|
2010-31 Neotropic Cormorant
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
18 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
23 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
Good description |
|
Steve H. |
26 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
Good description. Photo of very
small, long tailed cormorant is consistent with size/shape of Neotropic
Cormorant. |
|
Eric H. |
26 Sep 2010 |
Acc |
Good written descriptions. |
|
Colby N. |
18 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
Good description |
|
Ron R. |
28 Sep 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and elimination
of double-crested cormorant. Photo of limited value except for size
comparison. |
|
Terry S. |
16 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
26 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
Accept all based on comparisons of size & behavior when swimming together. |
2010-32 Blackpoll Warbler
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
5 Sep 2010 |
Acc |
Photos are very helpful in what could be a difficult id in these
potentially confusing fall warblers |
|
Rick F. |
30 Aug 2010 |
Acc |
Foot color and primary edging diagnostic |
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
26 Sep 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
28 Sep 2010 |
Acc |
Photos clearly show this
species. |
|
Terry S. |
28 Sep 2010 |
Acc |
This looks good for a Blackpoll
Warbler with the
yellow throat, split eye ring with a dark loral line extending
through the eye, olive yellow back, dark streaking on sides and flanks,
distinct undertail with long white undertail coverts with short projection
of retricies beyond coverts. also dark wings with two distinct wing bars,
long wings with white primary tips, yellowish legs and feet. |
|
Merrill W. |
26 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description plus adequate
photos. |
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
The writeup portion of this report is very sparse, and doesn't even
describe things like the face, but the photos save the record. The pale
legs eliminate similar species. |
2010-33 Pyrrhuloxia
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
7 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great find |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good Description and photos. |
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Origin could be questionable,
but I think between the description, photos and location that this record
seems reasonable. |
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Sufficient description and
photos to eliminate female cardinal. |
|
Terry S. |
18 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
A fabulous record! Great photos
a documentation |
|
Merrill W. |
26 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Photos very good. Plus I had
the opportunity to see this as well. |
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excelent record & bird. This bird is quite skulky. |
2010-34 Red-breasted Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
7 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation |
|
2nd round: |
4 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos |
|
2nd round: |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Sufficient photos and written
description |
|
2nd round: |
1 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and excellent
photos clearly show this species. This bird does not appear to have any
intermediate characteristics of hybrids. |
|
2nd round: |
5 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
I agree with Merrill and Dave that the bird might have evidence of
hybridization. Most concerning is that the black on the chest in the midst
of the red pattern is where one would expect a hybrid with red-naped or
yellow bellied sapsuckers might show dark coloration due to their black
bibs. However, I don't see any strong evidence of other characters from
the other sapsucker species suggesting that if this bird is a hybrid, it
is not a first generaton cross. |
|
Terry S. |
18 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and
description. I don't see anything that makes me question whether it is a
hybrid. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. 2nd rnd: |
5 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. The big
question is if this is a hybrid - always a tough call with this species.
Conventional wisdom is that all Red-breasted in our part of the range are
hybrids to some degree. The smudge of blackish feathers on the chest
suggests some mixed blood, but that conflicts with the facial markings,
that are even less hybrid-like than some Red-breasted. It certainly looks
to me that, if it is a hybrid, it is overwhelmingly Red-breasted. |
|
Merrill W. |
26 Oct 2010 |
No, ID |
Looks like it could be a
hybrid. Might consider it after reading and learning from others. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
When I first saw the photos I didn't think they were strong enough
evidence of this species, as a result, requested more time to assess
other's opinions. Also, I have looked at photos of what hybrids between
the Red-breasted and the Red-naped might look like. So now, I am ready to
accept this submission as a Red-breasted Sapsucker. |
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Very nice photos, especially Jack's. If this is a hybrid (it does have
some dark patches on head, possibly from an incomplete molt), it certainly
is mostly Red-breasted. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
|
2010-35 Broad-billed Hummingbird
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
7 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great photos, great bird. |
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos |
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description safely
eliminates other hummingbird species. Photos also helpful. |
|
Terry S. |
18 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great Photos of a very
distinctive male |
|
Merrill W. |
26 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Photos indisputable. |
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent record. Photos are great.
|
2010-36 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
11 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photos. I was concerned about the size of this
bird, but I noticed in "Gulls of the Americas" by Howell and Dunn, that
the length of this bird may vary from 19.7 inches to 24.3 inches which
means some Lesser Black-backed Gulls are considerably larger than
California Gulls. |
|
2nd round: |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
3rd round: |
13 Mar 2011 |
Acc |
I am hesitant to vote no on this bird simply because it seems a bit larger
than a Lesser Black-backed Gull should be. Again the authoritative
references state that Lesser Black-backed Gulls can actually be
considerably bigger than the average
California Gull. If we saw these pictures in isolation from the
California Gulls I don't think we would have a problem voting in
favor of it. So I am going to continue to vote yes. |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
5 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
The bird is a little larger than LBBG I've seen in the US but it is
similar to some LBBG I've observed in Europe where there is more variation
in size. The long narrow wings in photo C are typical of LBBG. |
|
3rd round: |
27 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
The discussion on this record has been interesting and shows that there is
still much to be learned about gulls, especially juvenile, first-winter,
and hybrid birds. I still feel this is a LBBG, possibly a heuglini which
tends to larger and bulkier than other LBBG ssp. I've observed more
variation in size among LBBG in Europe than in the U.S. |
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Interesting Bird |
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great photos |
|
2nd round: |
5 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
I'll admit I completely overlooked this record after taking another look
at it. I do not think it's a Kelp Gull. As noted by the observer, I just
saw many similarly aged birds in Argentina/Chile and none had the amount
of white/patterning on the outer retrices that this bird exhibits. I'm
somewhat perplexed by the size of the bird and the bill, but I'm not sure
it's entirely out of range for LBBG especially for Heuglin's. There is
certainly the hybrid combination such as LBBGxHEGU, but I can't find much
information about this, and it seems the size of the bird is the only
thing that suggests this combo? I almost more wonder if GBBGXHEGU would be
more likely to exhibit the characters of this bird. Anyway, I'm voting no
given the uncertainty although I still suspect this is a rather large and
somewhat abberant LBBG. |
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
No, ID |
This is a difficult record to
review and I am hoping this will undergo a second round. I am voting to
not accept this record due to several field marks that are not fully
consistent with lesser black-backed gull. These include: body shape that
is stocky and not particularly slender; bill that is stubby, thick; short
primary projection beyond tail; and size that is significantly larger than
California gull. I don't feel the record can completely eliminate
Kelp gull (although black on tail is not as extensive in outer rectrices
as is normal for this species) and Kelp-herring gull hybrid. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
While this is a possible, some might argue probable, lesser-black backed
gull, I don't feel kelp x herring hybrid can be ruled out. Also, it could
be a herring x lesser black backed hybrid given that these hybrids seem to
take on more features of LBBG. The size (much larger than California--note
California and LBBG are very similar in range with LBBG ranging only an
inch larger on both the small and large end), stocky not streamlined
shape, short primary projection of wings beyond tail and stubby bill deep
at the gonys are all characteristics that are not consistent with a
typical LBBG |
|
3rd round: |
12 Mar 2011 |
No, ID |
My concerns (and those of others) still make me reluctant to accept this
bird. I would reconsider if a subspecies or population could be identified
that have the characteristics of this bird. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
A very interesting gull and
great photos. The bird may well be a Heuglin's Gull with a body more bulky
then a typical Lesser Blacked-backed Gull and primary extension not quite
as long. From the literature I reviewed The Heuglin's Gull while still
considered a race of the Lesser Black-backed Gull is more and more being
treated as a separate species primarily because of breeding range. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
The size of the observed gull is larger and bulkier than the other Lesser
Black-backed Gulls seen in the state the past few years but still falls
within the size range for this species. While a Kelp or Kelp hybrid are
remote possibilities,a first cycle Kelp Gull, as pointed out by the
observer, would have a more extensive dark tail and by the first spring
have darker and more contrasting mantle feathers. |
|
3rd round: |
5 Apr 2011 |
Acc |
I appreciate the discussion on the this bird centering around the possible
inconsistencies of field marks. I still believe ,however this is a LBBG. |
|
Jack S.
2nd rnd: |
5 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
This is another excellent
writeup with outstanding photographs. Many individual gulls simply cannot
be identified and this may be one of those birds. I'm not accepting this
record because of many inconsistent field marks with LBBGs that have
already been stated by the original observer and restated by many others
in the first round comments. This individual appears too large (larger
than associating CAGU), has a relatively short primary projection (this
may be complicated by feather moult), is too stocky, has a heavier/larger
bill, and a moderate gonydeal angle. All of these field marks are
inconsistent with LBBG.
As already discussed the original observer, one cannot absolutely rule out
first winter to first summer Kelp Gull (or hybrids already discussed by
Ron R). One interesting field mark of this bird is the light colored tip
on the bill. This is a noted field mark you can find at the following
website.
http://tertial.us/gulls/domi_d.htm. I'm uncertain how
significant this field mark is for Kelp Gull. |
|
3rd round: |
9 Apr 2011 |
No, ID |
I'm still not certain of this LBBG record. Although it could simply be an
aberrant individual, I'm not sufficiently confident to make that judgment.
I still feel that the record ID is not resolved however and it should be
archived at mimimum and possibly reevaluated if additional evidence
merits.
I would also be satisfied if two or more LBBG experts (likely Europeans,
who observe hundreds/thousands of individuals of this species and the
different subspecies) could provide their opinions. |
|
Merrill W. 2nd rnd: |
17 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
3rd round: |
12 Mar 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. 2nd rnd: |
8 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
I'm going to vote "no" on this
record because of the many inconsistencies previously noted by the
observer and other committee members. The size, shape (bulkiness, shortish
wings, etc.), and bill shape (short and thick, with a pronounced gonydial
angle) just don't seem right for Lesser Black-backed to me.
I'm not sure what i.d. best fits this bird, and perhaps there isn't any
i.d. that can be assigned with confidence, in spite of the excellent
photos and write-up. Being a gull, the "H" question can't be ignored,
either, and perhaps that's the best answer for this bird. |
|
3rd round: |
16 Apr 2011 |
No, ID |
I still don't feel comfortable with the i.d. of this bird, therefore I'll
keep my "no" vote. I don't have a good alternative, though I think several
hybrids are possible - I like Colby's GBBGxHEGU idea, and could see WEGU
as a possible parent. I also like Jack's idea of archiving this record, in
case we get any additional information that might shed light on this
mystery. |
|
David W. |
2 Dec 2010 |
No, ID |
I find it difficult to vote to accept this record when the observer
himself has such reservations based on a significant size discrepancy.
In a whimsical manner, I wonder about the observer's elimination of Kelp
gull partly based on how that species' molt should be progressing by
spring. Does that line of reasoning take into account the southern
hemisphere range of most Kelp gulls? Whose "spring" are we talking about? |
2010-37 McCown's Longspur
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
11 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
good photos |
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and photo
(upper) sufficient to eliminate other longspurs. |
|
Terry S. |
18 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
2010-38 Yellow-billed Loon
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
11 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and description |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great photos |
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and excellent
photos eliminate other loons. |
|
Terry S. |
18 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great Photos! |
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Spectacularly crisp photos show bill shape and color, plus the distinctive
head shape and back pattern. |
2010-39 Prothonotary Warbler
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
12 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
The description was good, but the photo was worth a thousand words |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
21 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good photo |
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Photo clearly shows this
distinctive species. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good photo |
|
David W. |
5 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Another fine record. |
2010-40 Western Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
12 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Photos and description are sufficient to rule Slaty-backed and
Yellow-footed Gull. Actually very good photos. |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
sufficient photos |
|
Ron R. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and photos.
Most convincing to separate from very similar
slaty-backed gull were the yellow
orbital ring and the lack of streaking on the head and back of the
neck (basic plumage). |
|
Terry S. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos of an adult Western
Gull. |
|
David W. |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos & writeup. |
2010-41 Lesser Black-backed Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good description and photos. I am a bit surprised that essentially all the
head and neck streaking is gone on this bird at this date. |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Description and photos safely
eliminate other gull species. Size comparison most helpful. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos distinguishing an
adult Lesser Black-backed Gull |
|
David W. |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Interesting that this bird is already almost completely in breeding
plumage, with almost no dark streaking on its head. |
2010-42 Iceland Gull
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
19 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
I would wonder if the bicolored billed bird might not be a true Iceland,
and not a Kumlien Gull, but would agree these are both in the Iceland/Kumlien
complex. |
|
2nd round: |
18 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
3rd round: |
13 Mar2011 |
No, ID |
I have changed my vote only
because I too feel it would be best to divide this into to separate
reports and then revote. |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
2nd round: |
|
(abst) |
|
|
3rd round: |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
5 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
I'm voting to accept the bird in
photo A. I would like to vote on the other bird separately. |
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
I hesitate on both, but will
vote yes for now...I'm somewhat concerned that the bicolored bill bird
could be a small glaucous gull, but the other one appears more like a
'typical' kumliens...except for the somewhat bulkier bill which gives me
pause |
|
2nd round: |
5 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
While I think the right bird is
still an Iceland Gull (after doing more research is it a candidate for
nominate glaucoides?), I do think either a better written description or
additional photos are necessary for the left most bird to be accepted.
While the bill size/shape gives me pause, I'm not sure it's out of range
for Kumlein's. However, the head shape gives me even more concern after
looking at this record again. Either more details describing in the
individuals (rather than referring to both birds as the appear quite
different in the one photo presented) is necessary or additional photos
are needed to accept both birds. |
|
Ron R. |
19 Oct 2010 |
No, ID |
I would like to see this record
split into two records--one for each bird. I don't feel there is
sufficient support for the darker bird being an Iceland gull. As compared
to the light individual, the darker bird is slightly larger, has a larger,
less rounded head and there was not sufficient observation of the
primaries to rule out a light Thayer's gull or a Thayer's x
Iceland hybrid. I feel the description and photos of the light
individual are sufficient to identify this bird as an Iceland gull. I
don't feel the observation was sufficient to determine if the bird was a "Kumlien's"
Iceland gull (primary pattern was not detailed). |
|
2nd round: |
4 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
I am still voting to not accept
this record unless the two individuals are submitted separately. I don't
feel the darker individual is an Iceland gull.
[If the record is accepted as submitted, both individuals are deemed to be
accepted as I understand our current policies--or is this not the case? Do
we have a provision to request a separated record when multiple
individuals are submitted and one or more does not seem to be a correct
ID?] |
|
3rd round: |
26 Apr 2011 |
No, ID |
I still feel this record needs
to be split for appropriate review. |
|
Terry S. |
2 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
The smaller bi-colored bill gull
shown in the photos looks very good for a Kumlien's Iceland Gull. The
description and photo are convincing. I'm not that sure on the other gull
showing the dusky markings and all black bill. I really can't see the gull
that well on my monitor but from what I can see it reminds me of a pale
Thayer's Gull. The head doesn't look as small and round as the other gull
and the bill looks relatively larger. The wing tips are pale, however, and
seem to extend well beyond the tail which is good for an Iceland Gull. I
would like to accept the bi-colored bill gull and hope for some discussion
on the all black bill gull. I also wonder if it would help to have
separate records submitted for each gull so that we can evaluate them
individually. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
I would still like this record
split into two records. While I vote to accept one of the the gulls as an
Iceland Gull I have reservations over the other gull (larger, all dark
bill). Would the observer be willing to submit two records? |
|
3rd round: |
5 Apr 2011 |
No, ID |
I'm voting no with the hope this
record is resubmitted as two records as suggested by myself and others. |
|
Jack S. 2nd round: |
5 Feb 2011 |
No, ID |
I'm voting no because this
record needs to be resolved to two separate records. Photograph B should
be annotated to clearly identify the bird being judged (an arrow will
suffice). I believe the light colored bird is consistent with Iceland Gull
while the darker bird is more consistent with a
Thayer's Gull.
The lighter bird (photo A, right side B, and C) is the bird that I first
discuss. It's size and structure is consistent with Iceland Gull. The
bicolored bill on a first winter plumaged bird is more consistent with
nominate glaucoides. The extent of white, with sparse brown flecking, from
the mantle to the tertials is consistent with kumlein/glaucoides. The
primary projection and white primary tips and pink legs are consistent
with either forms.
The darker bird is slightly larger, has a less rounded head (more blocky),
and a slightly larger and all black bill, and arguably more deep-pink
legs. The primary tips are light. These field marks are more consistent
with a Thayer's Gull especially in the context of a side-by-side
comparison in photograph B. |
|
3rd round: |
9 Apr 2011 |
No, ID |
I would prefer if this record
was split before voting again. |
|
Mark S. 2nd round: |
17 Feb 2011 |
|
Having taken my first look at
this record, I would echo the comments of several reviewers that these
birds should be treated separately. To be specific, I would vote to accept
the right-hand bird as an
Iceland (perhaps nominate glaucoides), but I think the left hand
bird is probably a pale Thayer's, or at least that the possibility of such
can't be eliminated. |
|
3rd round: |
16 Apr 2011 |
No, ID |
I'd still like to see this split
into two records - my vote stands as before. |
|
Merrill W. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
6 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
3rd round: |
12 Mar2011 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
6 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
I was initially troubled by the dark eye, but after doing a bit of
research, I am voting to accept. |
2010-43 Grasshopper Sparrow
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
23 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
I believe this is a Grasshopper Sparrow, but am troubled a bit by the
head, which doesn't appear nearly as flat as the description would
suggest. Also we cannot see the tail in profile from the photos. However
I don't know what else it could be. |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Terry S. |
17 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Great Photos |
|
Merrill W. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
I am glad the observer noted that the head was flat on this bird, because
that was the thing that, on initial glance, made me doubt the ID. The
photos just don't jiz like an Ammodramus to me, but I suspect that the
bird is craning its neck and raising its crown feathers in alarm to give
it a round-headed appearance. Certainly the face patern and crown stripe,
etc. fit for this species. Lovely photos. |
2010-44 Pomarine Jaeger
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
7 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent Photos make ID definite |
|
Rick F. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
21 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Great Photos. |
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photos
eliminate other jaegers. |
|
Terry S. |
25 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent photos of a
distinctive Jaeger. |
|
David W. |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Spectacular photos, and the writeup reinforces the key field marks.
Seldom does one get such a convincing record for this oft-confusing genus
in Utah. |
2010-45 Brown Thrasher
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
19 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Some
yard bird, if it was seen from his yard. Great find. |
|
Rick F. |
17 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Good record |
|
Steve H. |
30 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Eric H. |
21 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Photos show a Brown Thrasher. |
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
24 Oct 2010 |
Acc |
Photos clearly show this
distinctive species. |
|
Terry S. |
17 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
good photos confirming ID |
|
David W. |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Interesting comment about the "phony description."
Not much of use in the writeup, but the call description does match and
the photos leave no doubt. |
2010-46 Harlequin Duck
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
4 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Very interesting to see this duck in this location. No question as to the
ID. |
|
Rick F. |
4 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Incredible record! |
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
5 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Nice photos clearly show this
species. |
|
Terry S. |
17 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Great photos. The only question
concerns the possibility of an escapee. |
|
Mark S.. |
5 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
[Hola amigos, otra vez.]
So I'll be a softy on my first record review and vote to accept (because
the photos show a Harlequin Duck). But I see that the digital photo-caused
documentation laziness has, if this record is an indication, gotten worse.
Without the photos, this record has nothing (never defining what he means
by "typical"). On the strength of the photos, I'll accept, with a
reprimand for not really providing written documentation. |
|
Merrill W. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
4 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
The written description is almost charmingly useless, but the photos are
superb and tell the story. |
2010-47 Red-necked Grebe
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
14 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Rick F. |
5 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Well-documented record. |
|
Eric H. |
|
abst |
|
|
Colby N. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
5 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Nice description and adequate
photos to ID this species and eliminate others. |
|
Terry S. |
17 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos. |
|
Mark S.. |
5 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation.
Description and photos all support the identification. |
|
Merrill W. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
8 Nov 2010 |
Acc |
|
2010-48 Purple Sandpiper
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
4 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Not only was this an incredible find, but the process of discussing all of
the ID points on the internet postings was most educational. Anything can
truly show up anywhere. |
|
Rick F. |
|
abst |
|
|
Eric H. |
5 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
1 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
Ron R. |
29 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and description
are conclusive. |
|
Terry S. |
20 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Great discussion and review on
Utah Birdnet distinguishing the Purple Sandpiper from a Rock Sandpiper.
The observer has sought expert opinion to help in identification. I'm
convinced from the review that this is a Purple Sandpiper. |
|
Jack S. |
21 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
Exemplary write-up and
outstanding photographs.
All plumage & bare part coloration field marks are consistent with a
first-winter PUSA.
The orange (rather than yellow) color of legs and base of bill is
consistent with PUSA. I could find only yellow coloring for these parts in
photos published online for ROSA.
The extent and density of dark spotting on the neck and upper chest are
consistent with PUSA but also within variation seen in ROSA online
photographs.
PUSA are well-documented wanderers in the interior, at least in the
Eastern US, and there are few, if any, inland ROSA records. According to
Dennis Paulsen (Curator Slater Museum) there are no inland records of ROSA
in the state of Washington. This suggests an inland PUSA to be more likely
than ROSA.
All this being considered, I believe the bird is a likely PUSA, but I find
it difficult to unambiguously commit to PUSA. I suspect the only
confirming tool might be genomic or
mitochondrial DNA sequencing. |
|
Merrill W. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
2 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Incredible record for so far west. Having seen this bird at three
different locations on the reservoir yesterday (at only about 3-4 feet for
a while), I am convinced that it is a Purple sandpiper. The observer makes
a convincing argument for why it is not a Rock sandpiper. |
2010-49 Rusty Blackbird
|
Evaluator |
|
|
|
|
Bob B. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Excellent description and photo |
|
Rick F. |
21 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Nice record |
|
Steve H. |
5 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
Colby N. |
5 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
Sufficient photos and written
description. Behavior is very similar to the Fish Springs bird of a couple
years ago. |
|
Ron R. |
29 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
Good photos and description. The
photos suggest the bird may have been a female, not male as noted. The
prominent pale supercilium, whitish throat, contrasting grayish rump and
overall light rusty coloration (latter best seen in photo B) are more
consistent with a female. |
|
Terry S. |
|
(abst) |
|
|
Jack S. |
9 Jan 2011 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
6 Feb 2011 |
Acc |
Nice photos. |
|
Merrill W. |
23 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
21 Dec 2010 |
Acc |
|
|
