	24 Jan 2006	No, ID	I will stick with my comments from the first round. As a cautionary note, I think we need to be careful to not use proximity of other records to help justify an ID.
Terry S.	18 Nov 2005	No, ID	With the very brief view and limited observed characteristics I don't believe this is an acceptable record. While the observer noted buffy fore wing patches and a dark back with cream colored Throat breast and stomach the bird was gone in a flash. Many times my first observations of a bird are altered after I have more time to study the bird and correct my first glance errors. I believe a more detailed observation is needed.
2nd round	16 Jan 2006	Acc	I still have concerns accepting this record. But given the facts that this is a distinctive species, the bird was seen near an area where there have been other confirmed sightings of the species, and that a longer observation is very unlikely, I am persuaded to change my vote and accept the record.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Very brief sighting and description - I am somewhat reluctant to accept, however, everything here, including location, points to Least Bittern.
2nd round	9 Feb 2006	Acc	I appreciate Ron's comments on both counts - records should be evaluated independent of other reports from the area, and it is risky to accept such bref sightings. However, I'll still vote to accept this record because I can't imagine what else could have been seen that would fit the described bird, including its location and behavior. As Ron notes, it's a pretty typical Least Bittern sighting. A less distinctive species would be more problematic.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	I have had this same type of view of a Least Bittern many times and it is a distinct looking bird.Even with the observers lack of experience with this bird he does a good enough job of eliminating similar species to make me accept this record.
2nd round	24 Feb 2006	Acc	As before.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Two seconds is the problem here. However, the observer lists two important field marks that effectively eliminate other likely marsh birds.......
2nd round	25 Jan 2006	Acc	I still believe this is a credible sighting, and vote to accept it.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	The location of this sighting is close to the known population for this species in Ouray NWR.
2nd round	10 Jan 2006	Acc	I share the concerns regarding the brevity of the sighting (although two seconds really is not a bad length of time for this species, and it really is adequate for an ID if the bird is seen well), but I think the ID as presented is adequate, especially since the bird is regular in that area.

2005-40(R83) Veery

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	Bright white underparts, uniform reddish upperparts, and indistinct eyering are diagnostic.
2nd round	23 Feb 2006	Acc	I'm still willing to accept this one as a Veery
3rd round	3 May 2006	Acc	David's commentary sums this one up well. I'm comfortable accepting this as a Veery.
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	On the surface, this observation sounds like a veery. However, I was bothered by a couple of things: 1) the observer noted that the throat was marked, but that the breast and belly were white. A veery has a mostly clear throat with markings on the upper breast (chest); 2) the spots are about the same color as the back, not dark as indicated. I don't feel the description safely separates this species from a "russet-backed" Swainson's thrush, which would be very similar. The lack of an eye-ring would help eliminate the Swainson's thrush, but the eye ring may not always be obvious. I would like the discussion to go a second round.
2nd round	24 Jan 2006	No, ID	I am sticking with my first vote based on my comments and those of Merrill and Terry. I want to correct a typo in my original submission (the second to last sentence should read: "... but the eye ring may NOT always be obvious." ) [has been corrected in above comment - MGM].
3rd round	1 May 2006	No, ID	While I think this bird was probably a veery, the description is insufficient to rule out Swainson's thrush, and as such I cannot accept the record. A lack of description of the flank color (russet backed Swainson's should have brown flanks) and loral area are my biggest concerns.
Terry S.	6 Nov 2005	No, ID	I don't believe I feel comfortable accepting this record without further documentation eliminating similar Catharus species. Flank color and vocalization are two key field marks lacking in the description.
2nd round	23 Feb 2006	No, ID	I really appreciate the extra effort David went to in researching this difficult ID. I agree that the description fits a Veery better than other Thrushes but I still believe The description needs to clearly eliminate other thrushes. When there is intra-specific variation within a species that has close resemblance to other species within the same genus it is my feeling that our standard of acceptance needs to be at a high level, especially when photographs and vocalization are not part of the record. I think the description of the throat/breast as pointed out by Ron and Merrill needs more clarification as does the flank and loral area. A side note: the observer mentions familiarity with the species and describes seeing them in Cache Valley singing on perch. I didn't know there were records of Veery in Cache Valley though I may be wrong.
3rd round	5 Apr 2006	No, ID	AS Per my earlier comments
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Decent description eliminates other thrushes.
2nd round	9 Feb 2006	Acc	I still think this is a good record for Veery. Yes, it would be better if they had heard it call, but I still think that the described bird fits Veery better than the other thrushes. The whiteness of the belly, and the intensity of the red on the back - remember that these observers are familiar with Veery and commented on the redness - seem inconsistent with a russet Swainson's Thrush. While it can be missed, the fact that the observers made a note in at least two places of the lack of an eye-ring suggests that they made a special effort to look for one. The throat/breast spotting seems more Veery-like as described. This is certainly not a perfect record, the i.d. problems are substantial, and I appreciate the comments of others on the committee (as always), but I find myself having to twist this record a bit too much to make it into something other than a Veery.
3rd round	1 Apr 2006	Acc	I still think Veery is the best call for this bird.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	Good description of a Veery Thrush.
2nd round	24 Feb 2006	Acc	I like David's commentary.
3rd round	18 Apr 2006	Acc
Merrill W.	21 Dec, 2005	No, ID	I don't feel comfortable with the description of the breast and throat area. Plus there wasn't any comment about the flanks; plus without any description of the song (which he didn't hear) the identification is a bit "iffy".
2nd round	25 Jan 2006	No, ID	I still don't feel comfortable accepting this for the reasons before stated.
3rd round	6 Apr 2006	Acc	I usually don't feel comfortable changing my vote, but in this case David's argument based on what looks like better research than what I did has convinced me to reevaluate my vote. So, I went back to the original description and compared it with Sibley. And with what David stated. Even though the voice wasn't heard (which is what I based my original decision on), the description of the white belly, the lack of an obvious eye ring and the markings on the breast have convinced me (not 100%) to accept this as a valid record.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	The record description is a good one, but I wish the observer had heard a vocalization to firm this one up. The different Catharus thrush subspecies are very variable in their appearance (at least relative to the subtle differences that differentiates the Catharus species in the first place), but at least the time of year eliminates the possibilities of some of the juvenile/early plumages one might have to contend with in the fall (some of which have reduced breast spotting and face marking). However, considering the bird was spotted in late spring, I think the combination of all-rufousy upperparts, subtle breast spotting, and lack of eyering eliminates any possibilities other than a Veery.
2nd round	21 Feb 2006	Acc	I am very glad this vote went to the second round. It has given me an opportunity to search the literature and delve deeper into the identification problems of Catharus thrushes. I found the best sources of information available to me to be Peter Clements' 2000 book called "Thrushes" and an article in Birding magazine from June 2000 ("Field Identification of Hylocichla/Catharus Thushes--Part II: Veery and Swainson's Thush", by Daniel Lane and Alvaro Jaramillo). A number of my fellow Committee members had some interesting comments regarding this record, and I'd like to address some of those points because I suspect this vote may go to the third round: #1 - Throat Spotting. The observer described his thrush to have an indistinctly spotted/mottled throat. It was correctly pointed out by Ron that a Veery should have a mostly clear throat. But I think this is just a semantic issue, an imprecision of terms on the observer's part. I think the observer meant the upper breast when he wrote "throat". I also believe he meant mid/lower breast when he wrote "breast". It is actually the only way the description makes sense. As such, I don't think there is a problem with the description of the "throat" because the observer was really talking about the upper breast (which is spotted on all North American Catharus thrushses). #2 - Color of Breast Spotting. There was an objection to the description of the breast spots being dark. It is true that some field guides show the breast spots to be the same ruddy color as the back (e.g. Sibley), while others show the spots to be dark (e.g. Natl. Geo). It seems that there is a variation among the various subspecies of Veery in regards to this field mark. The subspecies of Veery which occurs directly north of us (and Antelope Island) is C. f. salicicolus, which, according to the Birding article, has breast spotting that is "darker brown and stronger" than in the nominate race (p 244). Some individuals of Veery are more heavily spotted than any Hermit thrush I've ever seen (p 247)--which was a big surprise to me. I do not believe that a description of a Veery's breast spots as being "dark" should in any way seem peculiar, as many of the photos and drawings I have seen of the species have breast spotting I would characterize as "dark spots". It should also be noted that the observer specifically stated that the spotting on his thrush was less distinct than that of a Swainson's thrush, which is very consistent with a Veery. #3 - Color of Belly. The observer noted that the thrush he saw had a white belly and (middle) breast. This is consistent with the statement in the Birding article that Veeries consistently have whiter bellies than Swainson's thrushes. The fact that the observer also mentioned the (mid) breast as being white, is also consistent with the breast spots and buffy wash on most Veeries being confined to the upper breast (what he calls "throat"). #4 - Color of Flanks. Several Committee members rightly pointed out that flank color is a useful field mark in differentiating the Veery from Swainson's thrush. Veeries generally have gray flanks while many Swainson's have a buffy brown wash to their flanks. However, the locally-occurring almae subspecies of Swainson's thrush apparently has a grayer wash on its flanks than the nominate. Anyway, the observer doesn't mention flank color at all. That's unfortunate, as it would have been useful to narrow down the options for what type of thrush he saw, but it is not "wrong". #5 - Facial Pattern. Both Clements and the Birding article note that the patten on the face is one of the key field marks differentiating the Veery and Swainson's thrush, especially with the salicicolus subspecies. The Swainson's thush should have a bold buff eyering and supraloral area contrasting with dark lores, while the Veery should have an indistincly buffy or gray loral patch (and only faint eyering). The observer doesn't describe the loral area, which is, again, unfortunate, but does say the thrush lacked an eyering. This is more characteristic of the Veery than a Swainson's thrush. So, all in all, I personally believe the thrush was a Veery, for all the reasons stated above and in my first round vote comments. However, the description is somewhat weak and I can certainly see why someone might argue that a Swainson's thrush was not adequately eliminated as a possibility. I am grateful to those on the Committee who pointed out problems with the record, as these made me pause, double-check, and learn something along the way (again).
3rd round	28 Feb 2006	Acc

2005-41(R83) Mountain Plover

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	Good descriptions.
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	Acc	Both submitted records do a sufficient job of characterizing this bird as a mountain plover and safely separating it from similar plovers. The size (as compared to killdeer), black tail pattern, no black on breast, whitish eyeline, dark bill and uniform tan color on back and wings seem sufficient to rule out other species.
Terry S.	2 Dec 2005	Acc	Two observers with separate write-ups help make this a good record. I believe the observers have effectively eliminated other similar non-breeding plovers with good description of overall body shape and coloration, bill shape and size, and also noting the narrow white wing stripe and broad black band near the terminal end of the tail.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	One of the better documentations among these early records.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	Description adequate.
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Fifteen minutes was an adequate amount of time to observe field marks and behavior. Description is complete enough.
David W.	27 Oct 2005	Acc	I was a little puzzled by the description of the leg color as being "yellowish green" in the 1st description [i.e. 2005-41(R83)a], but the second description of "gray" was less troubling, especially when combined with the first. I also struggled with description of a "faint" white line over eye, but in basic plumage (acquired in mid-Aug) the eyebrow line is more diffuse than in breeding plumage, and might well be described as "faint" in relation to a pale face/forehead. Other details provided by the two observers, especially when taken in unison, were convincingly definitive for the Mountain plover.

2005-42 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc
Ronald R.	14 Nov 2005	Acc	Great photos and good description. (3 Dec) Very good description and photos.
Terry S.	30 Oct 2005	Acc
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Nice description and photos. This is an interesting record; I'm presuming that this is a new location for this species in Utah.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc
Merrill W.	10 Oct 2005	Acc	Nice photos. Leaves no room for conjecture.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	Wonderful photos on top of a very good description.

2005-43 Red Phalarope

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	Very nice photos
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	Acc	Good description and nice photos!
Terry S.	30 Oct 2005	Acc	wonderful Photos!
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	I guess I'd better vote to accept since I was referenced in the description :-). Certainly looks like a molting Red Phalarope to me - the bill is key here.
Larry T.	9 Nov 2005	Acc	Very nice Photos.
Merrill W.	21 Dec. 2005	Acc	Nice photos; bill length and shape are very diagnostic.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	A picture is worth a thousand words, and here were several good ones. Indeed, the pictures saved this record because the written description was a touch weak and even contradicted the ID in one aspect. The white stripe in the scapulars reported by the observer would argue strongly against a Red phalarope. Luckily, none of the fine photos show any hint of said stripe(s). [Speculation: Was she trying to say there WASN'T a stripe?? Did she confuse/mistype some advice given to her by one of her "experts" that pointed out that the absence of such stripes was important??]

2005-44 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	Very limited description but adequate for this distinct warbler.
Ronald R.	9 Dec 2005	Acc	Adequate description of a fairly distinctive fall warbler. The combination of white eye ring and color of top of head, back and underparts eliminates other warblers.
Terry S.	18 Nov 2005	Acc	This is a readily distinguishable species and the observer has done a good job in detailing observed characteristics.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Decent description of a distinctive (even in fall female) bird. Oddly, his mention of the similarity to Blue-gray Gnatcatcher very effectively portrays the shape of this bird.
Larry T.	13 Dec 2005	Acc	Adequate description of a distinct warbler.
Merrill W.	21 Dec. 2005	Acc	Pretty good description; adequate because it mentioned the crown and back along with the size and eye ring.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	Description was very sparse and limited, but adequate to eliminate other species.

2005-45 Common Ground-Dove

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	adequate description
Ronald R.	9 Dec 2005	Acc	Good description. Two-tone bill and scaling on neck should eliminate ruddy ground-dove.
Terry S.	30 Oct 2005	Acc	Very good description. I believe the observer has effectively eliminated the possibility of a Ruddy Ground-Dove.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Excellent description covers the key differences between this and Ruddy Ground-Dove.
Larry T.	3 Jan 2006	Acc
Merrill W.	21 Dec., 2005	Acc	Adequately eliminated similar species.
David W.	28 Oct 2005	Acc	Yes. Definitive description. That's two in one year!

2005-46 Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	I have extensive field notes on this bird and many additional photographs.
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	Acc	Great description and outstanding photos. This was a very carefully documented record and I feel safely eliminates all other species.
Terry S.	2 Dec 2005	Acc	An excellent write up and wonderful photos. The observer carefully eliminated other similar species especially Black-chinned by detailed description of wing shape including primary feather width. details also noted other key marks such as bill length, throat and auricular contrast, tail shape, and red gorget feathers.
Mark S.	3 Nov 2005	Acc	Excellent documentation and photos (nice touch numbering the primaries). All of the potential field marks for this species are well-noted, visible in the photographs and consistent with the identification. An excellent state-first record.
Larry T.	3 Jan 2006	Acc
Merrill W.	21 Dec. 2005	Acc	Photos and detailed description convinced me. Thanks.
David W.	22 Nov 2005	Acc	I spoke with Larry Tripp about this bird during my futile attempt to see it myself, and was very impressed with his reasons as to why this was a Ruby-throated hummingbird. His photos (especially of the folded wing tip) and reasoning strike me as excellent.

2005-47 Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	limited but adequate description of this distinctive warbler
Ronald R.	9 Dec 2005	Acc	Adequate description of a very distinctively colored species.
Terry S.	2 Dec 2005	Acc	A good description of a distinctive species
Mark S.	29 Dec 2005	Acc	Nice description of a distinctive species, at least in the male. Not having a non-breeding plumage makes this a safe call all year.
Larry T.	3 Jan 2006	Acc	Good description of a distinct species.
Merrill W.	21 Dec. 2005	Acc	Good description; saw all the important fieldmarks.
David W.	28 Dec 2005	Acc	Clear description eliminates all other possibilities.

2005-48 Broad-winged Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	No, ID	I'd like to see some discussion on this record. Although size, streaking, and white throat, breast, and belly are all good for a light morph juvenile BW Hawk, there are many key features not described. Obviously it was not observed in flight or the distinctive underwing and tail pattern would have been reported. However I'm puzzled by the lack of description of the face pattern typical of this morph (yellow cere, pale supercilium, dark malar stripes, dark central throat stripe, etc.).
Ronald R.	9 Dec 2005	No, ID	This bird was likely a broad-winged hawk, but I don't think the description is sufficient to rule out a juvenile red-tailed hawk. The description is well done, but does not include sufficient details to eliminate this species: size is not defined compared to a reference, the tail and primary projection were not clearly seen. The late date is also a concern. I would like to see this record go another round.
Terry S.	29 Dec 2005	No, ID	The very limited descriptive narrative does not effectively rule out Red-shouldered Hawk or Red-tailed Hawk. Plummage variation can be deceptive and without additional information on the classic identification characteristics of the tail and/or wings I am hesitant to accept this record
Mark S.	6 Nov 2005	No, ID	I'd like to see some discussion on this record. While I fully trust Tim's abilty to make this identification, I'm not completely convinced by the description he gives of the sighting or his analysis of the similar species. To summarize what I get from his description, the i.d. was essentially made on size alone, a field mark I find particularly untrustworthy without a known reference, such as a nearby known species. There was none sited in the description. The size di-morphism in raptors only makes this worse. The plumage characters described do not by themselves eliminate any number of possible Red-tailed Hawk variations (as Tim notes), and maybe not even some juvenile Swainson's (though this is less likely). Unfortunately, the tail was not well seen, which is the one place where plumage characters might have helped. Also, the bird was not seen in flight, where underwing patterns and overall shape could have helped. I'm just not sure, in spite of a generally well-written and analyzed report, that there's enough here to make a well-reasoned judgement.
Larry T.	3 Jan 2006	No, ID	Without a description of the tail, head marking or where the spotting was on the wings this could have easily been a Red-tail Hawk.
Merrill W.	25 Jan 2006	No, ID	The size seems good, at first,....so does the generalized description. However, without a closer look at the tail and a comparison with other likely species, I am reluctant to accept this.
David W.	28 Dec 2005	No, ID	Without direct comparison to other species next to the bird, size can be a very tricky field mark. It sounds like this was a lone bird perched nowhere near either a merlin or Prairie falcon, so the size impression, though helpful, may not be definitive. I've seen many Red-tails which I thought were "small". Also, the lack of tail description, even to the point of whether it had bands or not, prevents me from voting to accept this record. The overall description is rather vague. It is unfortunate that Mr. Avery, known for his lovely photographs of birds, didn't manage to snap one of this hawk.

2005-49 Mourning Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	No, ID	This is an interesting record and I'd like to see some discussion on this one. The observers ruled out a Common Yellowthroat based primarily on size, however their given weight of 9.7 g is below the average weight of a male C. Yellowthroat, G. t. occidentalis (mean 10.0, range 9.5-10.7 g) and their reported wing measurement of 55 mm falls within the range (50 – 60 mm) of a male G. t. occidentalis (Pyle 1997). The description also reads that immature Yellowthroats do not have a yellow throat or lower pink mandible. Immature male yellowthroats are characterized by a distinct yellow throat and yellow undertail coverts and the color of the lower mandible is highly variable. The photos show the yellow throat and yellow undertail coverts separated by a paler whitish/buffy belly and flanks (whereas a Mourning Warbler should show uniform bright yellow undersides in all plumages). Also the faint but distinct dark mask and noticeably brownish crown are good for a first-year male yellowthroat.
2nd round	13 Feb 2006	No, ID	I'm still convinced this is a first fall male Common Yellowthroat. Based on the description, measurements, and photos, I think we can safely rule out any of the Oporornis warblers. As always, good comments from other reviewers, however I'm not sure what David means by 'if I ignore the measurements' as the measurements are spot on for the western subspecies Common Yellowthroat (G. c. occidentalis).
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	No, ID	This is a well documented record with adequate photos. The plumage of the bird is more consistent with mourning warbler and the narrow, split eye arcs and observed "longer" undertail coverts are also consistent with mourning. I am concerned, however, with a couple of measurements: 1) The difference in wing and tail length measurements should be greater than 10 mm (Dunn and Garrett, Warblers, Peterson Guides) or 10-18 (Curson et al. Warblers of North America) to be a mourning (MacGillivray's is listed as less than 12 mm or 2-12 mm). The reported measurements are only 5 mm (55-50) and thus consistent with MacGillivray's (and outside the 9-15 mm range of overlap indicated by Dunn and Garrett). 2) The weight of the bird was listed at 9.7 g which is at the lowest end of mourning reported by Curson et al. (9.6-17.9g) and well within the range for MacGillivray's (8.6-12.6g). There is also the possibility of hybrids between mourning and MacGillivray's, but this is apparently quite rate (Curson et al.).
2nd round	13 Feb 2006	No, ID	My comments from the first round still apply. I also appreciate the comments from Rick and Mark concerning the possibility of this being a common yellowthroat. In any case, it is unlikely a Mourning warbler.
Terry S.	29 Dec 2005	Acc	A very detailed and exceptional description of a difficult bird to identify. By careful observation of body measurements, the eye-arc, throat color, tail extension,flank color and incomplete breast band, the observers I believe have ruled out MacGillivray's Warbler.
2nd round	1 Mar 2006	No, ID	I am persuaded by the comments and observations of other reviewers that a Common Yellowthroat has not been ruled out
Mark S.	18 Nov 2005	Acc	I've been uneasy about this record, but do believe the photos show a juvenile Mourning Warbler, and the excellent detail in the description certainly suggests that this is a Mourning Warbler. I'm not happy that the photos don't show what we need to see to eliminate some similar species, such as Common Yellowthroat. I'm not convinced by the off-hand dismissal of Common Yellowthroat as too small, especially as the wing-chord measurements are at the small end of the range for Mourning Warbler - there isn't that much size difference between these. The photo views of the breast are unclear, and we can't really see the undertail coverts. The auriculars look a bit dark for me for Mourning Warbler, and better for yellowthroat. I'm left with trusting the written description of the breast pattern and the undertail coverts which do fit Mourning Warbler.
2nd round	9 Feb 2006	No, ID	I'm glad this one went to a second round, as I've been uneasy about this record from the start. Ron and Rick's comments are exactly correct. In spite of a great volume of data and good photos, this cannot be definitively called a Mourning Warbler. The measurements do nothing to eliminate Common Yellowthroat (in spite of the observers' comments that the bird was too large to be a yellowthroat) as there is an almost perfect overlap between these species. A further review of the photos, combined with a month of looking at hundreds of yellowthroats in Mexico have convinced me that this birds is actually a first-year male Common Yellowthroat. The head markings, especially the darkness around the eye and auriculars is much better for yellowthroat, and I believe what appears to be a dark callar on the breast is only rumpled feathers. The pattern of yellow on the throat is better for a young male yellowthroat than a Mourning Warbler. As Rick notes, quite a few immature yellowthroats show pale lower mandibles. (2nd second round comment) I still think it's a Common Yellowthroat.
Larry T.	8 Jan 2005	Acc	The photos aren't the greatest but they do show what looks like a Mourning Warbler.
2nd round	18 Apr 2006	No, ID	I'm glad some of you took the time to really look at the data for this record. I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't.I just rushed through it thinking that the observers (with the bird in hand) sent the numbers to an expert (as they said waiting for confirmation) that confirmed that it was a Mourning Warbler. After taking a second look at it a Common Yellow-throat is a better fit for the measurements.I'm not sure what it is but I agree that we can't say it's a Mourning Warbler.
Merrill W.	25 Jan 2006	Acc	Adequate photos and good description. I liked the way they eliminated other species from consideration using quite a detailed list of candidates and explaining why it wasn't each of those.
2nd round	2 Feb 2006	Acc	I still feel the description is adequate. I don't think what they show in the photos is a MacGillivray's.
David W.	28 Dec 2005	Acc	Impressively detailed description in terms of sheer volume of data.
2nd round	17 Feb 2006	No, ID	I must admit I based my previous vote on an assumption that the submitter's evaluation of measurement data could be trusted because the bird was netted as part of an official scientific project. I regret that assumption now. Kudos to Ron and the others who took the time to really follow up on the data, which gave us a chance to re-evaluate the submission in a second round. If I ignore the measurements and just look at the submitted photos, I have a hard time ruling out a first-fall male yellowthroat. The description of the long undertail coverts would seem to support a Mourning warbler over a yellowthroat, but if doubt is cast upon this by conflicting data (see Ron's discussion), I am forced to re-evaluate my previous vote in deference to uncertainty of ID. I just can't be sure which species we are dealing with based on the submitted information.

2005-50 Red-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	I'm hesitantly accepting this record based on the description of the head, and reported lack of black markings on the head, face, and breast. All black wings are very puzzling?
2nd round	23 Feb 2006	Acc	I could be convinced to dismiss this record as a possible hybrid, but the description is okay with me.
3rd round	3 May 2006	Acc	Everything in this (brief) description suggests a Red-breasted Sapsucker. I recall a few years ago I struggled with the 'possible hybrid' issue while voting on Glaucous-winged Gull records. While these species (and many others) are prone to hybridization, I'm very uncomfortable voting down records that could possibly represent a "hybrid" individual, when no specific characters are described that suggest it was a hybrid. I'd recommend accepting the record and noting a possible hybrid was not entirely ruled out. If it walks like a woodpecker, and talks like a woodpecker, .... it could still be a hybrid.
Ronald R.	9 Dec 2005	Acc	The description is sufficient to describe this rather distinctive species. The only concern is a hybrid, but the lack of any black on the head and a dot instead of an extented line above the eye make a hybrid unlikely. The relatively bold lower white facial stripe is consistent with the southern red-breasted populations.
2nd round	20 Mar 2006	No, ID	I appreciated the discussion, but given the apparent frequent occurrence of hybrids in sw Utah, I am voting to not accept this record without physical documentation. In addition, the indication of a bold facial stripe (more like red-naped) makes a hybrid a distince possibility.
3rd round	1 May 2006	No, ID	I still feel a hybrid was not ruled out by the description. Certainly what constitutes a "pure" red-breasted sapsucker is still a question, but the record does not adequately rule out a hybrid. I am also concerned about the bold white line on the head, which as the observer points out, is more like a red-naped.
Terry S.		No, ID	From the description I don't believe a hybrid bird has been ruled out. As with the bird seen in Virgin last year,we don't have enough information on other markings such as the breast. The lack of a noticeable white stripe on the wings is perplexing as is the description of the bold white stripe below the eye
2nd round	2 Feb 2006	No, ID	Larry's comments regarding hybridization have greatly influenced my view on this record. Without some physical evidence such as as good photos to evaluate and review I am hesitant to accept this record. If hybridization is as common in this area as Larry believes I think we need to be cautious in accepting records for Red-breasted Sapsuckers without supporting physical documentation.
3rd round	5 Apr 2006	No, ID	I don't think we need to put up a supplemental review list of those species which will require even more extensive documentation, nor do I believe we need to decide as a group that until further notice we won't accept RB records because they might be hybrids. I do believe, however, this and other RB records may well need physical documentation (such as a photo) or very good and extensive documentation for review before the record can be accepted especially If we know that hybridization is common in this area and signs of hybridization are easily missed if the observer has no experience with RB and possible RB hybrids.
Mark S.	18 Nov 2005	Acc	The description adequately eliminates all similar species, leaving only the possibility of a hybrid. I think this is unlikely, and the facial markings as described would seem to indicate a pure Red-breasted. The other area where hybrids often show mixed characters is the breast, but there was no mention of any black on the breast, as a hybrid would show.
2nd round	9 Feb 2006	Acc	Clearly a hybrid is always possible, but nothing in the description would suggest a hybrid. Although appearance alone can never prove a "pure" lineage, that's all we have to work with here. Lacking anything in the descripiton that is not consistant with a pure Red-breasted Sapsucker, and given that the description is reasonably complete, I will still vote to accept this record.
3rd round	5 Apr 2006	Acc	Well, I may be bucking what appears to be a trend, but I still don't see anything in this description to suggest a hybrid, and the description is fairly complete - that is, the description includes essentally all the areas where features of a a hybrid should be present, and everything as describe fits a pure Red-breasted Sapsucker. No, she didn't see the white bars on the wing, but that can be missed, especially on a perched bird from below, and, of course, this feature doesn't help one way or the other. She at least noted that this feature wasn't seen, indicating that some attention was paid to the bird during the observation. What I think we have here is a philosophical determination in what constitutes acceptable "proof" of pure lineage in these two species. If the committee decides that a photogragh or a meticulously detailed description is required, we should make that decision, and let it be known publically. Maybe we use a ruling in this case to make such a point. Perhaps it would be a good idea to review all such species pairs and put up a "supplemental review list" of those species which will require even more extensive documentation or photographs than normal. Since we haven't made such a determination as a committee, I'm hesitant to vote against a record that comes with what I feel is adequate detail and shows nothing that might suggest a hybrid, based only upon the idea that because hybrids may be common that all such records should be suspect.
Larry T.	8 Jan 2005	No, ID	There are just to many hybrids around in this area to accept a Red-breasted Sapsucker without photos and a description that said because the bird had a all red head it has to be a Red-breasted. I saw 3 different hybrids at Lytle this fall (all at the same time). 2 of the birds were clearly hybrids more towards the R N side of the family but one of them looked really good for a R B.But after a lot of very careful study of the bird I suspected that it might be a hybrid.But until I got home and looked at some photos I took of the bird I still wasn't sure. This bird easily could have been called a R B even though it showed signs of a hybrid that were hard to see in the field.
2nd round	24 Feb 2006	No, ID	I still don't like this one. The observer hasn't got any experiance with RB and saw this bird without binns. She missed field marks like the patch on the wings (which is hard to do if you see the bird well) and could has easily missed signs of a hybrid like some black on the upper breast or back of the head. On a bird that leans towards a RB the black is usually veiled by red and can be hard to see even with optics. As I've said before there are just to many hybrids in this part of the state to accept a RB without a very good description or photos.
3rd round	18 Apr 2006	No, ID	I for one don't have a problem accepting a record for a RB Sapsucker. Although without photos It would be nice if they had some experience with RB and also be getting a good look at the bird with some sort of optics.
Merrill W.	25 Jan	Acc	Adequate description.
2nd round	2 Feb 2006	Acc	I still feel like the description is adequate in describing a Red-breasted Sapsucker.
3rd round	6 Apr 2006	Acc	The observer describes this bird as having a completely red head and red breast. That seems enough for me to still accept it as a viable record.
David W.	28 Dec 2005	Acc	Accept
2nd round	31 Jan 2006	Acc	Though the possibility of a hybrid is ever present with this species, I saw no indication of hybridization in the description. I find it interesting and VERY pertinent that hybrids occur so regularly in southwestern Utah, but I think we need to ask ourselves what an acceptably pure sapsucker would need to be. Species limits within this genus are notoriously fuzzy, and much gene flow appears to have passed between the different taxa around the edges of their ranges. Depending on one's definition of species, the Red-breasted & Red-naped split may not even be supportable. So what constitutes an adequately pure bird--100% non-promiscuous ancestry? 99%? 90%?? I don't know. But until this is resolved, I'll vote on the appearance, as described.
3rd round	4 Apr	Acc	I think we either decide as a group that until further notice we don't accept any RB sapsucker records because they might be hybrids, or accept records like this one which show no indication of hybridization. I do not have a problem with either choice, but we should decide one way or another so we don't have to review records unnecessarily, divided more by voting philosophy than information presented in the records. (Which is not to diminish valid arguments about inadequate optics, etc.)

2005-51 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	1 Jan 2006	Acc	Description is very vague but adequate and very nice photo.
Ronald R.	3 Dec 2005	Acc	Great photo. I think this may be a 1st winter bird, sex unknown.
Terry S.	29 Dec 2005	Acc	Good photo but narrative is lacking
Mark S.	18 Nov 2005	Acc	The description is a bit sparse, but the photo clearly shows a female Black Scoter.
Larry T.	8 Jan 2005	Acc	Nice photo.
Merrill W.	21 Dec., 2005	Acc	Excellent photo. I saw this one at the same area. Observer ought to be shown how to write a description, though.
David W.	22 Nov 2005	Acc	The description is woefully inadequate, but the photo is clear. I wouldn't mind a more thorough discussion as to what minimal standards we are operating under. Is there no one else who saw it who is willing to submit a better written description? (Can you think of anyone, Merrill?)