|
2010-01 Eastern Phoebe
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
13 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
I am voting to accept this bird with mixed feelings. The description
seems good, but I am troubled by the lack of any description of the bird
pumping it's tail up and down, a most important field identification
point. I will be interested in what others are thinking. |
|
2nd round |
27 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
I am changing my vote on this
bird. There are too many questions that have not been answered. It may
well have been an Eastern Phoebe, but the information at hand is not
convincing. |
|
Rick F. |
14 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
The description is marginal but convincing, and timing is appropriate. |
|
2nd round |
20 Apr 2010 |
No, ID |
I agree with other's
assessments, very limited description to document an Eastern Phoebe |
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
Description does not fit Eastern
Phoebe. No mention of tail bobbing which is distinctive with this species. |
|
2nd round |
28 Apr 2010 |
No, ID |
Too many missing fieldmarks and
behavior to accept. |
|
Eric H. |
22 Feb 2010 |
No, ID |
A "yellowish" rather than "buff"
belly was the only field mark mentioned that would differentiate Eastern
from Say's. It sounds like everything else matched
Say's Phoebe. There
should be other field marks and behavioral differences. Color could be an
aberrant plumage or odd light conditions. |
|
2nd round |
16 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
There should be other field
marks and behavioral differences.
|
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
No, ID |
While not unexpected, I think a
more detailed description would be useful to eliminate similar
species...especially considering it was silent and no tail wagging
behavior was noted. |
|
2nd round |
17 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
Same concerns |
|
Ron. R. 2nd round |
20 Apr 2010 |
No, ID |
While this bird may have been an
Eastern phoebe, the description is not convincing. The observer did not
mention the characteristic tail wagging, nor the dusky vest on the breast.
Timing for the observation is consistent with Eastern phoebe. |
|
Terry S. |
18 Jan 2010 |
No, ID |
There is not enough information
given to make this an acceptable record. No mention of any tail wagging,
vested pattern on breast, darker head and tail, etc |
|
2nd round |
25 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
|
|
David W. |
21 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
The timing is consistent for this genus, members of which seem to be found
much further north in this region than most other flycatchers in winter. |
|
2nd round |
8 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
I completely agree that this is
a record woefully lacking in detail, but the fact that the upper breast
was described as white adequately eliminates Say's phoebe to my mind. The
observer was very close to the bird, light conditions were good, and he
had five minutes to observe it. I do not mind if others vote against it
based on lack of detail, as I fully sympathize and find the lack detail in
many records aggravating, but I remain convinced in this case. |
2010-02 Gilded Flicker
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
2 Feb 2010 |
No, ID |
I have questions about this account. The basic description looks good for
Gilded Flicker, but the wording under Northern "Yellow-shafted" for
comparison doesn't make any sense. I suspect this represents a Gilded
Flicker, but would like to see other opinions before I vote yes. |
|
Rick F. |
16 Jan 2010 |
No, ID |
All characters described could fit an intergrade
Northern Flicker, and no mention of the subtle characters necessary
to differentiate Gilded from Northern Flicker (undertail pattern, extent
and color of head/crown/nape pattern, back barring, shape of chest patch,
shape and size of underside markings, etc.). |
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
Description is very sketchy.
Observer did not elminate a possible Red-shafted X Yellow-shafted hybrid. |
|
Eric H. |
16 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
Because of hybrid and red x
yellow-shafted intergrade possibilities I would like a more detailed
description. I'm assuming the "face was black" is a typo. Or was there
some black on the face? |
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
No, ID |
Did not rule out a hybrid... |
|
Terry S. |
18 Jan 2010 |
No, ID |
As we have noted in other
Gilded Flicker reviews the possibility of a hybrid needs to be
ruled out. Convincing photographs or extensive documentation of tail
color pattern, shape of chest patch,description of color and barring on
back and how this is this is different than a possible hybrid, pattern of
lower back spots or bars,etc. |
|
David W. |
21 Jan 2010 |
No, ID |
I was pretty much "on-board" with this ID until I got down to the section
eliminating other species, wherein I think the observer eliminated the
likelihood of a Gilded Flicker by noting this bird had a black "face" (by
which I assume he meant the "mustache" stripe, as no races I am aware of
have entirely black faces). This would imply either:
1) a juvenile "Yellow-shafted" (which can has a brown crown without a red
nape stripe--but I have yet to research whether juvenal plumage could be
retained into January, which I doubt) or
2) a hybrid of the "Yellow-shafted" x "Red-shafted" forms of the
Northern Flicker. |
2010-03 McCown's Longspur
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
2 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
A bit unusual plumage for this time of year, but obviously a McCown's
Longspur |
|
Rick F. |
18 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
I suppose this is an adult male, but I'm a bit puzzled why there's no
chestnut visible on the median coverts. |
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Photo is adequate for ID. No
mention of tail pattern which is distinctive in this species. |
|
Eric H. |
24 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
20 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
21 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Despite the weak description, I think the photo does show a McCown's
longspur. I think the larger, stout bill is especially diagnostic when
differentiating between the Lapland. Oblique-angled photos can be
deceptive when it comes to this, but I think the bird appears to be
relatively short-tailed as well. |
2010-04 Western Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
17 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Great description. It helps to have so many photos. |
|
2nd round |
7 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
I still feel this is a Western Gull, and am voting accordingly, but David
raises several very interesting questions that I don't have answers for.
I would wonder if it wouldn't be possible to forward the photos of this
bird to either Jon Dunn or Steve Howell for their input. I think we all
would be able to learn something of value from another expert opinion on
this bird. |
|
Rick F. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and description |
|
2nd round |
28 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
First winter Western and Herring are very similar but the subject bird
appears to be a typical Western. Key marks are the heavier bill, prominent
white tips on the secondaries, and lack of pale on the inner primaries. |
|
Eric H. |
21 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
don't see anything to suggest
any hybridization has occurred. |
|
2nd round |
20 May 2010 |
Acc |
Despite some of the doubt, I am going to actually vote to accept this
record. I feel that photos do not necessarily make this a slam dunk first
winter Western Gull, but I think they show enough to make it okay. I
don't see this bird being a
Herring Gull based on the bill structure, head shape, overall
plumage coloration, the black-ish primaries and secondary bar and primary
pattern. My main concern is that the photos don't necessarily illustrate
the bulbous nature of the bill as much as the observed noted in the
field...but again, the head shape and bill still don't fit Herring Gull in
my eyes. I also agree with others that this bird doesn't fit a first cross
'Olympic' Gull...and after having seen so many Mutts in the
Puget Sound, I'm not
sure we could ever be sure that it doesn't have some GWGU genes mixed in
somewhere in its genetics. |
|
Ron R. 2nd round |
20 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and good
photos clearly show a first winter western gull. The only possible
confusion would be with a hybrid western gull x glaucous-winged gull
("Puget Sound" gull). The bird appears too dark (particularly the black
primaries) to be a primary cross, although subsequent crosses with western
gull might eventually create a darker individual. |
|
Terry S. |
31 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent review and
documentation of a first winter bird. My primary concern would be the
possibility of a
Herring Gull or Western X Glaucous-winged hybrid. I think the
observer has effectively described the bill shape and color,general shape
of the body, blackish primaries,etc. While Western X Glaucous-winged
hybridization is common I just can't see any intermediate characteristics
in this bird. |
|
2nd round |
29 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
I really appreciate David's effort in researching this bird. I still
believe, however, the photos and narrative fit a Western Gull. |
|
Merrill W.. 2nd rnd. |
5 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Photos seem diagnostic. |
|
David W. |
13 Mar 2010 |
No, ID |
This was perhaps the toughest record I have had to vote on yet. Overall
it does seem slightly more like a Western than a Herring gull, but I
disagree with the observer (for whom I have immense respect) about many of
the particulars. I am voting NO to send it to the second round.
Here is a blow-by-blow analysis of the field marks. The main text I used
was "Gulls of the Americas" (GA) by Howell & Dunn, and the photo
references I use refer to this book. My analysis is a comparison between
first cycle Herring and Western gulls, using the points made in the
SIMILAR SPECIES section of the report as a checklist:
1) "[Herring is] more slender, especially in the rear". This is generally
true and I think the photos suggest this, though not definitively.
2) "lacking a secondary skirt". This is also a fairly subtle field mark
in immatures (much more obvious in adults), and I frankly don't see
indications of this in the photos.
3) "lacking obvious white tips to secondaries". Again, this is a subtle
field mark. I think
Herring gulls can have a white-tip pattern of the sort shown by
this bird (note photos 25A.40 & 25A.41 in GA)
4) "usually having more patterned coverts" The word "usually" says it
all.
5) "long narrow bill with weaker gonys, never appearing as bulbous as this
individual". Again, this is generally true, but the range of bill
sizes/shapes within the American Herring gull is frankly amazing (much
greater than I would have guessed). This bird falls within the upper
range of the Herring gull (see photos 25A.13 and 25A.27 of GA).
6) "typically showing fairly extensive pale flesh on base of bill".
Herring gulls can (perhaps "untypically") have bills very like the gull in
question (see photo 25A.9 of GA).
7) "has scaled or barred scapulars but never shows stripes created by dark
shaft streaks". This is, to my mind, one of the better arguments, though
again it is a fairly variable and subtle field mark. Certainly, most
first cycle Herring gulls have scapular feathers with dark centers, though
usually with a lot more white on the outer edges.
8) "paler pink legs". This is a better field mark for adult birds, based
on the photos I have examined from several sources. [Am I missing
something here?]
9) "flat crown with squared off fore- and hind-crown creating blocky or
square head". Again, generally true, but this bird's head looks to me
like some of the Herring
gull photos in GA.
10) "eye set further forward on head". I agree with this field mark , BUT
this bird's eye position actually looks more consistent with a Herring
gull than a Western gull, to my mind. Note how much more centered the eye
is on Westerns (photos I45, I46, I47, I49, for example). So this field
mark actually undermines the argument that this is a Western gull, as far
as I am concerned.
I am very curious what the rest of the Committee members think. This has
been a very interesting research experience, from which I have learned a
lot. |
|
2nd round |
21 Apr 2010 |
No, ID |
I still feel that, although it looks like a Western gull for the most
part, the Herring gull remains a possibility. |
2010-05 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
2 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photos |
|
Rick F. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
I believe this record and the records for 2010-06 and 2010-07 should be
combined and listed as 4-6 individuals; since they were all observed in
the same general area within the same timeframe. |
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Good descriptions and adequate
photos. |
|
Eric H. |
16 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Sufficient photos |
|
Terry S. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Possibly These records should be
considered separately especially the juvenile. That said, I believe the
observer has very carefully detailed the sightings in his narrative review
to eliminate other likely gull species candidates that might be
considered. Observation and documentation of overall size,shape and
coloration ;bill size, shape and length; primary projection; head
coloration in the juvenile and detailed description of feather design and
coloration on the primaries,tertials, wing coverts, scapulars,tail etc.
are excellent and convincing for three adult and one juvenile
Lesser-Black-backed Gulls. |
|
David W. |
17 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
|
2010-06 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
17 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photos |
|
Rick F. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
I believe this record and the records for 2010-05 and 2010-07 should be
combined and listed as 4-6 individuals; since they were all observed in
the same general area within the same timeframe. |
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and photos |
|
Eric H. |
24 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Sufficient photos and good
description |
|
Terry S. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
This is a "stand alone" record
which clearly shows a different juvenile than that observed in record
2010-05. Excellent narrative separating this gull species from other
similar gulls. |
|
David W. |
17 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Either this species is becoming more common in Utah or people have just
learned how to look for them. |
2010-07 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
2 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Again very convincing description and photos. |
|
Rick F. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
I believe this record and the records for 2010-05 and 2010-06 should be
combined and listed as 4-6 individuals; since they were all observed in
the same general area within the same timeframe. |
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photos |
|
Eric H. |
16 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos |
|
Terry S. |
3 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Great photos and description of
an adult bird. |
|
David W. |
1 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and elimination of other species by one of the
region's premier birders. |
2010-08 Rusty Blackbird
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
4 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
16 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and elimination
of Brewer's. |
|
Colby N. |
29 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Good written description of the
bird and behavior |
|
Terry S. |
3 Feb 2010 |
Acc |
Good description including
secretive behavior. |
|
David W. |
31 Jan 2010 |
Acc |
Very interesting writeup. |
2010-09 Cackling Goose
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
13 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
(own record) |
Abst. |
|
|
Colby N. |
17 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Sufficient photos...I'd like to
hear if anyone has any thoughts as to whether or not it's a minima
(presumably the more likely of the two) or leucoparia. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W.. |
5 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Small bill, small size. |
|
David W. |
11 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Very clearly a Cackling goose in the photos. |
2010-10 Cackling Goose
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
7 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
I believe this is a valid record for Cackling Goose and have voted as
such. I do however have a question as to whether or not we should be
voting on this report as a separate record , because the report from a day
earlier by David Wheeler probably represents the same birds. If true, it
seems to me we shouldn't be voting on this bird (or birds) as a separate
record. |
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
28 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
The subject bird has all the
markings of a typical large C. hutchinsii. Two other geese in the photos
also appear to be Cacklers. |
|
Eric H. |
11 May 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
27 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
15 May 2010 |
Acc |
Adequate description of what
appears to be B. h. leucopareia. Photos of limited use, but photo B shows
head shape, small bill, and white neck band that are characteristic of
this subspecies. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
8 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
I think Kris is being very conservative in how many Cacklers she saw, but
so be it. I believe there is indeed at least 1 Cackling goose in those
photos.
I am more very intrigued by the "sharp"-billed little individual shown at
right in photo B (under the right
blue arrow), as I do
not know what subspecies or even species it might represent. I believe
one of my photos from this area from the previus day, 6 March 2020 (record
2010-12) shows the same goose. |
2010-11 Northern Parula
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
18 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description leaves little doubt as to the identification. |
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
28 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
All fieldmarks documented. |
|
Eric H. |
11 May 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
27 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
good description |
|
Ron R. |
15 May 2010 |
Acc |
Good description of a
distinctive bird. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
17 Mar 2010 |
Acc (abst) |
[own record] |
2010-12 Cackling Goose
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
27 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
Both the description and the photos I believe are very convincing.
Numerous reports of this species leads me to wonder just how frequently
this bird has been ignored or misidentified in the past. Perhaps we need
to reassess whether or not this species should remain on the review list. |
|
Rick F. |
20 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
28 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Interesting sighting - a herd of
cacklers. |
|
Eric H. |
11 May 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
27 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
sufficient photos |
|
Ron R. |
15 May 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent descriptions and good
photos of a mixed flock containing B. h. minima and B. h. hutchinsii. All
critical field marks were described and photos are confirming. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Mar 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
18 Mar 2010 |
Acc (abst) |
[own record] |
2010-13 Eastern Phoebe
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
21 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
The description is excellent. |
|
Rick F. |
7 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
20 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
11 May 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
27 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Good description |
|
Ron R. |
|
Abst |
|
|
Terry S. |
29 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Great Narrative |
|
David W. |
21 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Very well written description and elimination of similar species. |
2010-14 Chihauhaun Raven
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
29 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
This is a bird that requires a great deal of detail in descriptions and
photographs in order to be convincing, but I feel that this description
and the excellent photographs are adequate to document this bird as a
Chihuahuan Ravan. In fact this report is an excellent example of the
type of report that should be required to document a difficult ID. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Jun 2010 |
No, ID |
[vote changed, 11 Aug 2010] I
too am going to change my vote. Rick's comments and photos are very
helpful. I do think it is possible that this is a chihuahuan ravan, but
there are enough questions that I don't think I can vote yes. I suspect
that I, and others, are perhaps more impressed by "experts opinions" than
we really should be in situations like this, as they too just possibly
could be wrong. |
|
3rd round.: |
26 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
|
|
Rick F. 2nd
rnd.: |
5 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
(comments) |
|
3rd round.: |
22 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
See second round comments |
|
Steve H. |
20 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
amazing record! |
|
2nd round: |
2 Jul 2010 |
Acc |
Bill shape and length of rictal
bristles of the bird in the photos is closer to Chihauhaun than
Common Raven but is not enough evidence to accept this record by
itself. White-based neck feathers, however, are diagnostic for this
species so I am again voting to accept this record. |
|
3rd round.: |
26 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
Differences in bill and rictal bristle shape/length are too insignificant
to base this ID on, especially in light of Rick's excellent photo
comparisons and comments. Add Rick's observation that the base of Common
Raven neck feathers can appear quite pale in certain light conditions
leaves more than enough doubt on this record's ID to be acceptable as a
state first record. |
|
Eric H. |
11 May 2010 |
Acc |
They saw the
White Feather Bases which is the most diagnostic mark. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Jul 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
3rd round.: |
18 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
(comments) |
|
Colby N. |
22 Jun 2010 |
No, ID |
If nothing else, I'd like to see
others comments. The rictal bristles do indeed appear to extend just over
half the bill length, which I'm having a hard time arguing against.
However, there are a couple photos online of Common Ravens with similarly
proportioned rictal bristles:bill length on schmokers and tim avery's
websites...maybe these are mislabeled or the angle is creating an illusion
though? In photos A and B, the bill of the bird in question does not look
particularly short and stumpy to me, but does more so in photo C...but not
as much as shown in this photo...http://www.schmoker.org/BirdPics/2007/Corvids/Raven_Bill_Comp1.jpg
The observers noting the white bases to the feathers on the neck, what
appears to be a relatively short wing to tail ratio in photo C and long
rictal bristles suggest Chihuahuan Raven, but I'm not 100% convinced at
this point. So at this point, I'm looking forward to reading others
comments or concerns... |
|
2nd round: |
18 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
I think Rick's impressive
assessment better shows my concerns about the bill shape and rictal
bristles on this bird. They appear Chihuahuan-like, but I'm not sure they
are out of the range of Common. I contacted two competent CO
birders...with no response from one birder and the other acknowledging the
rictal bristles were Chihuahuan like, but the bill shape reminded him more
of a Common Raven. Anyway, I believe there is enough uncertainty to keep
my no vote. |
|
3rd round.: |
5 Oct 2010 |
No, ID |
Same concerns and those brought to light by Rick apply... |
|
Ron R. |
23 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
While this record has excellent
photos and documentation, I don't feel the ID is a lock. The rictal
bristles seem a bit short for many Chihuahuan ravens (in my experience and
from photos on the web), but at the long end for common raven. The bill is
stouter than the photographed common ravens, but does not seem outside the
range one can find in photos of ravens from California and Alaska found in
a web search. I am basing my acceptance of this record on the observation
of the white featherbases that were apparently well observed by those
reporting the record. Photo 6a (C) also appears to show some of these
white featherbases (but these could simply be light reflections as seen in
other photos). Seems the smaller size would have been more easily
determined given the close observational distance of both species. |
|
2nd round: |
25 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
I'm glad this is going for a
second round. I am still going to vote to accept this record, again
largely based on the observation of white bases to the neck feathers. I
measured the length of the rictal bristles and came up with them extending
outward to approximately 65% of the length of the bill as measured from
the base (at the "commissure"), making this feature a bit more consistent
with Chihuahuan Raven than I had previously assessed. |
|
3rd round.: |
30 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
Based on Rick's excellent work, I am changing my vote. Given his analysis,
I don't feel there is sufficient evidence to vote in support of this
record with too much overlap in characteristics with common raven. My
previous vote was largely based on the observation of white bases to neck
feathers, but I feel Rick makes a defendable case for gray feathers to
appear whitish under some light conditions. |
|
Terry S. |
13 May 2010 |
Acc |
A very well documented record. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Jul 2010 |
Acc |
I believe the narrative of
this record gives better account of the observed bird than what is seen in
the photos. |
|
3rd round.: |
30 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
While I still believe this is may very well be a valid record I am
changing my vote to no. Enough concern has been raised by others that I
believe an acceptable record will require photos showing for certain the
white bases of the neck feathers.
I tend to believe the observer saw these feathers stating: "The sight of
the bird's neck feathers jostled in the wind and the exposure of
unquestionably white bases to the feathers of the neck. In fact, the white
featherbases extended up to the head." These are comments of a competent
observer who is familiar with both species. Rick points out in his
assessment, however, that it is easy to be fooled by tricky light on the
pale gray base neck feathers of a
Common Raven.
I do appreciate Rick's extra effort in studying this record. The
photoshopping of the heads of two different birds together is
enlightening. More than anything it shows that the differences of bill
shape and length and the relationship of rictal bristles to the bill
between the two species may be overlapping and subject to subjective
interpretation and are not definitive field marks. Personally I think the
bill looks more robust in the photo of the possible Chihuahuan Raven
Photoshopping is an interesting tool that looks like It could be a
promising asset in comparing two different species of birds. With my own
limited experience, however, I'm not sure how you would prevent the
possibility of skewing comparative proportions if the photos are taken of
different sized birds from different angles and distances. |
|
Merrill W. 2nd rnd: |
17 Jul 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
21 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
Cornell's site notes the Chihuahuan raven is sometimes not separable in
the field from the Common raven. I am voting to accept this record, which
had excellent photos, because:
1) The shape of the bill is indeed consistent with the Chihuahuan raven
(blunt-tipped & thick). This was visible in the photos, fulfilling, to my
mind, the requirement for a first record.
2) The bird was described as having unquestionably white feather bases to
the neck feathers. The photos do not show this, and the little paleness
hinted at in the photos could well be due to gray feather bases of the
Common raven. However, the written description of this gold standard field
mark is convincing.
3) The rictal bristles on the culmen seem barely more extensive than those
on Common ravens, but this was so subtle in this individual as to be
unconvincing in and of itself. However, though it was barely in the plus
column, it was another bit of evidence supporting the Chihuahuan ID.
4) Unfortunately, no vocalization was heard, but there is said to be much
overlap with that field mark anyway, given the wide repertoire of the calls
given by ravens. |
|
2nd round: |
15 Jul 2010 |
No, ID |
Although I feel a little
uncomfortable about this record, I am still voting to accept. I
appreciated Colby's efforts to provide us with additional info.
[changed
to "no" on 10 Aug 2010] I'd like to change my vote to NO
after reading Rick's comments. I think the case is sufficiently uncertain
to vote yes. The judgment of the observers, presented as being based on
much personal experience, seems less unassailable in light of Rick's
photos showing how the bill shape and extent of rictal bristles of this
bird are essentially identical to Common ravens in Washington County.
Clearly, either Chihuahuan ravens are widespread across the lower end of
our state, which I am not ready to concede without more evidence, or the
bill shapes of Common ravens are more highly variable than presented on
many web sites purporting to show the difference. If the bill shape and
rictal bristle field marks can be thrown out, and no photographic evidence
exists of the white feather bases (as opposed to light gray), I no longer
feel there is sufficient evidence to vote to accept this record as a first
Chihuahuan raven in Utah.
(Thank you, Rick, for educating me about the bill shapes of our local
ravens. I am grateful to learn I was wrong about that field mark in time
to change my vote.)
This record shows how little we know about
the field mark differences between these two species. |
|
3rd round: |
26 Aug 2010 |
No, ID |
|
2010-15 Neotropic Cormorant
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
7 May 2010 |
Acc |
Photos are diagnostic |
|
Rick F. |
7 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve H. |
20 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
11 May 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
27 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Sufficient photos |
|
Ron R. |
23 Jun 2010 |
Acc |
Great photos and adequate
description. Several individuals safely distinguishable from Rock shag as
mentioned as possible by one observer. |
|
Terry S. |
29 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
21 May 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos and accurate
description |
|
David W. |
26 Apr 2010 |
Acc |
Amazing amount of sightings of this species in northern Utah this spring. |
|
