Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2006 (records 31 to 45)

2006-31 Great Gray Owl

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Sep 2006	Acc	I think this is an exceptional record and I like the idea that this Great Gray Owl irruption event was finally documented almost 60 years after the event. I think we should look up the old newspaper files, as suggested, and get the approximate locations of the Owls observed during this event.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	No, ID	Anyone in the Salt Lake area up for checking the Deseret News archives for this story and photos? If not, there clearly isn't enough documentation in the record itself. I very much appreciate the observer taking time to document this record.
Ronald R.	23 Oct 2006	No, ID	While the owl observed was likely a Great Gray, the description is not sufficient to rule out great horned owl.
2nd round	5 Dec 2006	No, ID	My comments still apply.
Terry S.	22 Sep 2006	No, ID	While I appreciate the observer wanting to submit an old sighting of a notable species I think this record is too old to consider. There really is no discription given and memory of a sighting over 50 years ago is difficult to consider.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	No, ID	As per my first round comments
Mark S.	20 Nov 2006	No, ID	Interesting record, and I really don't doubt its veracity, but the details are too sketchy and the record too old for me to accept based upon the data. It would be an interesting data-point to check what the news reports of the day were.
2nd round	9 Dec 2006	No, ID	I, too, would like to thank Steve for submitting this very interesting record, even if it falls out of the realm of acceptable records for this committee.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2006	No, ID	I would accept this one if there was any type of description.
2nd round	22 Dec 2006	No, ID	As before.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	No, ID	I respect Steve Carr as a very good observer, but, the description is so inadequate that I can't really accept this record as an authentic Gt. Gray Owl. Sorry.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	No, ID	Staying with my first comments.
David W.	23 Aug 2006	No, ID	`I found this very interesting historically, but there isn't much to vote on so far as field marks.`
2nd round	26 Nov 2006	No, ID

2006-32 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Sep 2006	Acc	Brief, but nice complete record of a first-fall Chestnut-sided Warbler
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Good description and helpful photo (although face is not visible to show eye-ring).
Terry S.	6 Sep 2006	Acc	Accept
Mark S.	20 Nov 2006	Acc	The description, photo and behavior all support this identification.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2006	Acc
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Very good description and sufficient information eliminating other species that might be confused with the species. Photo was nice, but verbal description was the clincher for me.
David W.	6 Sep 2006	Acc

2006-33 Pacific Golden-Plover

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	Simply an outstanding record. Excellent write-ups and definitive photographs.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Well documented, including excellent photos. All important field marks well documented.
Terry S.	2 Oct 2006	Acc	What a well documented bird! The Photos submitted are excellent. Great effort in eliminating American Golden-Plover as a possibility even though the review bird has worn plumage making identification difficult.
Mark S.	20 Nov 2006	Acc	A very well-documented record. The identification was supported by many experts around the country on ID Frontiers without dissent.
Larry T.	30 Sep 2006	Acc	Great bird.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Photos are pretty conclusive. Great dialogue between observers on this one. Pretty convincing evidence for this species.
David W.	7 Sep 2006	Acc	This has been one of the most discussed birdnet birds in recent months, with many people weighing in as to why the bird is or isn't a Pacific golden-plover. During these discussions, others have pointed out other significant field marks about this bird suggesting Pacific plover, including the fact that its primaries are in mid-molt, its legs stick out behind the tail in flight, and the overall shape/posture of the bird. Paul Higgins' photos are absolutely amazing! Much of the internet discussion on this bird would not have been possible without them.

2006-34 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	Description is somewhat sparse, but adequate.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	Acc	I think Terry brings up some good points, but the characteristics described do not fit well with any other species. The only other shorebird species with a white rump are: Wilson's Phalarope, the yellowlegs, Willet, and Curlew and Stilt Sandpipers.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Well described, eliminates other species. Long, careful observation.
2nd round	10 Dec 2006	Acc	I am voting to again accept this record given the characteristics presented. I appreciate Terry's comments, but I don't feel the pattern of records rules out the possibility of a juvenile in late August in Utah unless juveniles are unable to sustain long flights in mid to late August. The smattering of adult records in the interior west in July and August indicate that some individuals don't follow the eastward migration pattern. One wonders if they started their unusual migration pattern as juveniles.
Terry S.	3 Oct 2006	No, ID	I have concerns about this record. First, the sighting is suspect from the reported date the bird was seen. White-rumped Sandpipers are late fall migrants and Juveniles even more so. Aug. 23 sounds too early. Also, migration route of White-rumped Sandpipers is through the Atlantic route. Are there any records of Juveniles in Western U.S.? Some of the description raises concern. The nape is described as grizzled, rusty brown. I believe Juveniles should show more of a finely streaked grayish color through the nape contasting with a dark streaked rusty cap. the breast and upper flanks should also be a finely streaked gray tone. The completely white rump is perplexing since only a few sandpipers of this size shoe this characteristic
2nd round	9 Dec 2006	No, ID	I still have concern with this record. O'Brien, Crossley and Karlson The Shorebird Guide 2006; Alderfer Complete Birds of North America: and Hayman, Marchant, and Prater Shorebirds 1986 all mention the late migration of juveniles, rarely recorded South of Canada before mid September. Also the fall Migration follows a far Eastern route through the Atlantic Coast. I agree the description of the bird favors a juvenile White-rumped Sandpiper but the probability that a juvenile would show up in Utah on Aug. 23 seems very low. I realize that we have had even less probable sightings but just wanted to raise my concerns with this sighting again. One reference cites that Juveniles have yet to be documented in the western states, so if this is in fact a valid sighting it is truly remarkable and noteworthy.
Mark S.	20 Nov 2006	Acc	Excellent description of a well-observed bird eliminates other likely species. All of the definitive field marks were described.
2nd round	9 Dec 2006	Acc	I appreciate David's thorough analysis, and concur that I can't think of what else would fit this description.
Larry T.	2 Oct 2006	Acc	Good description.
2nd round	2 Jan 2007	No, ID	It would have been great to have a photo of this bird. From the info I've found this would be the first record of a HY bird in the western lower 48 ever anytime in fall! The east coast rarely sees them before mid Sept.I was told by experts that it was either a molting adult or a misidentified bird. And from the description it's hard to make it anything but a HY bird.It's certainly possible for a HY bird to show up but like Jon Dunn said lets see some solid phsyical evedence first.Could it have been a HY Stilt or Curlew Sandpiper? With the length of time of the observation it hard to think they could have blown the ID. But I guess it is possible without any experiance with this bird. I guess with the distribution of HY White-rumped Sandpipers and the observers lack of experiance with the species I will have to switch my vote on this one. Thank's Terry for making me look at this one closer.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Good description, plus adequate details on eliminating other sandpipers.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	Acc	I still feel that the description is adequate enough to accept this. The observers had plenty of time to observe all the field marks which they have reported sufficiently well enough to accept.
David W.	8 Sep 2006	Acc	Nice description.
2nd round	8 Dec 2006	Acc	According to Cornell's "Birds of North America Online", the fall migration for the species begins in mid June, just barely after the spring migration ends, and runs through mid October (since they fly all the way to Patagonia, eventually). Terry is correct in noting that the southward migration is generally well to the east of us, but then this is a rarity. As for the nape, Cornell's site describes the upperparts on a juvenile as follows: "Scapulars, tertials, and mantle feathers black with rounded tips, narrow pale cinnamon fringe at sides and narrow white fringe at tips, appearing scaled; upper tail coverts uniform white (Cramp and Simmons, 1983). Crown streaked sepia, feathers edged tawny; nape ash brown streaked darker." This is not a perfect match, but not out of the question either. I guess my observation is that the description eliminates any other possibilities. If not this species, then which?

2006-35 Eastern Phoebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	Good description.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Very well described observation. Eliminates other species.
Terry S.	28 Sep 2006	Acc	Excellent description and careful analysis eliminating similar species.
Mark S.	20 Nov 2006	Acc	Excellent description and analysis - appearance and behavior support this i.d.
Larry T.	2 Oct 2006	Acc	Complete description of a fall Eastern Phoebe.
Merrill W.	14 Nov 2006	Acc	Yellowish belly and all dark bill help. However, I would have liked a comment on tail movement. None mentioned.
David W.	7 Sep 2006	Acc	Accept

2006-36 Mourning Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	No, ID	This is a difficult record. The description is rather sparse, and I'd like to have seen more on size and stucture of bill, wings, tail length, undertail coverts etc., to help rule out a Common Yellowthroat. First-fall birds of these species can be difficult to distinguish, so I'd like to see some discussion on this one. As an aside, I've found that the call notes of these species are quite different, and both are relatively easy to provoke calling, if you can't get clear, definitive views.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	No, ID	While the description is fairly complete, I am not sure it rules out a bright juvenile orange-crowned warbler. I would like to see this difficult ID this go a second round.
Terry S.	3 Oct 2006	No, ID	Immature female Mourning Warblers are difficult to itentify. The rather sparse description leaves out a lot of information especially tail length,extension of undertail coverts etc. With broad variability in eye arc thickness and the amount of yellow in the breast and under parts it is difficult to rule out MacGillivray's or Common Yellowthroat without a specimen or excellent photographs.
Mark S.	20 Nov 2006	No, ID	I'd like to see this difficult i.d. get some discussion. It's too bad that we don't have information on the length of the undertail coverts or the bill color. I'm not sure that Common Yellowthroat can be safely eliminated from this description.
Larry T.	2 Oct 2006	No, ID	I don't feel comfortable accepting this species in this plumage by a single observer without a lot of experience with both birds in immature fall plumage or great pics. There is just to much overlap in the field marks. This description sounds like it could easily be of a Mac. There isn't any description of the tail length and no call notes were heard either.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	No, ID	This is a hard one for me. I feel that the observer hasn't adequately eliminated the possibility of MacGillivray's or even the Connecticut Warbler based on the description submitted. So, I remain unconvinced.
David W.	7 Sep 2006	No, ID	I am not entirely convinced by this record and would like to see it go to the second round. I am especially troubled by the pale eyebrow stripe, which, to my knowledge, is wrong for a Mourning warbler in any plumage. I do not think the observer adequately eliminated the possibility of some other warbler, like perhaps an immature female Hooded warbler or an especially yellow-bellied Yellowthroat (which are more common in the southwest of that species' range). Both these species can have what might be described as a pale eyebrow stripe, while being similar to the description provided in this record. Or perhaps an especially yellow-bellied 1st-year orange-crowned? Without a quantified description of the broken eyering / eye crescents, that field mark is less definitive, and, according to Curson, et al (1994), immature MacGillivray's do occasionally have a yellow wash to the throat (though this doesn't help with the eyebrow problem). As I said, I would like to see this record discussed some more, especially since a Mourning warbler has not definitevely been recorded in Utah before, and it sounds like this bird was secretive and stayed mostly hidden.

2006-37 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	Nice record, tail description is characteristic.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Adequate description to rule out other species. Described tail pattern is distinctive. Observer failed to note white undertail coverts.
Terry S.	11 Oct 2006	Acc	While the description of the bird is lacking a lot of detail, the observer has experience with the species and described the very destinctive tail pattern of this species
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	Acc	I'm a little hesitant to accept this on the first round as I'm not sure that the observer is entirely familiar with our western warblers (although obviously he knows the eastern species quite well) and I'm puzzled as to why Yellow-rumped Warbler wasn't considered among the similar species. I would think that that would be one of the most likely alternatives. However, the undertail pattern is quite distinctive in Magnolia Warbler, a fits the description given.
Larry T.	2 Oct 2006	Acc	The description is lacking a few things. But the tail is distinct and the observer seems to have a lot of experience with this bird.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Adequate details and convincing argument eliminating other possible warblers.
David W.	12 Sep 2006	Acc	Convincing description of a fairly distinctive bird.

2006-38 Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	Nice job separating the very similar fall Bay-breasted and Pine Warblers. Leg color would also have helped, however description of back and side streaking are correct for Blackpoll.
2nd round	7 Dec 1006	Acc	Although leg color would have been a key additional detail, I think the description is adequate for a Blackpoll Warbler.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Adequate description of a difficult ID. Observation of white undertail coverts would have been helpful, but not fully necessary. Leg color not particularly useful with first fall birds.
2nd round	10 Dec 1006	Acc	I will stick with my original vote as I feel the description is sufficient. Mark brings up some good points, but my experience with blackpoll warblers from the east and yellow-rumped in the west suggests little difficulty in making this differentiation with a view as good as described.
Terry S.	28 Sep 2006	Acc	Good description from observer familiar with the species
2nd round	9 Dec 1006	Acc	I still believe the observer did a good job of eliminating other species.
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	No, ID	I'm "splitting" my vote with record 2006-37 because I would like to see some discussion on this one. I'm concerned about the lighting conditions, the brevity of the view, and the observer's familiarity with western warblers. It's obvious that he's well practiced in the eastern warblers, but the fact that none of the western forms, such as Audubon's (which could be an issue here) were considered suggests to me that not all of the realistic options in this part of the country were seriously analysed. Even a dull, first fall Townsend's could be confusing for this species with such a brief look in questionable light.
2nd round	9 Dec 1006	No, ID	I think this record will pass, and probably rightly so, but I'd like to maintain a vote of dissent based upon the brevity of the view, questionable lighting, and unfamiliarity with our western warblers. I've seen far too many experienced birders from the east look at a dull fall Audubon's and express disbelief that it could be a Yellow-rumped to be comfortable with an analysis that doesn't even consider it as a possibility.
Larry T.	15 Oct 2006	Acc	Good Description to eliminate similar species
2nd round	2 Jan 2007	Acc	I agree it would be hard to misidentify a Blackpoll with anything other than Bay-breasted or Pine with a decent look if your experianced with the bird.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Adequately (at least for me) eliminated the Bay-breasted and Pine Warblers. I wouldn't mind having a "fine-tuned" ability in identifying fall warblers.
2nd round	7 Dec 1006	Acc	I still feel that the observer did a sufficient enough job in eliminating other species with which this bird might have been confused. So I will stay with my original vote to accept.
David W.	12 Sep 2006	Acc	Nice job eliminating similar species, though it might have been better had the observer also dealt with Townsend's warbler [but perhaps I might not feel that way if I knew what "Baypoll" look to the face means for sure (presumably Bay-breasted/Blackpoll--a term I'm guessing comes from places where the two species are common).
2nd round	8 Dec 1006	Acc	Mark raises some good points. I also had a bit of angst about the newness of the observer to our area, with such good fortune. But the description sounds good.

2006-39 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	Very limited description, but adequate for a Northern Parula. However no mention of bill color or tail pattern, etc.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Good description. Sufficient to rule out other species.
Terry S.	17 Oct 2006	Acc
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	Acc	Good description of a well-seen bird.
Larry T.	15 Oct 2006	Acc	Good description.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Adequately described all the definitive field marks.
David W.	22 Sep 2006	Acc	Wingbars, eye-crescents, back color, breast & belly color -- that combinations of field marks sounds very convincing to me.

2006-40 Broad-winged Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc	sparse, but nice description.
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Adequate description of a lightly marked light juvenile. Description sufficient to rule out red-shouldered hawk and other species.
Terry S.	12 Oct 2006	Acc
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	Acc	Good description adequately eliminates similar species.
Larry T.	15 Oct 2006	Acc	Accept
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Adequate description eliminating any other possible raptor species.
David W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc

2006-41 Heermann's Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	No, Nat	I was about to vote yes on this one, but then I started thinking about the recent Painted Bunting record and decided that I couldn't be sure this Heermann's Gull didn't escape from one of the rapidly expanding developments nearby. Of course I've never met anyone with a Heermann's Gull, but then again, I've never met anyone with a Painted Bunting either.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	Acc	Yes, my first round comments were a joke, albeit a pointed one. Obviously there is a much greater chance that a Painted Bunting may be an escapee than a Heermann's Gull, however I think it's easy for the committee to fall into a pattern of voting against accepting records of some species simply because they MAY be introduced (or a hybrid), even if the timing is correct for a natural vagrant and nothing in the submitted documentation suggests an escapee (or a hybrid). And Merrill, of course I chose to try and make this point on a record that I submitted. Can you imagine the scale of my "audacity" and your reaction, if I did this on a record by another observer?
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	Adequate description and photos of this distinctive species.
2nd round	10 Dec 2006	Acc	My assessment from the first round still applies. Good point by Rick, but unfortunately I (like Mark) have seen a number of these in cages at the market in Mexico (even in border towns).
Terry S.	12 Oct 2006	Acc	Photos are convincing.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	Acc
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	Acc	An unmistakable species well-described and photographed.
2nd round	9 Dec 2006	Acc	Although I appreciate Rick's skepticism ;-), I have to admit that even here in Mexico, where they love their birds so much that many people insist on having them in cages, I've never seen someone with a gull in a cage. But if they did, Heermann's would be a good choice, being more colorful than most. For the record, Painted Buntings are commonly kept, and I've even seen them for sale on street corners here.
Larry T.	15 Oct 2006	Acc	Pics clinch this one.
2nd round	24 Jan 2007	Acc
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Nice photos. Pretty definitive.
2nd round	7 Dec 2006	Acc	Let me see if I understand this. Mr. Fridell submits this record as a Heerman's Gull and then has the audacity to vote against his own description and photo because he thinks it might be an escapee. Sure!!! Be that way. At least we as a committee are the only ones that get to observe such obstinance. Right? Wrong. Okay, then, I still vote to accept it in spite of what the observer says.
David W.	28 Sep 2006	Acc	A great record.
2nd round	1 Dec 2006	Acc	Joking, surely, Mr. Fridell. At least it made me laugh to think of a pet gull, even one as beautiful as this species. Perhaps they are kept for their lovely, canary-like song? ;o)

2006-42 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Nov 2006	Acc
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	This is a difficult ID as chimney swift is very similar. Calls are most distinctive difference which were not heard. The noticeably pale rump is probably the most distinguishing mark and I am basing my acceptance on this field mark.
Terry S.	12 Oct 2006	Acc
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	Acc	Amazing to get a swift record with photographs! I'm given the impession by the first photo that these might be Chimney Swifts, because of the long, thin wings, but a pale rump, as noted be the observer is a better mark for Vaux's.
Larry T.	15 Oct 2006	Acc	This is a bird that photos aren't very useful to separate similar species. But in the field they aren't that difficult with good views.
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Amazing photos. Adequate description.
David W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	I'm impressed the observer was able to get anything but blurry streaks in the photos! Nice work on differentiating between the -oh-so-similar Chimney swift.

2006-43 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Dec 2006	Acc
Ronald R.	30 Nov 2006	Acc	I would combine this record with 2006-42 as it was likely the same birds. The photos are a bit better and appear to show the paler rump of the Vaux's Swift.
Terry S.	12 Oct 2006	Acc	May well be the same birds as Record # 2006-42
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	Acc	Nice record - the photos on this record look more classically Vaux's shaped.
Larry T.	23 Oct 2006	Acc
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	Even more amazing photos.
David W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	These photos are even more impressive than those in the previous record.

2006-44(R81) Baltimore Oriole

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	17 Dec 2006	No, ID	I believe this description is too brief to adequately eliminate other oriole speices, or a Baltimore X Bullocks.
2nd round	18 Feb 2007	No, ID	The description is too vague to eliminate other oriole species.
3rd round	131Mar 2007	No, ID	description is too limited to adequately describe a Baltimore Oriole.
Ronald R.	5 Dec 2006	Acc	The combination of black head and bill and bright orange underparts for an oriole shaped bird is distinctive as an adult male Balitmore oriole. Bright orange would eliminate orchard oriole. Observation of wing pattern also noted and consistent with Baltimore oriole. While the description was brief, I feel the documentation is sufficient. Other June records in Utah are consistent with this observation.
2nd round	22 Dec 1006	No, ID	I am changing my vote on this record. While the observer may well have seen a Baltimore oriole, I agree with Terry and Mark that the observer does not tell us what the pattern actually was, simply that it was like a Baltimore oriole.
3rd round	30 Jun 2007	No, ID	I will stick with my comments from the previous round.
Terry S.	19 Oct 2006	No, ID	Other than the all black head the observer really doesn't give much description other than saying it had the characteristics of a Baltimore Oriole without ever describing those characteristics. With such a brief view I wonder if this could have been a Scott's Oriole that looked orange in the light.
2nd round	20 Dec 1006	No, ID	I still feel the description is wanting for details that would eliminate other oriole species and,as Mark pointed put, black-headed grosbeak.
3rd round	14 Mar 2007	No, ID	I haven't seen any comments from other committee members that changes my earlier evaluation.
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	No, ID	This is a tough one for lack of a simple description of the bill shape. The phrase "obviously an oriole" doesn't tell my why, and nothing elsewhere in the description eliminates Black-headed Grosbeak.
2nd round	25 Jan 2007	No, ID	I'm going to stick with my first round vote because I have a feeling that the conclussion "obviously an oriole" was based more upon color than structure, and lacking any description of the structure, I can't assume he was actually looking at an oriole. I find the wing pattern of Black-headed Grosbeak to be much more like Baltimore Oriole than Bullock's, especially as illustrated in field guides of the time, which show Bullock's with a large white patch, rather than the distinct wing bars of a Baltimore Oriole, or Black-headed Grosbeak. I also find it interesting that, unless my memory fails, the orioles were lumped at the time, suggesting that the observer either had an older field guide, or that he was so careful as to note subspecies. The scant nature of the description suggests the latter. Even though the species should be distinctive, I find critical elements of the description missing, enough to raise too much doubt for such a rare sighting.
3rd round	11 Mar 2007	No, ID	I've come close to changing my vote on this one based only upon the distinct nature of this species. This is close to an unmistakable species, and the date and location would not be unusual for a vagrant like this. However, I'll stay with my original vote, again due to the incomplete description, including nothing other than color that tells my why this was an oriole.
Larry T.	23 Oct 2006	Acc	Description seems to eliminate other Orioles. Adult male is very distinct.
2nd round	15 Feb 2007	Acc	Though the description is scant in details I think there is enough to go on for such a distinct species.
3rd round	1 Jun 2007	Acc
Merrill W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	I think the description of the head and the breast, plus mention of the wings identify this as a Baltimore and not a Bullock's.
2nd round	20 Dec 1006	Acc	I still feel the description is adequate enough to eliminate a Scott's Oriole and / or a Black-headed Grosbeak.
Kristin P. 3rd round	2 Jul 2007	No, ID	Description too sparse. Comparing the patterns to another species without actually describing the wings or tail did not provide enough information to conclude the observer saw a Baltimore Oriole. Observer described the bill as black like a Bullock's, but Bullock's Orioles have more bluish on the lower mandible and some on the upper, rather than having entirely black bills. Observer did not address the Black-headed Grosbeak or Bullock's x Baltimore Orioles. Black-headed is superficially similar and without the necessary detail, I can't assume this species was not the one observed. The oriole hybrids and backcrosses could show a range of plumages that would fit within the description provided. On another note, the AOU did not lump the Baltimore and Bullock's until 1983, which means the Baltimore was its own species when this observation was made (1981).
David W.	28 Sep 2006	Acc	I do agree with the observer that a description of the tail would have been helpful.
2nd round	19 Dec 1006	Acc	I appreciate both the reservations made by Mark and those made by Terry. I also wondered whether a Black-headed grosbeak or a Scott's oriole might not be confused for this species. Unfortunately, the record is not a paradigm of completeness, to be sure. However, I believe the Grosbeak is unlikely to have been confused for a Baltimore oriole considering the wing pattern was noted and matched to the Baltimore rather than a Bullocks. Not only does a BH grosbeak's wing pattern look more like a Bullock's, in my opinion, but anyone who took the trouble of such a comparison would surely notice the difference between a Baltimore oriole wing and a grosbeak's. The Scott's oriole argument is one that I find more difficult to refute, and I struggled with that as well. But the observer did note the "bright orange" and "deep orange" color, which is significantly different than a Scott's oriole's. This one is why the tail pattern would have been so useful. As for the hybrid question, I do not think the hybrid swarm for the two "Northern" orioles is all that big, so, without evidence to the contrary, I do not think it should be an issue here. A very large number of species hybridize to some degree with their taxonomic cousins (especially within superspecies), so either we apply that onerous standard of purity to every species we review, or, in the absence of hybrid characteristics, just make a reasoned leap of faith. Though not pleased with the completeness of the record, I will stick with my vote to approve it.
3rd round	27 Feb 2007	Acc	As above.

2006-45(R81) Great Gray Owl

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	17 Dec 2006	No, ID	Again, I feel the description is too brief to adequately eliminate other large owl species
2nd round	18 Feb 2007	No, ID	as per first round comments, simply not enough details to eliminate Great Horned Owl.
Ronald R.	5 Dec 2006	No, ID	While this bird may well have been a great gray owl, the short duration observation of a bird in flight makes it difficult for me to feel fully comfortable with the ID. Important field marks were not mentioned (black and white on "chin", pattern of underparts). In addition, the horns on a great-horned owl would not be as visible on a flying bird.
2nd round	22 Dec 1006	No, ID	My comments from round one still apply.
Terry S.	19 Oct 2006	No, ID	There too much lacking from this record especially basic field marks of this species.
2nd round	20 Dec 1006	No, ID	I still believe there is not enough detail provided to accept this record. The facial disk is not even described.
Mark S.	21 Nov 2006	No, ID	I feel like the details are a bit too sketchy to be certain on this one. Size is so easily mis-judged, and the gray color could be a Great Horned Owl. I'd like to see some discussion on this one.
2nd round	25 Jan 2007	No, ID	My first round comments apply, and I feel the there's not enough here, especially for that time of year.
Larry T.	23 Oct 2006	No, ID	I assume this bird was only seen in flight? Could have been a Great Horned with that view only. Odd time of year.
2nd round	28 Jan 2007	No, ID	Just not enough to go on.
Merrill W.	19 Oct 2006	Acc	Somewhat sketchy details, but size of bird, adequate time of observation in flight and observer competence helped in making the decision to accept.
2nd round	20 Dec 1006	No, ID	Changed my vote to not accept based on what appears to be a lack of details and an adequate enough amount of time to satisfactorily eliminate other large raptors.
David W.	29 Sep 2006	Acc	This is a real marginal record, in my opinion--sparse on details. I almost voted against this record for lack of field marks (no description of facial disk, etc.). In the end I voted to accept because of the reported experience of one of the observers (which would be critical in differentiating this owl from a Great horned based on relative wing size & shape). According to Cornell's web site, unflattened wing chords for the two species are as follows: GGO: 370-430 mm (male), 390-455 mm (female) GHO: 338-376 mm (male), 346-395 mm (female) So there is some overlap, but the largest Great grays are significantly longer-winged than the Great horneds. The area where the bird was seen is the part of Utah closest to the species' natural range in Idaho/Wyoming.
2nd round	19 Dec 1006	No, ID	Although I still feel the observer's experience is significant, I do not wish to take a stand on this very marginal record. The Committee's time is important.