Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2006 (records 1 to 15)

  
2006-01 Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 23 Feb 2006 Acc  
Ronald R. 20 Mar 2006 Acc Good written description and marginal photos are sufficient to accept this record.
Terry S. 23 Feb 2006 Acc Excellent description and careful elimination of similar species. Even the photos helped!
Mark S. 9 Feb 2006 Acc Excellent description and decent photos leave little doubt on this one.
Larry T. 16 Mar 2006 Acc  
Merrill W. 25 Jan 2006 Acc Based on the photo and the description I would have to rule out the similar Black-tailed Godwit.
David W. 2 Feb 2006 Acc Though the bill appears only slightly upcurved in the photos, the length appears to be more consistent with a Hudsonian rather than Black-tailed godwit (which, to my mind, appears the only other possibility considering the tail & rump coloration). The crucial observation about the dark underwings was the clincher.

          

2006-02 Little Blue Heron

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 5 Apr 2006 No, ID Timing is very good for an immature Little Blue Heron, however I believe immature Snowy Egrets can also have green legs.
Ronald R. 20 Mar 2006 No, ID The description as provided does not eliminate a juvenile snowy egret. Both species have green legs at this age. A description of the bill, lores and wing tips would be necessary to determine the species of this bird.
Terry S. 23 Feb 2006 No, ID I don't believe a Juvenile Snowy Egret has been eliminated as a possibility since they can show green in the legs. Description of the bill and lores would have helped in separating the two species.
Mark S. 1 Apr 2006 No, ID I don't think the observer has adequately ruled out a juvenile Snowy Egret, that also has greenish legs. There is no mention of dark wingtips, or bill color, that would be needed to make the distinction. The time of year is consistant with a juvenile Snowy Egret
Larry T. 16 Mar 2006 No, ID The leg color certainly isn't enough to seperate a Little Blue in juvenile plumage from a Snowy Egret.
Merrill W. 2 Feb 2006 No, ID This is a hard one, especially since the immature Little Blue is so similar to an immature Snowy.  I don't think I can accept this as a Little Blue on the basis of just the leg color since the immature Snowy also has greenish legs.  There could have been a better description of  the bill color and shape.
David W. 31 Jan 2006 No, ID I do not think an immature snowy egret was adequately eliminated. I would have liked more discussion of bill & lore color, as well as the color of the primary tips

  

2006-03 Fulvous Whistling-Duck

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 5 Apr 2006 Acc Very nice record, and excellent photos. This was big winter for vagrant Fulvous Whistling-Ducks in the southwest.
Ronald R. 20 Mar 2006 Acc Excellent photos and description are sufficient to identify this species. The question of natural occurrence is always an issue,
but the lack of leg bands, other markings or unusually warn plumage indicate that these were likely wild birds.
Terry S. 23 Feb 2006 Acc What a great record with excellent photos and substantial narrative of the description of the birds!
Mark S. 1 Apr 2006 Acc The extensive written description and the excellent photos leave no doubt as to the identification. The only debate left would be the natural occurrence of these birds. I don't see any evidence that would suggest that these are escapees, and several things that would support there natural occurrence. I would be unlikely that three birds would escape together, but a gregarious species such as this would be expected to wander in a small group. Also, there appears to have been an
invasion of sorts of this species throughout the west. In west Mexico, there was certainly a spike in the population for this species this winter.
Larry T. 16 Mar 2006 Acc No question about the ID. There seemed to be quite a few showing up in other areas this winter so I don't think natural occurrence is a problem.
Merrill W. 25 Jan 2006 Acc Excellent photos.  No sign of leg bands.  Description of behavior seems to rule out escaped birds as well as the fact there were 3-4 birds together.  Plus, additional sightings in other states out of normal range probably indicate these are wild birds.
David W. 31 Jan 2006 Acc Detailed description and fabulous photos leave no doubt in my mind.

As for whether these ducks are wild in origin, I believe the fact that there are three individuals in this flock, along with the "eruption" of this species this year described on the Birdnet (increased sightings both in this country and Mexico), make a convincing argument for accepting these three individuals as a valid record.

  

2006-04 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 5 Apr 2006 Acc Another nice record. Excellent photos.
Ronald R. 20 Mar 2006 Acc Great photos clearly identify this species.
Terry S. 23 Feb 2006 Acc The photos very clearly show a Boreal Owl.
Mark S. 1 Apr 2006 Acc Nice description and photos. I don't think the bird would have been transported by vehicle from out of state along that road, and vehicle transport would not seem likely given the bird's condition.
Larry T. 16 Mar 2006 Acc Nice Photos.
Merrill W. 2 Feb 2006 Acc I like the photos, and I feel the description adequately separates it from the Saw-whet Owl.
David W. 31 Jan 2006 Acc Although the description was puzzlingly inadequate for someone who had seen this owl in the hand, the photos are decisive. I am surprised at the choice of field marks, as I would have expected a description of the facial disk and forehead spotting to be front and center (no pun intended) in differentiating this species from a Saw-whet owl.

 

2006-05(R83)  Chestnut-collared Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 5 Apr 2006 Acc This is a tricky one, the timing, short tail, and vocalizations are all good for a longspur. The described tail pattern seems to
have too much white for tundra longspur and too much black for a McCown's.

2nd round

 3 May 2006 No, ID Okay you'll convinced me that I should accept this as a 'Prairie' Longspur.
Ronald R. 1 May 2006 No, ID I don't think the record is sufficient to rule out McCown's longspur. The drawing of the tail is a bit perplexing both in shape and the lack of connection of the black of the tail with the dark rump.

2nd round

 8 May 2006 No, ID My comments from the first round apply. I also acknowledge the ID issues raised by others.
Terry S. 5 Apr 2006 No, ID While the date of sighting(Oct.9) and location (foothill grassland) seem good for a Chestnut-collared Longspur in Utah the actual description of the bird is very sparse. I don't think other female or basic male longspurs have been effectively ruled out. The description of the tail sounds good but the observer only saw the bird for a few seconds as it flushed and flew off. It seems the tail pattern would be difficult to describe with any certainty with such a short and bird in flight observation.

2nd round

 3 May 2006 No, ID I am again voting not to accept this record based on my previous comments.
Mark S. 5 Apr 2006 No, ID Although this is a better description than most of the early records, I'm concerned about the apparent brevity of the sighting
along with the incomplete description that results. The i.d. is made from the tail pattern alone, and though distinctive in this species, without further details of the bird, it's hard to rule out an individual of any number of other species that might have an abnormal amount of white in the tail. With so few sightings of this species in Utah, it's hard to say whether the date and location are appropriate. I'd like to see some discussion on this record.

2nd round

 3 May 2006 No, ID I still think the sighting was too brief to be sure about this i.d., especially given how rare a record this would represent.
Larry T. 24 Apr 2006 No, ID The description is very limited. Not much to go on to eliminate similar species.

2nd round

 28 May 2006 No, ID  
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 No, ID About the only fieldmark there is to go on is the sketch of the tail--not much else.  I don't feel there is enough of a description to definitely state that this is a longspur even.

2nd round

 25 May 2006 No, ID I vote not to accept this based on what I mentioned in the first round: there isn't enough information to justify calling it a Chestnut-collared Longspur.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 No, ID The observer did not adequately eliminate the possibility of a juvenile/female McCowen's longspur, which have similar tails and can be drab brownish & streaky.

2nd round

 3 May 2006 No, ID I'm sticking with my first-round vote, for all the same reasons. This may have been a Chestnut-collared, but I am not convinced other possibilities have been eliminated.

  

2006-06(R83) Hooded Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 5 Apr 2006 Acc Fine description of one of the most distinctive warblers.
Ronald R. 1 May 2006 Acc I think this is an acceptable description of a distinctive bird. All important field marks were observed.
Terry S. 8 Apr 2006 Acc All the key field marks were noted for this distinctive species
Mark S. 5 Apr 2006 Acc Good description of a distinctive species.
Larry T. 24 Apr 2006 Acc A male Hooded Warbler is a very distinct bird.The description eliminates other species.
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 Acc When I submitted this record the first time Ella et.al. refused to accept it because it was a single observer sighting.  I told her later that I should have shot it, but it was so close, and with a shot gun there would have been precious little to observe, although the thought occurred to me more than once.  It definitely was a Hooded Warbler.  Based on what I saw and the description of what I wrote there isn't much else for me to say.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 Acc This record leaves little doubt in my mind (combination of all yellow below, white in outer retrices, and black hood that wraps around the breast), though there are some oddities/omissions:

1) The record is late for this species. Hooded warblers should have left the USA by the end of October. However, there are casual records for November, and, it must be admitted, this was a "lost" individual.

2) The habitat was more open than one would expect. This species seems very fond of thick undergrowth, often of the lush variety. Again, one could, to some degree, invoke the lost bird argument.

3) It would have been nice to have a description of how far up the breast/throat/chin the black breast band extended. The shape of the breast band is helpful in eliminating many similar species.

4) Odd that the tail flaring behavior was not mentioned.

Similar species (eliminated):
>Canada warblers have black in face and lack white in outer tail feathers, etc.
>Hermit warblers have white bellies & flanks.

           

2006-07(R83) Brambling

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 3 May 2006 Acc Very brief, but adequate description.
Ronald R. 1 May 2006 Acc An adequate description of a well observed bird. This individual brambling was seen by many (including me) during December, 1983 in Logan.
Terry S. 8 Apr 2006 Acc This is a very distinctive species and field marks observed clearly indicate a Brambling
Mark S. 6 Apr 2006 Acc Like the observer notes, I'm not sure with what this could be confused. The head markings, breast color and wing markings as described are rather unique.
Larry T. 24 Apr 2006 Acc It would be nice to see the photos but description seems to be good for a Brambling.
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 Acc Pretty complete description.  Plus, I remember this bird and the circumstances surrounding its sighting.  Not sure I saw this one, but timing coincides with other sightings in Cache County.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 Acc This record is imperfect but appears adequate to me:

1) Good time of year & behavior (Bramblings are shy).

2) The collar on a winter female should be gray or pale gray rather than white. But I suppose pale gray could be seen as white.

3) Cheeks should be pale brown contrasting with the gray collar, and not gray. However, one source does describe the cheeks as grayish brown, so again this field mark does not seem fatal to the ID.

4) I wish the nature of the apricot/dark "bands" on the wings had been better described. Do these "bands" refer to streaks caused by flight feather edgings (as is found in several species) or do they refer to wingbars (scapulars and greater & lesser coverts) such as are found in fewer species (incl. Bramblings)? To me, "bands" sound more like the latter.

Comparison to similar species:

> Lapland longspur female/juvenile is eliminated by the gray cheeks, light rump, and apricot rather than buffy breast. Otherwise that species is similar to the description of the Brambling.

> Tristran's bunting was the closest-matching Emberiza genus bunting (many of which share various combinations of field marks described, and some of which look superficially similar to a Brambling) that I could find. However, Tristan's buntings have a dark reddish-brown rump and different head markings, and aren't any more likely to occur in Utah than a Brambling.

In short, I really don't know what other species this could be other than a Brambling.

It is unfortunate that the photo has been lost. Milt, is there any chance of contacting the photographer to have it replaced, as this is such an unusual sighting?

    

2006-08(R82) Wood Thrush

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 May 2006 No, ID Size, relative to other birds is somewhat convincing; timing is peculiar; however the sparse description (particularly the face
pattern and "pale yellow or buff undertail coverts") does not adequately limit Catharus thrushes.

2nd round:

26 May 2006 No, ID As per first round comments, timing is questionable, and description does not adequately eliminate Catharus thrushes.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc I think this is a adequate description of a relatively distinct species. Description of the facial pattern, head and back, and
underparts should eliminate other similar thrushes. Direct comparison with hermit thrush was good.

2nd round:

5 Jul 2006 No, ID While this may have been a Wood Thrush, I am changing my vote based on the the unusual timing of this record (thanks David for the information) and on what may be insufficient field marks. A more thorough description that would rule out the other Catharus thrushes is necessary.
Terry S. 6 Apr 2006 No, ID While some parts of this record sound good for a Wood Thrush such as the comparative size with other thrushes that were present and the chunky fat appearance, the description leaves out field marks that are important. There was no mention of the contrasting color of the head and back. Little or no description was given for the color of the under parts and the color and size of the breast spots and how far they extended into the belly. The eye ring and cheek streaking were mentioned
but sounded from the description they were faint and not a prominant field mark.

2nd round:

31 May 2006 No, ID I still have concerns with this record as stated previously
Mark S. 6 Apr 2006 Acc I think the description adequately eliminates the possibility of a heavily spotted Hermit Thrush, which is the only other thrush I can think of that might fit this bird. The rufous crown and nape, along with the steaks on the auriculars should by themselves eliminate Hermit Thrush.

2nd round:

12 Jul 2006 No, ID Thanks to David's research on the dates, I'll change my vote. There are enough ambiguities about the description that, though it sounds like a Wood Thrush, I don't think the evidence is strong enough to demonstrate the presence of a Wood Thrush so far out of the regular expected season.
Larry T. 24 Apr 2006 No, ID This is a very puzzling record. The description sounds pretty good for a Wood Thrush but the date would have to be of a wintering bird.Are there any over wintering records of this bird in the west? And this far north.

2nd round:

28 May 2006 No, ID As above.
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 Acc It was nice that Helen had other thrushes nearby with which to compare this one.  The size, shape and color seem to be accurate descriptions of this species.

2nd round:

17 Jul 2006 Acc I still feel the description is adequate; therefore I am staying with my original vote.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 Acc The size (incl. comparison to birds next to it), facial stripes, and rufous upperparts clinch it for me.

A Swainson's thrush is larger than a Hermit thrush, but only barely, and certainly nowhere near the 8 1/2" long described for this bird. I do wish there had been a better description of the spots to strengthen the ID.

I am curious whether the early date is troubling to anyone else on the Committee.

2nd round:

17 May 2006 No, ID I am starting to question whether this ID truly eliminates other thrushes. I still believe this bird was a Wood thrush, but am no
longer as confident.

I have looked into the migration patterns for the Wood thrush (using "The Birds of North America Online" -- from Cornell & AOU), and it is shown to start arriving in USA in mid April (over a full month after this record). The winter range for the species is central Mexico to Panama, so is not very close to Utah (while the Hermit thrush can regularly be found in the Salt Lake Valley area year-round). The winter records in the USA for this species are for early winter, and it is presumed that
those individuals did not survive into spring. Therefore, the timing of this record is very unusual indeed.

The description, though in several respects very convincing for a Wood thrush, is somewhat vague. The size differential between this bird and the nearby Hermit thrush is not really quantified, so the absolute measurement is less convincing.

I will change my vote to be conservative on this record -- not because I think the description is wrong, but because it is a bit vague and the timing is very suspicious.

  

2006-09(R82) Philadelphia Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 May 2006 No, ID The description is marginal for such a challenging vagrant. I would have liked to have seen more on shape, size, etc. (Phil. Vireos are noticeably different-shaped than Warbler, Red-eyed etc, (more stocky/plump, long undertail coverts, short thin tail...). Also info on crown and primary contrast would have been helpful. I do like the (somewhat vague) comment "yellow from chin to belly". (I've found that one of the best characteristics (besides shape) is the location of the yellow on the undersides...with Warbling Vireos having the brightest yellow on the flanks, and Philadelphia Vireos, in all plumages, having the brightest yellow on the center of the chest, . So perhaps, I could be swayed by some discussion, but I don't believe the description adequately eliminates a bright spring swainsoni Warbling Vireo.

2nd round:

26 May 2006 No, ID I'll stand by my first round comments, the description simply is not adequate to eliminate a Swainsonii Warbling Vireo, which can show extensive bright yellow on the undersides. No mention is made of several key characteristics (size, shape, contrasting crown and primaries, distribution of yellow on undersides, etc.) that I believe are necessary to clinch this difficult id.

3rd round:

17 Jul 2006 No, ID As per 1st and 2nd round comments, there simply is not enough in the description to accept this record. Philadelphia Vireos are rare throughout the west, very similiar to several other species, and difficult to identify, therefore I find it hard to accept this record with such a limited description.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc I feel this is an acceptable description of a difficult ID. Most important in separating this from a warbling vireo are the dark
lores and yellow in the center of the throat and breast.

2nd round:

5 Jul 2006 No, ID I am changing my vote based upon comments from the other reviewers concerning the possibility of this bird being a bright warbling vireo. There seems to be insufficient information on the overall shape, location of the brightest yellow on the breast, the darkness of the lores, and shape of the supercilium to eliminate warbling vireo.

3rd round:

28 Jul 2006 No, ID My comments from round two still apply. Just not enough information for a convincing record of a difficult ID.
Terry S. 15 Apr 2006 Acc While this description is rather concise the dark stripe running through the eye becoming darker in the lores is a good field mark for Philidelphia Vireo. The yellow underparts that are brightest yellow in the throat and chest region is also good. I wish better description of the overall shape of the bird was given including the length of the tail.

2nd round:

31 May 2006 No, ID I am changing my vote not to accept this record. Other comments have convinced me that the description does not adequately rule out a bright Warbling Vireo. While the dark loral area sounds good, too much is missing from the rest of the description to rely on this characteristic alone.

3rd round:

18 Jul 2006 No, ID Same as my second round comments
Mark S. 6 Apr 2006 Acc The analysis of similar species in this record is faulty as the intensity of the color alone does not safely eliminate all Warbling
Vireos. However, his note that the eyeline became darker in the lores is sufficient to eliminate Warbling Vireo, which should not have any dark in the loral area.

2nd round:

12 Jul 2006 Acc I still have trouble reconciling the descrption of the eyeline with a bright Warbling Vireo. Although identifications should never be made on only one field mark, the rest of the description is consistant with Philadelphia Vireo. I think it's harder to explain this as a Warbling Vireo than a Philadelphia.

3rd round:

18 Jul 2006 Acc As per my earlier comments.
Larry T. 6 Apr 2006 No, ID The observer doesn't do a very good job of eliminating a bright Warbling Vireo.

2nd round:

28 May 2006 No, ID There are more bad things about this description than good ones. The only good things about it are the yellow underparts (but he doesn't say where it was the brightest like the center of the breast ) and the dark eyeline into the lores. And a Warbling can have some dark in the lores maybe not as dark as a Philly but they can have some.

There is nothing about the shape of the bird which is much more compact looking than a Warbling is. The head is rounder looking along with the shorter tail make it look more like a large Kinglet. And the upperparts shouldn't be uniform in color. You should see contrast from the nape to the back.

He said he had never seen a Philly before and maybe not a bright subspecies of Warbling either. Also the date is early for a philly which is a later migrant than a Warbling. I would expect a spring Philly (which is very rare in the west) to be from mid May on.

The description is just lacking to much for me to accept this as a Philadelphia Vireo from someone without any experiance with them.

3rd round:

6 Aug 2006 No, ID  
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 Acc The observer mentioned the extensive yellow on the underparts which for me eliminates the Warbling Vireo.  Stubby nature of the bird, mentioned by the observer, also seems to eliminate the slimmer Warbling Vireo and the Orange-crowned Warbler.

2nd round:

25 May 2006 Acc I still believe the description of the yellowish underparts elilminates the Warbling Vireo.  The description of the back and head also eliminates the Warbling Vireo which seems to be more of an overall uniform gray in color.

3rd round:

17 Jul 2006 Acc As mentioned above.  Nothing new to add.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 Acc Dark eyestripe becoming darker in the lores and distribution of yellow on the upper breast (becoming less yellow in the belly) both eliminate Warbling vireo. However, I was somewhat troubled by the statement that the head was gray-green, uniform with the back. It should have been grayer than the back.

Unfortunately, the shape of the supercilium behind the eye was not mentioned, as that could have been helpful as well (it should be broader for the Warbling vireo than the Philadelphia vireo). The Tennessee warbler is eliminated with less certainty in my mind. I wish the observer had been more specific as to how far down the belly the yellow extended. The undertail coverts/vent area were undescribed. However, the Tennessee warbler definitely does not have a short, stubby
bill. The warbler should have an even more obviuously contrasting gray head.

2nd round:

17 May 2006 Acc  

3rd round:

17 Jul 2006 Acc  

  

2006-10(R82) Philadelphia Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 May 206 No, ID I believe the description is a better fit for a celata Orange-crowned Warbler or possibly a Tenn. Warbler. There are several
aspects of the description, particularly the comment on upper breast color, that are inconsistent with a Philadelphia Vireo.

2nd round:

26 May 2006 No. ID See comments on first round and for 2006-09.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 No, ID I feel the described bird is more like a bright warbling vireo than a Philadelphia. In particular, the gray back and lack of
yellow in throat and chest are more like warbing vireo.

2nd round:

16 Jun 2006 No. ID My comments from the first round still apply.
Terry S. 15 Apr 2006 No, ID This sounds like it might be a bright Warbling Vireo. No mention is made of the dark line through the eye becoming darker in the lores. Also a Philidelphia Vireo should show brightest yellow in the throat region not the under-tail coverts. No mention is made of the general morphological characteristics including chunkines, length of tail, etc.

2nd round:

31 May 2006 No. ID  
Mark S. 6 Apr 2006 No, ID I don't think that the description adequately eliminates bright subspecies of Warbling Vireo.

2nd round:

12 Jul 2006 No. ID I still think that this is a bright Warbling Vireo.
Larry T. 24 Apr 2006 No, ID Sounds like a Warbling Vireo.

2nd round:

28 May 2006 No. ID  
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 Acc The description seemed adequate to me, plus I think he eliminated the possibility that it was a Warbling Vireo based on the description of the yellow underparts and the size.

2nd round:

25 May 2006 No. ID I suppose the observer didn't adequately eliminate the possibility of other species such as a Warbling Vireo or an Orange-crowned Warbler.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 No, ID The observer didn't adequately eliminate the possibility of a bright Warbling vireo.

The pattern of yellow is wrong for a Philadelphia, and more like a Warbling vireo. Both species can have yellow underparts, but the Philadelphia should always have the brightest yellow on the upper breast/lower throat.

The lores were not discussed. They should be darker than the rest of the eyestripe in the Philadelphia vireo (the Warbling vireo can have faintly dark lores too, but they should be paler than behind the eye). The description didn't specify that the eyestripe actually extended into the lore region at all, let alone how dark it was.

Unfortunately, the shape of the supercilium behind the eye was not mentioned, as that could have been helpful as well.

2nd round:

17 May 2006 No, ID I still believe this could have been a bright Warbling vireo.

  

2006-11(R82) Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 May 2006 Acc Very scant description, however (some) key characters were described.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc Adequate description, especially wing and tail patterns.
Terry S. 15 Apr 2006 Acc Very good description.
Mark S. 6 Apr 2006 Acc Dark wing linings, among other noted features, eliminate other possibilities.
Larry T. 24 Apr 2006 Acc Good description.
Merrill W. 6 Apr 2006 Acc No question on this one.  Dennis shot it, Clayton White of BYU stuffed it, and it is in the museum collection at BYU.
David W. 4 Apr 2006 Acc The observer did a good job differentiating between a Hudsonian godwit and the Bar-tailed & Marbled godwits (the tail alone pretty much clinched those). However, I was surprised the observer chose to address the similarity between the Bar-tailed godwit but not the much more similar Black-tailed godwit. The latter species also shares a broad, white wingbar (broader, in fact, on the upper surface of the wing), has an almost identical tail, similar bill length, etc. However, the
Black-tailed godwit is eliminated by the dark ruddy belly color (darker than breast), upturned bill, contrasting gray head and face in breeding individual, and black wing lining.

I wish the white wing bar had been better described (was it diffuse as in a Hudsonian or clearly demarkated as in a Black-tailed?). However, I feel that the case for a Hudsonian godwit was clearly made.

   

2006-12(R82) Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 May 2006 Acc This is another very brief description, however this are very striking and easily identified birds (and nothing else is pale gray,
white, and salmon, with long black tail).

2nd round:

 26 May 2006 Acc I concur with Merrill's expressed concerns about identifying an out-of-range vagrant at 60 mph,...except in the case of something like a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. I've routinely identified (correctly, I believe?) these strikingly distinctive birds while traveling 70 mph along I-70 in Kansas.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc Adequate description of a distinct species.

2nd round:

 16 Jun 2006 Acc I still feel the description is adequate.
Terry S. 9 Apr 2006 Acc Good description of of this unmistakable species.

2nd round:

 31 May 2006 Acc  
Mark S. 6 Apr. 2006 Acc Good description of a distinctive species.

2nd round:

 12 Jul 2006 Acc  
Larry T. 24 Apr. 2006 Acc Good time of year for this very distinct species.

2nd round:

 28 May 2006 Acc  
Merrill W. 16 May 2006 No, ID  I vote 'no' based on the brevity of the sighting. Not long enough time to see all the details listed.
(This comment is from memory, based on discussion with the observer, and also the description he submitted).

2nd round:

 25 May 2006 Acc I was interested in how other members might vote on this.  The contact with the observer that I had was that shortly after he saw this bird he called me to tell me that he had seen it from the car as he was traveling north at the speed of about 60 mph.  He didn't stop to study it, just saw it as he was traveling.  In my mind I didn't feel this was enough time to adequately make a correct identity.  However, seeing that everyone else on the committee thinks that its adequate, then I will change my vote to accept.  Apparently all of the important fieldmarks were described, but I didn't feel that there was enough time to do so.  Therefore I will vote with the rest of you to accept.
David W. 1 Apr 2006 Acc Clear description eliminates any other possibilities.

2nd round:

 24 May 2006 Acc I would be very interested in hearing anything else Merrill might have to say regarding what he knows regarding the record. But until I do, I will vote on the record as presented.

   

2006-13(R82) Least Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May No, ID There is nothing in the physical description of the bird that convinces me a Least Flycatcher was observed. The plumage, shape and size description given could be of any Empidonax flycatcher, and the comment that it "resembled a Western or Gray Flycatcher" makes me question whether a Least Flycatcher was observed (perhaps if he stated it resembled a Dusky or Hammond's Flycatcher...). On the surface, the described "call" as "che-Bek" is some what convincing, however the observer has "no prior experience" with seeing or HEARING Least Flycatchers. The che-bek song of a Least Flycatcher is very distinctive, however many other empids can give two note calls or portions of songs. For example a quick look at popular field guides describes Dusky's as giving a 'dew-hic' or "che-rip", Hammond's with a tsi-pik or chi-pit , Gray with
chu-wip Cordillereans with a tee-seet or pit-peet , etc. The Kaufman guide (1990) cautions that when the two-syllabled element of the !Hammond s Flycatcher song is given by itself, it can strongly suggest the che-bek of Least Flycatcher .
I'm not convinced solely based on a song description, without the corroborating aid of a recording, photograph, or at minimum, a convincing physical description.

2nd round:

 11 Jun 2006 No, ID  

3rd round:

 31 Jul 2006 No, ID Again, the description could be of any empid, and is not convincing for a Least Flycatcher. And I agree the 'che-bek' call of the Least Flycatcher is distinctive, however several other empids can repeatedly give a two-note call that may be mistaken as 'che-bek' by someone who has never heard a Least Flycatcher.
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc Adequate description of an Empidonax flycatcher. Description of distinct voice sufficient to rule out other species. Habitat and date of observation consistent more recent records.

2nd round:

 28 Jul 2006 Acc I enjoyed the discussion on this record. However, I am voting again to accept. I agree with Mark on this record: The calling
continuous calling behavior of the bird and the description of the call are only consistent with a least flycather.

3rd round:

 29 Sep 2006 Acc My comments from the first 2 rounds still apply.
Terry S. 9 Apr 2006 Acc While the physical description of the bird is weak the description of the the repeated vocaliztion is good for Least Flycatcher. If this record is accepted I believe chronologically it would be the first state record. If I were voting in 1982 I probably wouldn't accept the record without a better description. I could be persuaded either way on this one.

2nd round:

 31 May 2006 No, ID I have been persuaded that the observer's non-familiarity with the species and the call makes this record suspect.

3rd round:

 7 Sep 2006 No, ID  
Mark S. 6 Apr. 2006 Acc Call noted clinches this one.

2nd round:

 12 Jul 2006 Acc  I don't think that in 1982 the visual i.d. of Empidonax species was well known or at least noted in the available references,
therefore I'm willing to overlook weakness in the description of the appearance, as distinctive features of the flycatchers were largely unknown. The conventional wisdom of the time was that Empids could be identified only by voice. The voice of Least Flycatcher is one of the most distinctive of the empids and exactly fits the description given here. Although Hammond's, Dusky, and even Gray Flycatcher can give "che-bek"-like notes, they don't do it repeatedly over an extended time (the observer logged about 1 1/2 hours of time with this bird over two days). I would think that over such a long time other calls would have been noted of it were one of the other empids. "Loud and persistant" che-BEK sounds only like Least Flycatcher to me. Also, the habitat and time of year don't really fit for Hammond's, Dusky or especially Gray Flycatchers. !They are completely consistant with our recent records for Least Flycatcher.

3rd round:

 19 Oct 2006 Acc I still think that a continually calling (over two days of observation) Least Flycatcher would be difficult to mistake for even an inexperienced observer.
Larry T. 24 Apr. 2006 No, ID The call sounds good for Least but for someone without any experiance with it I'm afraid to accept it on that alone. It would be nice to have a better description of the bird.

2nd round:

 5 Jun 2006 No, ID  I don't think there is enough to go on for this difficult ID.

3rd round:

 6 Aug 2006 No, ID  
Merrill W. 6 Apr. 2006 Acc Voice description and size and coloration are pretty definitive.

2nd round:

 17 Jul 2006 Acc I still feel like the call that the observer described eliminates all other Empids; I still vote to accept it.

3rd round:

 29 Sep 2006 Acc Same as before.  If the observer heard the call notes and described the notes I still feel that the description is adequate to accept.
David W. 6 Apr 2006 No, ID I was really torn on this one. If the observer really is familiar with all the calls of the Empidonax flycatchers, then the presented field marks are sufficient. But the observer made no mention of audio references and said he had no personal experience with this species. Does that mean he was simply basing his ID on written renderings in field guides? If so, that introduces uncertainty to his ID. The Empidonax will sometimes call for extensive periods with just a portion of their full calls (songs), and some of those snippets could certainly be rendered as "chebek".

In the absence of information about the observer's access to audio tapes, I would like to have seen information about bill shape & size relative to other flycathcers rather than songbirds in general, bill color, tail length, and relative head size jizz.

Also, what was the spacing between the calls?

2nd round:

 31 May 2006 No, ID I still feel there is some room for doubt on this ID.

3rd round:

 1 Aug 2006 No, ID I'm sticking with no on this one. There is ample room for doubt here.

  

2006-14(R82) Black Scoter

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 26 May 2006 Acc Adequate descriptions
Ronald R. 8 May 2006 Acc Both records have good descriptions.
Terry S. 9 Apr 2006 Acc Very good descriptions given. Other possible species effectively eliminated.
Mark S. 6 Apr. 2006 Acc Both descriptions adequate.
Larry T. 24 Apr. 2006 Acc Good description of a Black Scoter.
Merrill W. 6 Apr. 2006 Acc Mark Bromley and I spent quite a bit of time trying to I.D. this one because it was new to both of us.  At about the time we had decided that it was a Black Scoter Mike Tove drove up.  We excitedly told him to look at this bird, and before we could tell him what we thought it was, he exclaimed, "Oh, it's a Black Scoter" matter-of-factly.  So, a little history on the discovery of this one.
David W. 14 Apr 2006 Acc I think the case was made, if only barely, for this not being a Ruddy duck. I was troubled by the size given for the bird (far
smaller than a Black scoter!) and the description of the extent of the throat patch (to just below malar region), but overall the balance of evidence supports a Black scoter.
      2006-13(R82)

Species_Name_1: Least Flycatcher

Vote_1: No, ID

Comment_1: I still feel there is some room for doubt on this ID.